During the Civil War many people had to make a choice which part of the country they would side with.

My question to you is would you fight for the North or the South?

North- the side backed by legality anyway, not to mention being on the better side of the slavery issue- my great-great (one more great, mabey even two, not sure any more...)grandfather on my mothers side, born in North Carolina chose not to fight for the south, but to fight for the North- a choice I will be proud of forever :)

EDIT- I myself am a born Yankee besides, being born in Newyork anyway, despite what one may think at first, considering I live in Florida

Interesting question, to fight for a nation that defies another the right it exercised some time before, or to fight for a nation that enslaves people, denying them the rights they fought the British for. I think the choice is by no means an easy one as it first appears, not everyone cared much about slavery back then, morality and the slave issue were not as clear cut as we see them now. I'd still respect the likes of Lee and others, at the end of the day it would be mighty hard to fight against your own state and neighbours. Had I been born in the south I certainly doubt it would have been easy to choose to fight for the north.

Having said that I'm British, so it matters not one Jot :p I guess I'd have liked to have been like Freemantle at Gettysburg, wandering the field of battle in a red uniform and drinking tea in a china cup :D

The North. My sympathies lie with the North anyway. I've never been there, but I hear New England is a wicked pissah. ;)

Seriously, though, I'm all for states' rights. But let's be honest. In the Civil War, the only state's right that mattered was the right to allow citizens to buy, sell, and possess other human beings. In my mind, human rights outweigh states' rights. We were far behind the rest of the civilized world in abolishing slavery as it was. A Confederate victory would have allowed slavery to continue on this continent, possibly for decades. Even if I had been a Southerner, my belief in basic human dignity would have forced me to fight on the side of individual freedom. For individual freedom to become a reality in what would then have been the foreseeable future, the Union had to be preserved.

Tough One. I abhore slavery however I believe in State's rights and the right to seceed.

I voted Heart with the south but side with north ultimatly due to slavery issue.

Well, I'm from Illinois, home of Lincoln and Grant.

I'm not sure if I'd actually volunteer for the Union army, but I'd at least write a letter to the local newspaper ending with "Union and Liberty, One and Inseparable, Now and Forever" or something.

I'm from Illinois as well, I cannot stand slavery. Wasn't it our Founding Fathers who said "LIVE FREE OR DIE"? I think that applies to all races.

Originally posted by Xen
EDIT- I myself am a born Yankee besidesNo, I'm THE Yankee! Recognize!

I would fight for the North, not because it's where I am or where I'm from (okay, maybe it would be a small part) but over the issues, the breakup of the nation, the slavery.....sorry, i could not fight for the Confederate government. All the "States' rights" arguments in the world won't cover up slavery.

It's not slavery I'd object to -- I might even be pro-slavery at the begining of the war, but I imagine I'd be a staunch Unionist. Later on in the war, I would likely support an end to slavery as a way of punishing the south and electing Republican governments in the reconquered Confederacy.

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
It's not slavery I'd object to -- I might even be pro-slavery at the begining of the war, but I imagine I'd be a staunch Unionist. Later on in the war, I would likely support an end to slavery as a way of punishing the south and electing Republican governments in the reconquered Confederacy.

A brutally honest answer. It calls to my attention the fact that it's easy for us to sit in the modern world, where nobody supports slavery, and judge our ancestors for their choices. Of course we're all going to say we oppose slavery. Had we been raised in the early-to-mid-19th century, how many of us, with the same brains we have now but with the different upbringing that would entail, still would?

I like to think I would. I'm a humanist, and there were certainly humanists in the 1860s. I see through the nonsense of racism, and the 20th century wasn't the first time anyone did that. Mark Twain saw through it. Everything I know about my own personality tells me I would have gravitated toward Mark Twain and others like him, and I would have opposed slavery. But maybe I'm wrong. This is not a question that can be answered definitively.

I value loyalty to the US above loyalty to North Carolina, or the south. I can understand and sympathize with men such as Lee who had to choose between them, but I can't agree with their decision.

The average Confederate soldier was, I'm sure, simply fighting for their home, the only place they knew and had any desire to know. Passionate speeches fueled the fires, but I doubt that most southerners had burning desires to uphold states rights.

... very interesting question ...

