Southern unionism

[atlantis]

Would southern unionism have faded away if there had been no conscription? Is it not fair to view southern unionism as merely a reaction to conscription after the enactment of the first conscript law in contrast to the southern unionism that existed during the debates over secession.
Southern unionists also felt the harsh hand of union troops as they the ravaged the land, plundering/burning.

 

[Rhea Cole]

I am sure you already know this but you can't breed mules

Spoiler: how to breed mules

Mules are a hybrid between two different species, a male donkey and a female horse. Since horses have 64 chromosomes while donkeys have 62, this makes a mule's chromosome count 63, rendering them infertile. They have been prized since classical times for their ability as work animals, combining the hardiness and longevity of donkeys with the intelligence and obedience of horses.

I must be too literal minded to get the joke. Breeding is choosing the sire & mare that have the potential to produce a mule with the desired traits. I live in mule country & breeding is of paramount importance.

The homonym breed in the sense of a bloodline such as the Morgan is obviously not a mulish trait, nor would anybody think it so.

Link:

Breeding For A Mule? — Mules and More Magazine

by Lisa Fergason, Equines by Design, Sanger, Texas Reprinted from the January 1997 issue of Mules and More Do you want to raise a good mule colt? By good, I mean a mule that possesses a pleasant, willing disposition and conformation that allows him to be sound and athletic for

www.mulesandmore.com

Link:

MULE CROSSING: Breeding Quality Mules – Mule, Donkey & Horse Training with Meredith Hodges

www.luckythreeranch.com

 

[BuckPvt]

The creation of the state was not a yeoman uprising, it was a political/military fabrication.

As was the Confederacy. So it's hard to criticize getting out of something they same way they were gotten into it.

 

[archieclement]

As was the Confederacy. So it's hard to criticize getting out of something they same way they were gotten into it.

As was the Union demonstrated by the border states.

Whether then or now it's virtually impossible to have unanimous agreement on political issues. However numbers shows majority of union border states supported Union, as well majority of Confederate border states likewise supported Confederacy.

That's there is indeed minority dissent whether in Kentucky or Missouri....or Tennessee or Virginia doesn't change it was indeed minority. It's worth noting dissent was remarkably same in either sides border states.

 

[DanSBHawk]

As was the Union demonstrated by the border states.

Whether then or now it's virtually impossible to have unanimous agreement on political issues. However numbers shows majority of union border states supported Union, as well majority of Confederate border states likewise supported Confederacy.

That's there is indeed minority dissent whether in Kentucky or Missouri....or Tennessee or Virginia doesn't change it was indeed minority. It's worth noting dissent was remarkably same in either sides border states.

And it all had to do with how much the particular area was addicted to slavery. The more pro-slavery, the stronger the confederate sympathies.

 

[archieclement]

And it all had to do with how much the particular area was addicted to slavery. The more pro-slavery, the stronger the confederate sympathies.

Or simply politics, as it was only easy to switch sides along the respective border states.

That the Union had a rather undue fear of copperheads or KGC even outside border states would be more over politics then free states being addicted to slavery. There were certainly democrats however in free states.

 

[leftyhunter]

Or simply politics, as it was only easy to switch sides along the respective border states.

That the Union had a rather undue fear of copperheads or KGC even outside border states would be more over politics then free states being addicted to slavery. There were certainly democrats however in free states.

There were quite a few Democrats serving in the Union Army at all levels.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

There were quite a few Democrats serving in the Union Army at all levels.
Leftyhunter

Indeed including pro slavery, so kinds bursts bubble of people going to sides by slavery....

As well a significant part of anti slavery could be considered simply anti black, why they weren't abolishionists.

Alot of poor immigrants didn't want to compete against cheap freed slave labor anymore then they wanted to compete against cheap slave labor. Why many racial riots pre and post war particularly in North involve poor Irish immigrants........for those not wanting to compete against either, Democrats would represented maintaining status quo. They were fine with slaves as long as they stayed confined to slave states. Such a view doesn't translate to confederate really.

 

[leftyhunter]

Indeed including pro slavery, so kinds bursts bubble of people going to sides by slavery....

