ACWGC Forums

Which Side Would You Be On?
Page 3 of 5

Author:  Al Amos [ Sun Jul 15, 2012 2:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Which Side Would You Be On?


Another point about slavery, the popular modern conception is slave owning plantations with 10's to 100's of slaves, but the reality was like in my family line where different families owned one, two or three slaves.

Author:  Blake [ Sun Jul 15, 2012 2:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Which Side Would You Be On?

Having played the offensively-minded Elkin often I believe he would have been a better staff officer for Grant.

"Breastworks?! HA! Attack, by God, sir! ATTACK!" :twisted:

Author:  Al Amos [ Sun Jul 15, 2012 2:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Which Side Would You Be On?

Keep in mind that secession is a viable option within our system. The South just went about it the wrong way. Any state can leave if they can get the constitution ammended. There in lies the rub, getting everyone to vote to kick you out. Perhaps, though in the late 1850's or early 1860's if the South would have structured the appeal correctly, it could've been voted in and ratified.

Author:  KWhitehead [ Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Which Side Would You Be On?

Drex wrote:
The Negros, if freed, would have done the same jobs as they had previously because no white man would do them. Racism would have prevented the Negro from taking the jobs a white man did so your argument,while a good political explanation, doesn't trickle down to the man holding the rifle.

Not really. Cotton was already becoming marginally economical. If the landowner had to pay wages it would probably be the death of the plantation system and was. Cotton would still be raised after the Civil War but no longer as the main crop of the South. Tobacco was much easier to raise and didn't require the large labor force cotton did.

The South's solution to the free negro was to force them back into a semi-slave state through share cropping and baring them from almost any other kind of work. They didn't know in 1860 that they could get away with doing that. They feared million of free negros with no jobs and no way to feed themselves but by stealing. They saw society as they knew it collapsing. They knew their ancient history enough to know that seldom do slave owners survive their slaves being freed.

Author:  Drex [ Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Which Side Would You Be On?

We could argue about this forever so lets get back to the original question.
Blake, it is obvious whose side each one of us would belong since we chose to play on one side instead of another. :) It might not be true for all but probably a good majority.

Author:  Blake [ Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Which Side Would You Be On?

Debating is always fun!

Heck I can't even remember the original question.

There was no sense of Nationalism as we know it today in 1861. You never saw the president nor did the federal government interfere in your daily life. Beyond taking the mail most Americans never had any interaction with them. What mattered in 1861, to the vast majority of Americans, was your family and state. The firing on Sumter increased Nationalism in the North and gave Lincoln a wave of support to put down the Rebellion. Meanwhile the South continued to fight their revolution against an enemy who was now bent on their subjugation. I just dont see how slavery influenced the thought process of very many people one way or the other to go to war. Those abolitionists who were diehard, like your William Lloyd Garrison, were burning the Constitution and saying good riddance to the South.

Throwing everything out the window and disregarding how I may feel about issues like states rights, slavery and the Constitution in 2012... if the year is 1861 and I am residing in the state of Florida... than I will be picking up a musket with my kin folk and heading off to whip Yankees!

And as Forrest Gump would say, "that's all I got to say 'bout that." :mrgreen:

Author:  sstiles [ Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Which Side Would You Be On?

Interesting discussion. Fully agree that the context of the time is crucial - putting oneself in 19 century situation as it was makes a difference to one's position imho. It is easy as a 21st century person applying our norms and values to be critical of our 19th century counterpart. It was interesting to see the comments concerning slavery and South Africa.

All being said I am also one of the southernmost Southerners that Cam refers to. In my view the geographic location and your community situation would be the major determinants of your decision at that time.

Author:  Ernie Sands [ Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Which Side Would You Be On?

sstiles wrote:

All being said I am also one of the southernmost Southerners that Cam refers to.

That is an understatement!! :lol:

Author:  David Danner [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Which Side Would You Be On?

If you would like an author's opinion read MacKinlay Kantor's book, "If the South had won the Civil War."

Author:  Mark Oakford [ Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Which Side Would You Be On?

