Hypothetical: Civil War Question

[Rain Man]

If you lived in one of the neutral border states during the Civil War, which army would you have been more inclined to join?

[Nightfyre]

The Hobo one.

[ptlyon]

Canada

[Donger]

If you lived in one of the neutral border states during the Civil War, which army would you have been more inclined to join?

Union.

[HolmeZz]

Union.

And not just because the pwned the South. ;)

[Skip Towne]

I'd hide under the bed.

[ptlyon]

On second thought, I bet I would be Union being I'm from Iowa.

I doubt those muskets hurt much anyway...

[BigRedChief]

I realize that the war for about state rights and not slavery but to be a part of a community/state that thought owning human beings like you would own a dog or cattle is replusive. I can't believe it took us 100 + years to honor the all men are created equal part of our constitution.

[Stinger]

I doubt those muskets hurt much anyway...

Yeah it's not the muskets that hurt, it's those pestky bullet thingies ROFL

[Nightfyre]

Yeah it's not the muskets that hurt, it's those pestky bullet thingies ROFL
and/or Bayonets

[HolmeZz]

I realize that the war for about state rights and not slavery...

Slavery just happened to one of the states rights being fought for. ;)

[MichaelH]

I seem to have a little more exposure to this than most. I'm a "yankee" living in the south. I was born and raised in Pennsylvania, and moved to North Carolina in the summer of 2000. All the stories about southern hospitality got thrown out the window. Once most people that I work with found out I was from the north, they acted differently to me. Only then did I get a true education about the War of Northern Aggression. It seems some southerners, mostly in suburban and rural areas, are still fighting the war. I'd still say I would have fought for the Union, but to me it's almost ancient history and I could care less. Plus I see how absurd it is to still carry hatred over something that happened two centuries ago.

[KCWolfman]

Too much help from overseas, I would have definitely chosen the North.

[MOhillbilly]

States rights!

DOWN W/ THE UNION!!!!!


sides the south would be a way more romantic adventure.

[HolmeZz]

States rights!

DOWN W/ THE UNION!!!!!


sides the south would be a way more romantic adventure.

Not to say there's a correlation, but you'd be fine with southern states being in favor of slavery?

[RealSNR]

Unless I was a hardcore southerner, I would've fought for the Union.

The factors going against the South, army size, the constant flow of immigration to the North, and newer advances in weaponry to name a few were just too staggering. Turns out the South made a game out of it, but that is largely due to shitty leadership of the Union, which is also a large factor of why the Brits lost the Revolutionary War.

So I would pick the winner, the Union.

[Hydrae]

I would have joined my shirttail ancestor Robert E. Lee in protecting the right of any state to make it's own stupid decisions (including slavery).

[MOhillbilly]

Not to say there's a correlation, but you'd be fine with southern states being in favor of slavery?

No but you do know that old abe didnt want to free the slaves till the war rolled around and then only freed the slave IN THE SOUTH in hopes for an upriseing.
and US grant owned slaves but lee didnt and that up till the wars end you could own slaves in DC.
and the union held parishs in LA slaves had no rights,but in confederate parishs the were deemed free by the north.

So eat shit if you think im a racist.

[HolmeZz]

I simply asked a question. You were the one who felt the need to tell everyone you're not a racist.

[MOhillbilly]

I simply asked a question. You were the one who felt the need to tell everyone you're not a racist.


eat fvck.

[Valiant]

Not to say there's a correlation, but you'd be fine with southern states being in favor of slavery?


90% of the souths citizens did not own slaves... and is it also funny that there was black slave owners in florida??? never hear about that...

[CosmicPal]

I would have gone where my father and brothers would have gone. I would have wanted to fight with them instead of against them.

What a terrible time that must have been to be a young lad in our country.... :shake:

[mississippichiefan]

This would have been a hard thing to decide if people all around you were fighting on different sides. I think you would have to do what you thought was right. Living in Mississippi I would have fought with the south to defend my family and land even though I would never have had a slave or would never agree to anyone owning another person . I wish slavery had never happened because this created a problem that is still going on today .

[Pants]

This would have been a hard thing to decide if people all around you were fighting on different sides. I think you would have to do what you thought was right. Living in Mississippi I would have fought with the south to defend my family and land even though I would never have had a slave or would never agree to anyone owning another person . I wish slavery had never happened because this created a problem that is still going on today .

Slavery was a human tragedy, but without it, this place would be very different.

