North Vs. South - Which side would you choose?

[bbsion]

I recognize there is already a recent thread in the General Discussion board about The Civil War. Which I actually just found after starting to write this thread. I just wanted to include a poll to see numbers.

If you want to, please explain why you chose whichever one you did. I only included The North and The South on purpose. I could have put other options on there like "Neither". However, this is obviously hypothetical and I am just curious to see if you lived in America during the 1860's, based on your current political beliefs and knowledge of the Civil War, would you align more with the North or South and why? I also understand that where you lived during that time may also influence your choice as well. There are obvious variables to consider, but this is just for fun.

I am currently reading a book called "The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War". So far it's a fantastic book. You could probably gather which option I chose.

[Sirocco]

*Dixie Intensifies*

[abijah]

Confederates fought better, with more spirit and had cooler generals.

[kirtland r.m.]

Interesting question! The saints who followed President B. Young almost completely avoided the bloodiest war ever on American soil. Many of those who persecuted the saints did not, starting with Missouri border wars with Kansas about ten years before the civil war began. Can I drop this right in the middle of your survey?
A month following the artillery rounds fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina, signaling the start to the Civil War, the Philadelphia Sunday Mercury remarked, “We have in our possession a pamphlet, published at Liverpool, in 1851, containing a selection from the ‘revelations, translations and narrations’ of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism.” Citing what is now Doctrine and Covenants 87, the paper continued, “The following prophecy is here said to have been made by Smith, on the 25th of December, 1832. In view of our present troubles, this prediction seems to be in progress of fulfilment, whether Joe Smith was a humbug or not.” Though early in the war’s advancement, the paper nevertheless speculated about the prophecy, concluding, “The war began in South Carolina. Insurrections of slaves are already dreaded. Famine will certainly afflict some Southern communities. The interference of Great Britain, on account of the want of cotton, is not improbable, if the war is protracted. In the meantime, a general war in Europe appears to be imminent. Have we not had a prophet among us?”

[David13]

Confederates fought better, with more spirit and had cooler generals.

Well, in truth they were not fighting for slavery, they were fighting to defend against a military invader that sought to impose physical force upon their desire to leave and stop supporting the Union.
They were fighting for their homes, their wives and children, their right to be free.
So yeah ...
dc

[Sirocco]

[gigarath24]

I was born in Atlanta, Georgia raised in Dallas, Texas and am a 8th generation southerner on my mom's side, and 6th generation on my dad's side. My mom's dad's family owned slaves, none of my other family lines did. I had 9 ancestors who fought for the south and supposedly one who was disowned by the family for fighting for the north. I consider myself a Texan first, Georgian second, and American third. Given that, I will say that most definitely I would have fought for the confederacy.

[David13]

Interesting question! The saints who followed President B. Young almost completely avoided the bloodiest war ever on American soil. Many of those who persecuted the saints did not, starting with Missouri border wars with Kansas about ten years before the civil war began. Can I drop this right in the middle of your survey?
A month following the artillery rounds fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina, signaling the start to the Civil War, the Philadelphia Sunday Mercury remarked, “We have in our possession a pamphlet, published at Liverpool, in 1851, containing a selection from the ‘revelations, translations and narrations’ of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism.” Citing what is now Doctrine and Covenants 87, the paper continued, “The following prophecy is here said to have been made by Smith, on the 25th of December, 1832. In view of our present troubles, this prediction seems to be in progress of fulfilment, whether Joe Smith was a humbug or not.” Though early in the war’s advancement, the paper nevertheless speculated about the prophecy, concluding, “The war began in South Carolina. Insurrections of slaves are already dreaded. Famine will certainly afflict some Southern communities. The interference of Great Britain, on account of the want of cotton, is not improbable, if the war is protracted. In the meantime, a general war in Europe appears to be imminent. Have we not had a prophet among us?”

That need for cotton gave rise to a prophecy of Brigham Young in about 1855. He selected 300 families to go south to the southern border of Utah and settle the 'Dixie Mission' to grow cotton. That story is told in 1955 in an episode of "Death Valley Days" titled "Sego Lillies".

