I can't believe I'm saying this...

[DB Curtis]

(Sorry, I just found that highly amusing... Anyway, on to the point.)

I assume everyone remembers me... Think back and you'll remember me.

But what if the south was wrong? What if the things I've always been sure of

are wrong? There are some things I've heard lately about the south and north

that lead me to doubt both sides true intentions.

There are things I think were extremely wrong on both sides, such as:

Things wrong with the north:

1) A war to "Free the slaves" didn't call for the destruction of the south and it's culture, people, and property.

2) The north said time and again it didn't care about the slaves or any other negroes, yet today it's taught that the war was over slavery.

3) Lee, Jackson, Davis, Benjamin (Judah), and many other confederate leaders were Christians... If they thought it was right to secede, they must have had very good reasons.

Things wrong with the south:

1) Why call for so many troops to "defend the south", if the North only had 6,000 troops for the whole army?

2) Were tariffs enough to secede for?

(There are other things I can think of about both sides, but these will suffice for the time being.)

Really, I don't know what to believe. This is like the Terri Schiavo case, it's so intricate and both sides had/have so many good points, I didn't/don't know what side to be on.

[johan_steele]

The point is to keep learning all you can on the subject and realize that everyone who writes on the subject has an agenda of one sort or another.

Keep an open mind and enjoy the experiance, double check every source.. triple check if you think it doesn't ring true. The day you stop learning... is the day it isn't fun anymore.

[Nelly28]

I totally understand where you're coming from. I was born and raised in the North; and, to the best of my knowledge, my ancestors only fought for the North. So basically I grew up drawn to the North. But as I've studied, I've found several issues with which I would side with the South. I know people can find problems with both sides, but there were good sides to both of them, too. Quite frankly, if I had lived in one of the border states during the Civil War, I'm not sure who I would have sided with.

Like Shane said, the key is to study as much as you can from both sides and to have an open mind about it. "Who was right" is an issue that's been debated ever since the war started (and, really, even before that). Trying to come up with an answer is an adventure, but all the research is definitely worth the effort.

[ole]

DB

Many share your feelings (not all, as you may have noticed). There's plenty of finger pointing to share with both sides. The issue, "Who was Right," will not be settled on these boards a will probably never be. The fun is in finding things you never thought of, checking them out (always check them personally for complete exerpts), and chasing off in a new direction with your new discoveries.

However, if you had planned a program of reading to learn what you can about any given subject, you will have a difficult time sticking to it.

Ole

[unionblue]

DB Curtis,

Things that you assume are wrong about the North.

A 'war to free the slaves' did not result in the destruction of its culture, its people, but on the property, yeah, you may have something there. Wars can be pretty tough on property.

You are right, the North did not go to war over the issue of slavery, the South did. And yes, you are right, it is not being taught right in the schools today.

Just because Southern leaders embraced a certain type of religion does not mean they were justified in leading a rebellion.

Things that you assume about the South.

Yes, why indeed call for 100,000 troops to defend the South when there are only 16,000 troops in the US Army? And remember, not all of them stayed with the North, but some left to enlist in the Southern cause, reducing the number even further.

Tariffs were not the reason the South left the Union nor can they in any way be used as a major cause of the war if one really researches the subject.

The path you have chosen, the one of honest research and study, the ability to seek out sources and documentation concerning the history of the time, is the best path. Whatever conclusions you come to, they will be your own and they will be based on solid research. And they do not have to agree with anyone elses ideas or conclusions, to include my own!

Wlecome back,
Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

Yes, why indeed call for 100,000 troops to defend the South when there are only 16,000 troops in the US Army? And remember, not all of them stayed with the North, but some left to enlist in the Southern cause, reducing the number even further.

And when the less than 16,000 U.S. troops met the 100,000 rebels on the battlefield it was a horrible massacre. They fought bravely but were overwhelmed by sheer force of numbers and perished to the last man.

Er, hang on.

The truth is that the call for 100,000 Southern volunteers was not in anticipation of fighting 16,000 U.S. regulars but in anticipation of fighting considerably more than 100, 000 Northern volunteers. Which is precisely how things panned out.

[aggie80]

I would like to point out that to say that it was fought over slavery is being taught in school is not necessarily true. My daughters are studying the conflict now and the first thing they pointed out to me was that it wasn't fought over slavery, and preceeded to rattle of a whole list of things like tariffs and states' rights.

[wt_jimbos]

HAHAHAHAHAHA Bill Torrens, I couldn't help but laugh myself silly over you post, your dry British humour is brilliant!

I'm not sure how school's in America teach the civil war now, but middle aged American;s I have spoken to over time who had only what they had learnt at school as their civil war knowledge all stated that the civil war was "just" about slaves.

[Nelly28]

From my own school experience, I didn't know anything about states' rights, etc., until I was in about the eighth or ninth grade -- and that was from discussion outside the classroom -- but afterwards, I heard it a lot. Up until that point, all I knew about the Civil War (besides the names of some of the generals and battles) was the slavery issue. The first school I attended seemed to really hammer that into us, but the last school I attended barely stressed it at all. I attended three different, unaffiliated schools up through my senior year, and they each used a different curriculum. So from what I've seen, what students are learning about the Civil War varies greatly -- it all depends on the school.

[mobile_96]

Nelly,
It depends less on the school than the leanings of the instructor.
I attended several public schools, in the south, and all that was remotely talked about was, Lincoln, Grant, Lee, Sherman, Georgia. The opening shots, Lees surrender. Thats the whole Civil War. Lincoln is killed by Booth. And this was early 1965.
Chuck