As well a significant part of anti slavery could be considered simply anti black, why they weren't abolishionists.

Alot of poor immigrants didn't want to compete against cheap freed slave labor anymore then they wanted to compete against cheap slave labor. Why many racial riots pre and post war particularly in North involve poor Irish immigrants........for those not wanting to compete against either, Democrats would represented maintaining status quo. They were fine with slaves as long as they stayed confined to

Yes one could be pro slavery but anti secession but at best thats a small part of the Union Army . Immigrants in NYC have nothing to do with Southern Unionisim.
Yes there was race prejudice in the North but no one claimed there wasn't. Define the word "many " in terms of rioting?
Some Democrats were pro slavery some weren't.
What's really racist owning human beings solely based on race. At least the ancient Roman's and Greeks owned slaves regardless of race.
Leftyhunter

 

[JerryD]

As was the Union demonstrated by the border states.

Whether then or now it's virtually impossible to have unanimous agreement on political issues. However numbers shows majority of union border states supported Union, as well majority of Confederate border states likewise supported Confederacy.

That's there is indeed minority dissent whether in Kentucky or Missouri....or Tennessee or Virginia doesn't change it was indeed minority. It's worth noting dissent was remarkably same in either sides border states.

Confederate border states? Do you mean second wave secession states? I also assume you mean the majority of people in the states instead of a majority of the states. Otherwise it implies at least one of the "Confederate border states" did not support the CSA.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Or simply politics, as it was only easy to switch sides along the respective border states.

That the Union had a rather undue fear of copperheads or KGC even outside border states would be more over politics then free states being addicted to slavery. There were certainly democrats however in free states.

No, there's definitely a correlation between the predominance of slaveholding in a part of a slave state and the predominance of the confederate sympathies in that part of the slave state.

But nice try at deflection.

 

[atlantis]

There is the possibility that southern unionists thought the union would do a better job keeping the country a white man's country. This was after all the primary motivation for northern unionists. What impact the EP and later confederate debates toward ending slavery had on southern unionist opinion appears unknown.

 

[archieclement]

Confederate border states? Do you mean second wave secession states? I also assume you mean the majority of people in the states instead of a majority of the states. Otherwise it implies at least one of the "Confederate border states" did not support the CSA.

If one wishes to refer to border states, certainly each side had states bordering the other.....as well both had crossover.

If one wishes to point to x percent from Confederate Tennessee going north or supporting north it's not in a vacuum. As there is also x percent from Union Kentucky doing the same to the south...........

That 75-125000 Kentuckians served Union and 25-40000 Confederate isn't that dissimilar to 135000 Tennessee serving Confederacy compared to 50k Union. 50k includes USCT or its 31K Union.

If referring to border states crossover, each sides border states certainly had it.......

 

[archieclement]

Yes one could be pro slavery but anti secession but at best thats a small part of the Union Army . Immigrants in NYC have nothing to do with Southern Unionisim.
Yes there was race prejudice in the North but no one claimed there wasn't. Define the word "many " in terms of rioting?
Some Democrats were pro slavery some weren't.
What's really racist owning human beings solely based on race. At least the ancient Roman's and Greeks owned slaves regardless of race.
Leftyhunter

Again not sure your rambling point.....you said some democrats served the north.....certainly many did. Most northern democrats were also not abolitionist.....Indeed look at 13th Amendment votes with south absent, which party primarily opposed it? The democrats, who were northern democrats......

Ones view of slavery certainly didn't make one either Unionist or Confederate. One could hold either view of slavery and still been loyal to one's state. Neither did one being pro or anti secession preclude one remaining loyal to one's state if it choose opposite course.

 

[leftyhunter]

Again not sure your rambling point.....you said some democrats served the north.....certainly many did. Most northern democrats were also not abolitionist.....Indeed look at 13th Amendment votes with south absent, which party primarily opposed it? The democrats were northern democrats......

Ones view of slavery certainly didn't make one either Unionist or Confederate. One could hold either view of slavery and still been loyal to one's state.