It's available online:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... voBGPPG6no

I saw this probably about 1955 myself, but happened across it again recently. Yes, things like this used to be on tv.

I like how Wilhelmina says "I'm not going".

I hope those who watch it enjoy it as much as I did.
dc

It's the true (dramatized) story of the founding of St George Utah.

[bbsion]

My daughter that's in 3rd grade came home with this packet that they have been working on in class. She was showing it to me because she was proud of it, and rightfully so. She is very smart. But a few of the packet inserts had to do with the Civil War. So I read through the handouts with her and ... corrected the inaccuracies in them.

I tell ya. People have deified Lincoln and excused away all of his blatant disregard for the Constitutional rights the founding fathers established.

[David13]

My daughter that's in 3rd grade came home with this packet that they have been working on in class. She was showing it to me because she was proud of it, and rightfully so. She is very smart. But a few of the packet inserts had to do with the Civil War. So I read through the handouts with her and ... corrected the inaccuracies in them.

I tell ya. People have deified Lincoln and excused away all of his blatant disregard for the Constitutional rights the founding fathers established.

Ain't that the truth.
And Lincoln is deified for ... "freeing the slaves" ... which was not his concern at all. In fact, he only did so in those states not a part of the Union at the time, which, in legal effect, had no effect, as the Confederate states had all left the union and were subject only to their own rule, and not Lincoln's.
Lincoln always spoke and wrote about the inferiority of the black man. And he was not a racist. He merely spoke of the educational and skill state of the vast majority of those blacks who had lived and worked as slaves.
He never said it was supposed to be that way, merely that at that time it was that way. Which was just truth.
dc

[bbsion]

My daughter that's in 3rd grade came home with this packet that they have been working on in class. She was showing it to me because she was proud of it, and rightfully so. She is very smart. But a few of the packet inserts had to do with the Civil War. So I read through the handouts with her and ... corrected the inaccuracies in them.

I tell ya. People have deified Lincoln and excused away all of his blatant disregard for the Constitutional rights the founding fathers established.

Ain't that the truth.
And Lincoln is deified for ... "freeing the slaves" ... which was not his concern at all. In fact, he only did so in those states not a part of the Union at the time, which, in legal effect, had no effect, as the Confederate states had all left the union and were subject only to their own rule, and not Lincoln's.
Lincoln always spoke and wrote about the inferiority of the black man. And he was not a racist. He merely spoke of the educational and skill state of the vast majority of those blacks who had lived and worked as slaves.
He never said it was supposed to be that way, merely that at that time it was that way. Which was just truth.
dc

Exactly. One of the reasons he "emancipated" the slaves in the south was to hopefully start an insurrection. He never really cared to free the slaves for any moral reason. He wanted to ship all black people back to Africa or segregate them entirely.

In the packet my daughter brought back from school it was saying that Lincoln hated slavery but did not want to upset some of the states in the Union by abolishing it. So the only way he could free some of the slaves was to word the Emancipation Proclamation in such a way that it only effected southern states. He also hoped all of the free slaves would flee to the north and help them. There is partial truth to this for sure. But his real motivation was not explained and some details purposefully left out.
That changes everything.

He only ever pushed to free slaves when it benefited him to win the war and accomplish his real goals. To "save the Union" or in other words establish a more powerful and centralized government by forcing the southern states at gun point not to secede.

[Durzan]

I would fight for the Mormon Battalion.

[Robin Hood]

What I find really interesting about Joseph's prophecy in D&C 87 is his clear prediction of WW1 and WW2.
I have heard people explain away his bulls eye regarding South Carolina as, apparently, according to them it was common knowledge for years that the south would attempt to secede.
But to prophesy that Great Britain would call upon nations to protect itself against yet other nations, and that would trigger war being poured out upon all nations (world war) was something that only a prophet could have known.

[Jamescm]

Good question. Probably the south, because I've lived in the southern half of the US my whole life, but that's just a guess. merely having the luxury of modern perspective and information may not help much when things are split geographically.

