Southern States unionists

Just saying Southeners are just as prone to criminality as anyone else.
Leftyhunter
You truly are not capable of not negating Confederate Troops, are you?
This is a thread discussing Southern units which fought for the Union- and, even so, you still speak down of Southerners.
And, I don’t appreciate your “Freudian slip” in your above quote that “Southerners are just as prone to criminality as anyone else.”
Did you even notice you didn’t bother even saying Southern troops in this latest negative statement?
Southerners aren’t perfect. But, we are fiercely loyal and proud of our homes. And, I will never let your continued negative slights to change my opinion of this. So, you aren’t ever going to wear me down.
It’d be easier for the both of us to realize this. I already have- now, it’s just up to you to do the same and to please quit all the negative slams.
 
Most of the leaders of the Lawrence raid were later killed. Of course, an objective inquiry would open a Pandora’s box with Lawrence’s influence on the Ks/Mo border war, sacking of Osceola, jail collapse, later GO 11, etc..
My point is they were not tried and punished for their crimes. War is not always waged by Saints. Compared to other wars Union troops were actually not all that harmful to civilians.
Leftyhunter
 
My point is they were not tried and punished for their crimes. War is not always waged by Saints. Compared to other wars Union troops were actually not all that harmful to civilians.
Leftyhunter
Again, most were dead or later were killed outside of the courtroom. Santa and harmless criminal acts against civilians are fantasies. There is a recent thread on civilians
 
My point is they were not tried and punished for their crimes. War is not always waged by Saints. Compared to other wars Union troops were actually not all that harmful to civilians.
Leftyhunter
Hold up. Now, hold the ———— up!
“Union troops were actually not all that harmful to citizens.”
You have crossed a misogynistic line right there. How dare you-
 
Last edited:
Enlistments in the US armed forces (over 2,700,000) approximately equaled the free male population of all ages, all races, and all conditions of health in the eleven Confederate States. Another poster, especially, but you too continue to deduct the numbers of men available to the Confederate forces without giving sources where they got, which started the war with an army of 16,00 all the men to replace those who supposedly joined the enemy. Y'all need to come with some logical reason why the Confederates held out for four years with so few against so many.

Abraham Lincoln once asked General (Winfield) Scott this question: "Why is it that you were once able to take Mexico City in three months with five thousand men, and we have been unable to take Richmond with one hundred thousand men?" "I will tell you," said General Scott. "The men who took us into Mexico City are the same men who are keeping us out of Richmond."

The only logical reason I need to come up with why the Confederates held out for four years is Appomattox.

You tout dead men as superior to other dead men, that for some four years they continued to fight as though this is some sort of 'gotcha' point in 2020.

It took the Union army 4 years to conquer a portion of the country the size of Europe. It took four years for the United States to create large armies from a small, standing army of 16,000, scattered across the nation to those 2,700,000 you mention. The Union army also fought mostly on the offensive while the Confederacy remained mainly on the defensive. Digging a trench requires no "super human" strength. Just the ability to listen while being told where and when to dig.

And while those men General Scott mentioned may have held the Union army out of Richmond for a while, I note that in spite of being endowed, by yourself, with "super" ability, were finally driven out of Richmond with the city then being occupied by USCTs. How "super" did that come across to retreating Confederates?

You want to give the Confederate soldier some mystical, magical, ability, while reducing the Union soldier as "inferior." Yet these men, labeled by you, lost their cause, not because of their lack of courage or their ability to be stubborn in the defense of their cause.

They lost because Union soldiers were not inferior, but because they were just as brave, just as stubborn in the offense that reunited their nation, a cause they never lost sight of, a cause they could not abandon, even during four long years of bitter sectional conflict.

You cannot besmirch their sacrifice by applying the term inferior to them, not for any jaded, Monday night quarte-backing or silly point of regional pride that advances one side over another. All of those men are dead and the only thing that matters is what their deaths bought.

I see no Confederate nation, I see no Confederate flag flying above the Capitol in Washington, I only see the United States, one nation, as a direct result of the sacrifice of those you would call "inferior."

In applying this term, you insult, in my opinion, both Union AND Confederate soldiers, by lowering their ability to stand and fight, you make it appear the Confederates should have won the Civil War if their opponents were so far beneath them in fighting ability, if that were truly the case.