[patteeu]

South.

I would have organized raids on Lawrence, KS and burned it down.

[KcMizzou]

South.

I would have organized raids on Lawrence, KS and burned it down.
:clap: :clap: :clap:

ROFL

[Demonpenz]

which ever side got to drive the dodge charger

[Frazod]

Assuming I was some run-of-the-mill, dirt poor Missouri farmer, and a bunch of Federal troops wandered by and took all my shit and burned my house down, I'd probably have hooked up with Quantrill.

[Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan]

Assuming this question is if you were born and raised then, as opposed to the 21st Century morality most are trying to judge people from 160+ years ago by. . .

I'd probably join the rest of my relatives and fight for the Confederacy. As far as I have been able to determine, all my ancestors on both sides fought for the south, mainly Cavalry men (fought under JEB Stuart, Bedford Forrest, and Quantrill from what we've been able to trace so far).

[B2chiefsfan]

Assuming I was some run-of-the-mill, dirt poor Missouri farmer, and a bunch of Federal troops wandered by and took all my shit and burned my house down, I'd probably have hooked up with Quantrill.


"You gonna pull those pistols or whistle dixie??"

[Slayer Diablo]

Union. Slavery back then was the way some programs are today...earlier on when technology was undeveloped (between Feudalism and the mid-19th century), slavery was needed for an economy to be efficient; however, with industry picking up, there had been no more need for it although the South didn't want to abandon the way they had been.

[Valiant]

Union. Slavery back then was the way some programs are today...earlier on when technology was undeveloped (between Feudalism and the mid-19th century), slavery was needed for an economy to be efficient; however, with industry picking up, there had been no more need for it although the South didn't want to abandon the way they had been.



Did you read that in a high school text book???? I suggest going to a library and learning about PC'less history... Majority of the South did not have or own slaves...

[Frazod]

Did you read that in a high school text book???? I suggest going to a library and learning about PC'less history... Majority of the South did not have or own slaves...

He's a victim of our educational system. It's not his fault.

[Hydrae]

Did you read that in a high school text book???? I suggest going to a library and learning about PC'less history... Majority of the South did not have or own slaves...


And those that did, used the slaves due to it being one of the only ways to make a profit from a large plantation that was very labor intensive. (No, this is not intended as support for slavery, just educating the youngster).

Heck, you hit on one of the larger issues of the war, agriculture vs. industry. Item of interest, anyone else notice that in many ways we are still split along the same lines? Check out the electoral college maps from the last election, it is somewhat remeniscent of that ag vs industry battle.

[HolmeZz]

That's right kids...

SLAVERY NEVER EXISTED!

[stevieray]

That's right kids...

SLAVERY NEVER EXISTED!

It exists today. It existed before the US. It will always exist, in one shape or another.

[Jenson71]

The South. I'm such a rebel. Without a cause!

[FAX]

It exists today. It existed before the US. It will always exist, in one shape or another.

Word, Mr. FDE. Word.

FAX

[Jenson71]

Did you read that in a high school text book???? I suggest going to a library and learning about PC'less history... Majority of the South did not have or own slaves...

I don't get it. Where does he state that the majority of southerns did have slaves?

[Slayer Diablo]

Did you read that in a high school text book???? I suggest going to a library and learning about PC'less history... Majority of the South did not have or own slaves...

I'm aware of how slaveholders were a minority and how owners with a substantial number of slaves were a much smaller minority; however, the growing demand for cash crops (especially cotton) made those who did own slaves more dependent on the system because slavery allowed them to produce so much that there was no way in hell the owners would want to lose all that money--especially since they were competing with the North, who they believed was stealing millions of dollars from them annually.

[Slayer Diablo]

I don't get it. Where does he state that the majority of southerns did have slaves?

If I'm viewing his argument the way he wanted everyone to read it, he's saying that because the majority of southerners didn't own slaves, that the Southern economy wasn't dependent on the system...

[beavis]

Assuming I was some run-of-the-mill, dirt poor Missouri farmer, and a bunch of Federal troops wandered by and took all my shit and burned my house down, I'd probably have hooked up with Quantrill.
Given where most of us were from, I think we'd have had a similar decision to make. It depends on how you look at it I guess. Most of us wouldn't be as educated as we are now, and thus would be more likely hitch up with a guy like Quantrill. But knowing what I know about the guy, I don't think I could ride with him. But then that begs the question of whether you would join up with the Union army and thus be more likely to have your family killed and house burned to the ground. Missouri/Kansas wasn't a pretty place.