First I must imagine myself as American who lives at the civil war time:scan:

... well it depends were my home was. If it was in Texas I would fight for South, if I was from Illinois I would fight for Unionist. I think I would stay were my heart is no matter what side was "right" (if there is completly right or wrong side at all in wars like that...) :king: .

I would sell weapons. In miniatures games, I was on the Union side.

I wouldn't take any sides but rather try to join Lefty's business.

I go with the first one. I love the southern generals and people from the Civil War but there is no way I could fight to keep slavery as it is.

I believe even if I were from that time I would oppose slavery even as a southerner.

I would hope I could join up with a regiment of freed slaves.

I like Private Hudsons idea.;)

Yes one of the oberservers from UK, France, Prussia. It would be all good.

The South, North America would be far more interesting with the two rivals competing.

Wow, I guess I'm the only one who would willingly fight for the South. Hmmm, some poll this turned out to be...

I'd fight for the Union if I was was born north of the Mason Dixon but I'd fight for the confederates if I was born south. Home is where the heart is.

Of these reasons, I would pick the CSA on political grounds: states rights. I would cite Amendments 9 and 10, and also comment on how a limited Federal government is good.

Realistically, it would have been for my homeland, though. And if I lived during that time, although I know now that slavery is horrid, I doubt that would have entered into my picking a side. After all, slavery wasn't really THE issue until the Emancipation Proclamation. Before that, it was fighting for unity (a mildly amusing concept, really, to fight for unity when half of the people fighting want seperation...)

Despite what revisionism has tought all our children from 1960s on, slavery was at best one of several equal reasons the war was fought, by no means THE reason.

I would fight for the South. One must remember that most American did not live in big modern cities that live on Federal tax dollars to exist, and state governments ran most of the average citizens day to day buisness, not that the government back then did alot of that. Simply put, the rule farmer in Arkansas or Michigan probobly never saw an agent of the Federal government in his entire life, and probobly never recieved a benefit from its existance either. State loyalty, even for the North, whose diary accounts mention their home state more than Union, was paramount back then.

-Pat

The North. My family have been northerners for almost 400 years. It is my home. My ancestors fought for the North, I assume I would have too.

I think Lincoln fought the war because he knew that if the US remained united it would grow to become a dominant world power in time. Slavery was probably a secondary consideration for him though the primary cause of southern sucession.

south, texas is my home land, its whear i live and i love it. i whold never fight agisnt texas. i allso beleve in starte rights

My ancestors were busy fighting other Europeans at the time. :D

Preserve the Union! General Grant was born just outside the Cincinnati Metro area! Hayes and Sherman were from here too.

My family missed the Civil War. My Great (*5) Grandfather William fought in the Revolution as a North Carolinan. My Great (*4) Grandfather John fought in the War of 1812, but since then my family has been the off generation for every war, except that my Uncle was state side during Vietnam.

I like the idea of being a British observer!

The South, and extend Canada to the mason/dixon line.

Jonny Reb will be easy meat then.

I voted North, partly because it's where I'm from, and partly because of the slavery issue.

I think I'll start a poll on whether Alaska and Hawaii should be allowed to secede if 51%+ of their populations support it (there are small secessionist movements in both states right now).

In response to the two from Illinois who responded earlier, I am also from Illinois (in fact one of the towns that had the Douglas/Lincoln debates) and I would be for the South. They had EVERY right to secede and it was Northern unwillingness to let them go that has helped create the bloated, overweening government that we have now.

Read the Declaration of Independence again.

North...

Reasons:

1) I'm a yankee form Long Island
2) internet tests told me I would like Lincoln as a prez
3) blue uniforms are better than gray ones
4) the slavery thing might have upset me (opinions were different back then toward slavery, even Lincoln didn't want to ban it right away, so this is just a might)

Originally posted by DBear
In response to the two from Illinois who responded earlier, I am also from Illinois (in fact one of the towns that had the Douglas/Lincoln debates) and I would be for the South. They had EVERY right to secede and it was Northern unwillingness to let them go that has helped create the bloated, overweening government that we have now.

Read the Declaration of Independence again.

Of course the counter to this argument would be that whilst they had every right to secede themselves, the other question is did they have the right to secede whilst still owning slaves? Could they logically deny the right you mention to the others within their country if they themselves exercised it?