The fact is, they are all dead, Confederate and Union alike, and as much as you would like it otherwise, the cause that brought them to fight one another, has been long resolved.

If you wish to believe in the fighting spirit of the average Confederate soldier as something special, so be it. I'll acknowledge that fact too.

But at no time will I ever accept the fact that the average Union soldier, who gave his life to preserve his nation, deserves no title other than the won he received in life during those desperate times.

SOLDIER.

Unionblue
 
Hold up. Now, hold the ———— up!
“Union troops were actually not all that harmful to citizens.”
You have crossed a misogynistic line right there. How dare you-
Union troops treated civilians no worse then Southern troops in Mexico or Confedrate troops treated black and Indian civilians. Yes a some women were raped but Southern troops raped Mexican women. It's war and not every body is nice.
Leftyhunter
 
You truly are not capable of not negating Confederate Troops, are you?
This is a thread discussing Southern units which fought for the Union- and, even so, you still speak down of Southerners.
And, I don’t appreciate your “Freudian slip” in your above quote that “Southerners are just as prone to criminality as anyone else.”
Did you even notice you didn’t bother even saying Southern troops in this latest negative statement?
Southerners aren’t perfect. But, we are fiercely loyal and proud of our homes. And, I will never let your continued negative slights to change my opinion of this. So, you aren’t ever going to wear me down.
It’d be easier for the both of us to realize this. I already have- now, it’s just up to you to do the same and to please quit all the negative slams.
I don't think that this is an attack on Confederate troops but a defense against a perceived wrong. Of course you are correct--not of them (and none of us) were candidates for sainthood and this conversation is off topic...and probably not worth pursuing.
 
I don't think that this is an attack on Confederate troops but a defense against a perceived wrong. Of course you are correct--not of them (and none of us) were candidates for sainthood and this conversation is off topic...and probably not worth pursuing.
Thank you for your post. Had there not been previous examples of his negativity, I could let this possibly pass. However, that hasn’t been the case.
 
Union troops treated civilians no worse then Southern troops in Mexico or Confedrate troops treated black and Indian civilians. Yes a some women were raped but Southern troops raped Mexican women. It's war and not every body is nice.
Leftyhunter
We aren’t talking about Mexican women. We aren’t talking about confederate troops. We aren’t talking about Native Americans.
We aren’t talking about the enslaved or free blacks.
And, we certainly are not talking about rape.

This is a thread talking about soldiers from the Southern states who fought for the Union.
 
Thank you for your post. Had there not been previous examples of his negativity, I could let this possibly pass. However, that hasn’t been the case.
The Civil War seems to stir passions--even after more than 150 years. There is too much negativity on both sides. There are good stories that came out of those times and there are lessons to be learned (one of which surely is to not walk that path again).
 
We aren’t talking about Mexican women. We aren’t talking about confederate troops. We aren’t talking about Native Americans.
We aren’t talking about the enslaved or free blacks.
And, we certainly are not talking about rape.

This is a thread talking about soldiers from the Southern states who fought for the Union.
Well then talk to @Lost Cause who mentioned the 1st Arkansas Union engaged in criminality.
Leftyhunter
 
If say within the first 3 months of the war, a southerners reaction was to make their way north to enlist in the Union army, they.would be an actual Unionist.......

However if in their reaction was to volunteer for the Confederate Army and serve 1-3 yrs with the Confederacy before feeling the fortunes of war were going the other way....then defecting and joining the Union..........you might just be an opportunist............

A high level of enthusiasm for secession doesn't seem to fit much with a real Unionist ideal....... Yet some seem to count secessionists who actually volunteered to commit treason...........as "Unionist"
 
Last edited:
Did confederate war measures such as conscription, impressment drive men into unionist units. Men who might otherwise would have just sat the war out as peaceful civilians.
Surely that must have had an impact and influenced some. Especially since most Southern Unionists were not part of the plantation culture or the southern aristocracy. My Union ancestors were not deep south; they were Appalachian and very much “back in the holler” folks.

I believe most Southern Unionists were from the backwoodsier regions, correct? Such folks might try to stay out of it if they could, but likely would not take kindly to being conscripted for what they might see as the southern aristocracy’s cause.
 
Back
Top