I find calling a clear "obviously good" and "obviously bad" side difficult. The confederacy fought for the rights of states, but also insisted that slavery was a right. The union fought to grant individual rights to all human beings (or at least used it as an excuse to fight?), but its victory resulted in a more centralized federal government that has slowly grown ever since.

The United States of America went on to be an example of innovation, production, and prosperity the world over, but it was through national faith in God and still mostly exercising those principles on which its constitution was founded, not a result of the increased central government presence the union's victory brought. Did the Lord preserve America enough that it still succeeded, or did the Lord allow Satan to take hold of it and grant it the temporary success Babylon is known for? Or can the nation's history from that point on even be broken down into such a simple description?

I'm also weary of President Lincoln. He is pretty much the only figure of American history that the left universally admires, and if they love and admire him despite their hatred and dishonesty concerning everything else about America's founding fathers and early influential figures, that's cause for great suspicion.

Hopefully I would have been blessed to prosper out west with the Saints. If I could see exactly how my life would have turned out between those three choices then, perhaps it would help guide my actions or expectations for the possibly near future catastrophes waiting.

[bbsion]

I just read this regarding the "Pledge of Allegiance"

"... (it) was originally composed by Captain George Thatcher Balch, a Union Army Officer during the Civil War and later a teacher of patriotism in New York City schools. The form of the pledge used today was largely devised by Francis Bellamy in 1892, and formally adopted by Congress as the pledge in 1942. The official name of The Pledge of Allegiance was adopted in 1945. The most recent alteration of its wording came on Flag Day in 1954, when the words "under God" were added."

So the pledge of allegiance was written by a Union officer and a socialist (Francis Bellamy). Feels like "one nation, ... indivisible" (with 'Under God' only being added in waaay later) is a jab at the right of secession.

What do you think?

[David13]

I just read this regarding the "Pledge of Allegiance"

"... (it) was originally composed by Captain George Thatcher Balch, a Union Army Officer during the Civil War and later a teacher of patriotism in New York City schools. The form of the pledge used today was largely devised by Francis Bellamy in 1892, and formally adopted by Congress as the pledge in 1942. The official name of The Pledge of Allegiance was adopted in 1945. The most recent alteration of its wording came on Flag Day in 1954, when the words "under God" were added."

So the pledge of allegiance was written by a Union officer and a socialist (Francis Bellamy). Feels like "one nation, ... indivisible" (with 'Under God' only being added in waaay later) is a jab at the right of secession.

What do you think?

No question that it is a concept directly contradictory to the concept of secession.
I remember as a child a great controversy over whether or not schools should have kids say the pledge. There were those who refused to say it, and it may well have been southerners who were spearheading at least some of the refusal.
dc

[JohnnyL]

I just read this regarding the "Pledge of Allegiance"

"... (it) was originally composed by Captain George Thatcher Balch, a Union Army Officer during the Civil War and later a teacher of patriotism in New York City schools. The form of the pledge used today was largely devised by Francis Bellamy in 1892, and formally adopted by Congress as the pledge in 1942. The official name of The Pledge of Allegiance was adopted in 1945. The most recent alteration of its wording came on Flag Day in 1954, when the words "under God" were added."

So the pledge of allegiance was written by a Union officer and a socialist (Francis Bellamy). Feels like "one nation, ... indivisible" (with 'Under God' only being added in waaay later) is a jab at the right of secession.

What do you think?

I haven't said it in years. I don't pledge my allegiance to a flag. I wouldn't mind saying something like, "I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America".

[KMCopeland]

Confederates fought better, with more spirit and had cooler generals.

Well, in truth they were not fighting for slavery, they were fighting to defend against a military invader that sought to impose physical force upon their desire to leave and stop supporting the Union.
They were fighting for their homes, their wives and children, their right to be free.
So yeah ...
dc

They were fighting for slavery.

I'm a southerner. My family fought for the Confederacy. I would like to believe they were fighting for their sovereignty against a foreign invader, and not to protect their right to own other people and treat them as they saw fit without anyone to answer to for it. They weren't.