Of course that's by the by in some ways because Lincoln and the north took some time to make slavery THE issue of the war, but the logic remains. If you design a country claiming that all men are born and live equal, it must therefore follow ALL men. If not, it must therefore also follow that the black population must have the right to do what the south did.

A question for all you who belive in states rights. Do you belive that the states have a right to make laws that state, One race of human beings has the right to own another race of human beings
?

Please tell me of any other states right the confederacy went to war for.

Originally posted by DBear
In response to the two from Illinois who responded earlier, I am also from Illinois (in fact one of the towns that had the Douglas/Lincoln debates) and I would be for the South. They had EVERY right to secede and it was Northern unwillingness to let them go that has helped create the bloated, overweening government that we have now.

Southern Illinois, I presume?

The state was very split over the issue. Generally, the farther from Chicago you got, the more secessionist the environment was.

Quit this silly polorization of the Civil War as:

1) The South was all about slavery

2) The North was all about anti-slavey

That's the Disneyfied version of the war.

I don't think many people think that simple idea that you place on them :p

I would probably be busy fighting for Denmark against Prussia by this time in history;)

besides that I would fight for the North if I lived in the States..

although i'm not a Yankee(i'm Californian!) nor a Southerner, i'd choose North just because of slavery.

sadly, in real life, my grandfather's great-grandfather fought for the Confederates:( but didn't own slaves:).

anyway, how can anyone in the modern tims say State's Rights? the states do not have the right to protect the institution of slavery.

note: the term Yankee is being used in this post to describe someone from the North, as opposed to some who use it as a term for American.

Originally posted by Conterfiet_Dime
A question for all you who belive in states rights. Do you belive that the states have a right to make laws that state, One race of human beings has the right to own another race of human beings
?

Please tell me of any other states right the confederacy went to war for.

i completely agree. although states should have some rights, the "right" to own slaves and/or be rascist isn't one of those rights. this is what the people who say states rights look like:

"of kourse the states should have rights. the states should be able to do whatever they want. WHITE POWER, WHITE POWER! long live the Konfedercay!"

i don't want any people reporting this post to a mod since the stuff in quotation marks is not what i believe, it is what the pro-"State's Rights" people appear to think in the eyes of many.

I would fight for the south.

Reason 1. I am from the south, so culturally I would have been indoctrinated with that cause.

Reason 2. I am white. Most likely I would not have owned slaves, therefore I probably would have never seen a black. I would not be willing to risk my life for a people who are culturally and racially alien, and whom I had never met before.

3. Even if the "states rights" argument boils down to slave ownership, I would still fight for the south.

Remember kids: In the 19th century, even if you were a southern aristocrat, life was still boring, hard, and short. People weren't willing to risk what little of the good they can get out of life in order to save a few million of what were believed to be a link between simians and humans.

Originally posted by covok48
Quit this silly polorization of the Civil War as:

1) The South was all about slavery

2) The North was all about anti-slavey

That's the Disneyfied version of the war.

Not really, the entire reason for the war was economics and greed. Slavery was no longer needed in the North due to industrialization. The South relied on it.

Throw in the aspirations of some Southern politicians to create thier own little empire, and welcome to the American civil war.

Slavery was the direct and indirect cause of the conflict. It was the root of all the other issues.

I abhore the splitting of any nation. I therefore would have had to choose the north.

Originally posted by Mescalhead
I would fight for the south.

Reason 1. I am from the south, so culturally I would have been indoctrinated with that cause.

Reason 2. I am white. Most likely I would not have owned slaves, therefore I probably would have never seen a black. I would not be willing to risk my life for a people who are culturally and racially alien, and whom I had never met before.

3. Even if the "states rights" argument boils down to slave ownership, I would still fight for the south.

Remember kids: In the 19th century, even if you were a southern aristocrat, life was still boring, hard, and short. People weren't willing to risk what little of the good they can get out of life in order to save a few million of what were believed to be a link between simians and humans.

if i was alive back then, i'd have to fight for the South since that was where my family was at that time. they lived in Virginia so maybe i'd have escaped to the North and fought for them. but if i could go back in time and choose whatever side i wanted, i'd fight with the North.