Bet I'm the most Southern, and I'm on t'other side!

Author:  cameronm [ Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Which Side Would You Be On?

Yep Tasmania beats Townsville :mrgreen:

Author:  Jefferson H. Davis [ Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Which Side Would You Be On?

I think it would have been far better for the South, had the South won. There is simply no way what happened to the South during and after the war was beneficial. The Southern economy was shattered for 100 years afterwards, compared to before the war. It would have also been far worse for the North, however. The economic loss to the North would have been tremendous. That is the main reason they fought in the first place. Had the South not cut the tariffs in half, it might not have happened at all. The Northern public did not really get up in arms until then. There was great fear in the North about the South countrolling the Mississippi, and Northern ports drying up because of the lower Southern tariffs. Our watered down history usualy ignores these things, but that makes them no less true. As for myself, if my state secedes tommorrow, I will go with my state. I also think the idea that the South would have alligned with Germany is laughably ridiculous. I do not think the war was neccessary. Slavery was a static institution (no longer growing), while the number of free blacks was growing exponentially. It would have ended on it's own because it was becoming economically less and less viable. The war was only neccessary from the Northern point of view to completely subjugate the South economically. They did a great job.......I jumped around because I was answering some of the different posts.

Author:  Drex [ Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Which Side Would You Be On?

The war was fought to unify the nation, that is, to bring the South back into the republic. I can not believe the Northern people initially wanted to subjugate the South economically ; that just was not part of their mindset. It might have developed later after the war had gone on and on and became part of a feeling of retribution for leaving the Union.
Yes, Slavery would have died out eventually but its effects of racism would have lived on to a much greater extent than it does now. In fact, racism would still be alive and well if the South had won.
I will not go on because I am treading on ground that belongs in the Smoking Room and I hate these rhetorical arguments that can never be won.

Author:  Jefferson H. Davis [ Sat Jul 28, 2012 10:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Which Side Would You Be On?

I'll just ask where you get your information as to the Northern mindset. I got mine from reading the polls conducted during that time. The Northern public did not want the war, until the South lowered the tariffs. The tariffs were what the north was using to keep the South down before the war. I will concede that I doubt the common man in the North cared whether theysubjugated the South or not, but the politicians were another matter. As for racism, unfortunately, it is alive and well today, just read all the comments by Liberal obama supporters who pull out the race card as soon as anyone disagrees with the man. The ironic thing is they don't think thy are being racist when they do that, but it is pretty obvious to any fair individual. I think racism is actually worse because of the things the North did after the war during reconstruction. It created a lot of resentment that would not have been as intense had there been an easy peace. As for racism, I think the best case scenario would have been for the south to have openly recruited Blacks for service much sooner than they did, and then for the tide of the war to have been changed by that. Hopefully there would have been enough Black Southern heroes, to have changed perceptions through a shared accomplishment of Southern Independence. That was best case scenario....More realistic, would have been for there to have been no war, and for slavery to have died a natural death most likely 15 to 20 years later. I don't think there would have been the white resentment had that happened, which created a lot of violence, which in turn has triggered blacks to this day to be resentful of whites. Either of those scenarios would have been better than what we have. I do agree that the war was fought by most common Soldiers in the North to preserve the Union, and by the common Southerner, for independence from the Union. It was the Politicians on both sides that had the other agendas.....The North won, so their version of history is what is taught.

Author:  Drex [ Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Which Side Would You Be On?

I wonder how scientific polls were in the 1850's? I don't particularly believe in them now but 160 years ago? I didn't say I knew the northern mindset, I said I doubt that it concerned itself with economic destruction of the south until much later after the war created animosities that previously did not exist.
I won't go into the racism thing except to say attitudes have improved from the time I was in Atlanta (1969) when there were still segregated restrooms. Mixed race marriages are now accepted, affirmative action-while not perfect-allowed Blacks into job areas previously denied but I doubt that these issues would have improved as much as they have if the war and reconstruction had not happened. Sometimes attitudes have to be changed with more aggressive methods than just allowing things to progess naturally and go where they may.

Page 3 of 5 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group