You can read the various secession proclamations from the southern states starting with South Carolina and through the gamut. They were not only seceding, and fighting, to protect slavery, they saw no reason at all to apologize for that. Indeed, they were quite proud of it.

This rationalization, that it wasn't about slavery, but about Northern aggression, is historically new, and, hard as it has been for me to face, completely without any basis in fact.

[KMCopeland]

And yes, the quality of the Southern generals, their battle strategy, and their overall brilliance far outshone anything the North had. Lee knew, given Northern numerical superiority, if he was going to win it had to happen early on. He came very, very close to winning early on. But he didn't, it dragged on, and it turned into what we call a war of attrition: one side simply has more men they can throw at cannons than the other side does.

I'm glad we aren't two countries. I'm glad the North won. But we did come frighteningly close to being two countries, and given that our size as a nation, and our fairly unique geography (manifest destiny and all that) has been no small part of our soaring success on the world stage, we might be looking at a far different, and for us as Americans, far less sunny set of historical realities.

[Durzan]

The south were the ones who opened fire first, ya know.

[David13]

Confederates fought better, with more spirit and had cooler generals.

Well, in truth they were not fighting for slavery, they were fighting to defend against a military invader that sought to impose physical force upon their desire to leave and stop supporting the Union.
They were fighting for their homes, their wives and children, their right to be free.
So yeah ...
dc

They were fighting for slavery.

I'm a southerner. My family fought for the Confederacy. I would like to believe they were fighting for their sovereignty against a foreign invader, and not to protect their right to own other people and treat them as they saw fit without anyone to answer to for it. They weren't.

You can read the various secession proclamations from the southern states starting with South Carolina and through the gamut. They were not only seceding, and fighting, to protect slavery, they saw no reason at all to apologize for that. Indeed, they were quite proud of it.

This rationalization, that it wasn't about slavery, but about Northern aggression, is historically new, and, hard as it has been for me to face, completely without any basis in fact.

Well, then, you don't know a thing about history. This idea is not new at all. What's new is the revisionism that says it was all about slavery. Read the contemporary accounts.
dc

[Dave62]

Well, as an outsider, I don't really have much of a say. My ancestors were all British and so, had they been in the Royal Navy at the time, they might have been involved in the supply of weapons to the Confederacy. (actually, I have in my possession and old Tranter .32 revolver which has been dated to roughly 1862, made in London, and of a similar make that was supplied to the Confederacy) Having said all of that, the main point of view here is that the Union was obviously on the "goodies" side, and most people who watched John Wayne in the "Horse Soldiers" on a Saturday afternoon would have sided with the Union.

BUT! Having seen the slobs and snowflakes carrying on like proverbial pork chops and pulling down statues, desecrating graves and monuments, and demanding that some building pull down the battle flag, if I had the money I would fly to the US, go to the South and buy the biggest battle flag I could find. Then I would find an archetypal southerner whose car horn plays "Dixie". I would pay him to drive me north while I flapped the flag out the back so I could give a big "up yours" just to send the lefty losers into a big teary. Other than that I don't really care that much...

[James Paul]

The winners write history and destroy monuments. Losers may actually win in the sight of God.

[Durzan]

Yeah, slavery was a big part of the south... heck, it was the foundation of the Confederacy's entire economy. HOWEVER, Slavery itself was not the MAIN issue of the war.

The north was attacking the entire southern culture and way of life (which included slavery). They were fighting for the rights of the individual states, which included preserving their own culture (which did include slavery).

The fact of the matter is that everything ties back into economics in the end, and that is no different during the Civil War. It was a war fought primarily for economic and political reasons, using moral reasons as justification and a cover.

Both sides did horrible things, and were hypocritical in nature.

[braingrunt]

I believe that the south should have been able to secede in peace. For me, slavery doesn't even come into the picture. It seems to me that we contradicted the founding principle of our entire nation, which if you ask me is a darn shame-and I'm personally inclined to resent Lincoln and blame him for our present tyranny. IF there was a confederacy today I suspect that we would have a conservative power under which we could live today (and I don't believe there'd be slavery in it either)
However, I have reason to believe God wanted it this way. I think some church leaders have said it was Gods will we remain united.