[BIG_DADDY]

That's right kids...

SLAVERY NEVER EXISTED!

I'm still waiting for your first intelligent well thought out comment. Why don't you try and enlighten us just once before hitting 2000 posts, nnnnn k.

[Frazod]

Given where most of us were from, I think we'd have had a similar decision to make. It depends on how you look at it I guess. Most of us wouldn't be as educated as we are now, and thus would be more likely hitch up with a guy like Quantrill. But knowing what I know about the guy, I don't think I could ride with him. But then that begs the question of whether you would join up with the Union army and thus be more likely to have your family killed and house burned to the ground. Missouri/Kansas wasn't a pretty place.

He talked a good game, and told people what they wanted to hear. Most of the decent people who followed him eventually left when they figured out what he was all about.

[crossbow]

I realize that the war for about state rights and not slavery but to be a part of a community/state that thought owning human beings like you would own a dog or cattle is replusive. I can't believe it took us 100 + years to honor the all men are created equal part of our constitution.

General Longstreet Quote: "We should have freed the slaves and then fired on Fort Sumpter". Longstreet was Lee's top infantry commander. If they would have done that then they would have gotten England to possibly join them. England was interested in seeing the North fail but could not side with a slavery state.

[big nasty kcnut]

Union i'd alway backed a winner.

[Valiant]

I don't get it. Where does he state that the majority of southerns did have slaves?

Why did he assume the south wasnt going away from slavery before they were attacked... He said the south needed slaves for the economy
to work, which is false.. Maybe years before the cotton gin was made slaves were necessary, but they were a hinderance on the owners and many let them go for finacial(sp?) reasons...


The fact remains that the North did not want the South to leave the Union because it would have ruined the north's economy... The South could live without the north..but the opposite is not true... Kind of like the midwest could live without the coasts but the coasts could not live without the midwest and the food we produce...

Then add the fact that the north had a worse system set up in the big factories..But there was not fight for the women and children who were mutilated and killed...

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm aware of how slaveholders were a minority and how owners with a substantial number of slaves were a much smaller minority; however, the growing demand for cash crops (especially cotton) made those who did own slaves more dependent on the system because slavery allowed them to produce so much that there was no way in hell the owners would want to lose all that money--especially since they were competing with the North, who they believed was stealing millions of dollars from them annually.

What you are comparing is like comparing the 60's with the 90's... At the beginning of slavery this was true.. But leading up to the war, the big plantation owners were getting rid of slaves because of the cotton gins could replace multiple families of slaves.. They were selling them off or outright releasing them of their duties.. Most of the slaves did not want to leave because they never knew anything else.. The invention of the cotton gin gave the south so much cotton that they could not sell it all because the prices just plummeretted... Then add the fact that the European states were buying cotton from other countries now...

As for competing with the north they were two different types of manufactorings.. agriculture vs industury...

The only reason why slavery came up during the war was to unite the rest of the northerners in a cause to put the south back down... They needed a unifying factor because "we dont want the south to leave because it will hurt or economy..."

[Valiant]

General Longstreet Quote: "We should have freed the slaves and then fired on Fort Sumpter". Longstreet was Lee's top infantry commander. If they would have done that then they would have gotten England to possibly join them. England was interested in seeing the North fail but could not side with a slavery state.


Actually the South had representatives sent but the england and the rest of the european states would not help a rebellion... Then forced the union to allow them back threw the blockade which they had to escape thru...

[Valiant]

If I'm viewing his argument the way he wanted everyone to read it, he's saying that because the majority of southerners didn't own slaves, that the Southern economy wasn't dependent on the system...


coo...


Slavery is a horrible idea... but every country/nation has done it... It is not Americanized and we should not be ashamed of it... It is in the past all we can do is move forward...

[Valiant]

Given where most of us were from, I think we'd have had a similar decision to make. It depends on how you look at it I guess. Most of us wouldn't be as educated as we are now, and thus would be more likely hitch up with a guy like Quantrill. But knowing what I know about the guy, I don't think I could ride with him. But then that begs the question of whether you would join up with the Union army and thus be more likely to have your family killed and house burned to the ground. Missouri/Kansas wasn't a pretty place.


Also missouri and kansas started the war....

[Valiant]

If anybody wants I own about 30+ civil war books from both view points and a few slave journals...

Frederick Douglas by far has been the best read yet...