No one was loyal to one's state. A state is line drawn on a map. Its absurd to think one can only be loyal to a state by treating human beings as live stock because of superficial differences of skin tone.
There was no issue of state rights the war was over the issue of creating a separate slave republic not over being loyal to in inanimate entity known as the state.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

No one was loyal to one's state. A state is line drawn on a map. Its absurd to think one can only be loyal to a state by treating human beings as live stock because of superficial differences of skin tone.
There was no issue of state rights the war was over the issue of creating a separate slave republic not over being loyal to in inanimate entity known as the state.
Leftyhunter

Reality is most people remained loyal to one's states, whether states seceded or not.

So indeed loyality to one's states and community was a thing.

As well your rhetoric is rather bizarre, as if you think it was the issue of creating a separate slave republic......it was from another slave republic........both were slave republics, rather why Lincoln was stating he had no intention of interfering with slavery, certainly if referring to secession.

 

[leftyhunter]

Reality is most people remained loyal to one's states, whether states seceded or not.

So indeed loyality to one's states and community was a thing.

As well your rhetoric is rather bizarre, as if you think it was the issue of creating a separate slave republic......it was from another slave republic........both were slave republics, rather why Lincoln was stating he had no intention of interfering with slavery, certainly if referring to secession.

So loyalty to one's state does in a Southern sense means one is only loyal to ones state by owning human beings somewhat darker in skin tone then one's own. Yes slavery was certainly legal in the US but if it couldn't expand then slavery has a means of investment dies. There is a reason slave owners paid Fillabusters good money to try to take over Cuba and Nicaragua and or lobby President Buchanan to purchase Cuba from Spain.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

So loyalty to one's state does in a Southern sense means one is only loyal to ones state by owning human beings somewhat darker in skin tone then one's own. Yes slavery was certainly legal in the US but if it couldn't expand then slavery has a means of investment dies. There is a reason slave owners paid Fillabusters good money to try to take over Cuba and Nicaragua and or lobby President Buchanan to purchase Cuba from Spain.
Leftyhunter

Again both sides were slaveholding republics, so no different then loyalty in US slave states, or even free states as it was clear US was preserving slavery where it existed going to war, also again with EP exempting US states and territory.. It's pointless rhetoric as both sides had slavery, certainly if talking to secession events in 1861. Again why Lincoln was speaking precisely to its protection.

If wishing to rail against "slaveholding republics" the primary one certainly in our history was the United States, continuing through ACW as well. It certainly never only existed in only 11 states for only four years...........probably should go for the lions share if that's your desire.

 

[leftyhunter]

Again both sides were slaveholding republics, so no different then loyalty in US slave states, or even free states as it was clear US was preserving slavery where it existed going to war, also again with EP exempting US states and territory.. It's pointless rhetoric as both sides had slavery, certainly if talking to secession events in 1861. Again why Lincoln was speaking precisely to its protection.

If wishing to rail against "slaveholding republics" the primary one certainly in our history was the United States, continuing through ACW as well. It certainly never only existed in only 11 states for only four years...........probably should go for the lions share if that's your desire.

Yes but slavery as a viable money making proposition was endangered by not allowing slavery to expand which is something that pro slavery advocates readily admitted to many times. If the institution of slavery was secure then the ACW would not of occurred.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Yes but slavery as a viable money making proposition was endangered by not allowing slavery to expand which is something that pro slavery advocates readily admitted to many times. If the institution of slavery was secure then the ACW would not of occurred.
Leftyhunter

And yet the US had continued slavery for 90 years including ACW years. Certainly most historians note if the South hadn't seceded, slavery would certainly continued for foreseeable future. Certainly have never seen any able to predict a future end date.

If anything the south seceding hastened it's end, which would be good thing. So the republic that had allowed it to exist for 90 years, would also have allowed it to continue longer absent secession. So rather bizarre to ignore that republic........

 

[DanSBHawk]

Again both sides were slaveholding republics, so no different then loyalty in US slave states, or even free states as it was clear US was preserving slavery where it existed going to war, also again with EP exempting US states and territory.. It's pointless rhetoric as both sides had slavery, certainly if talking to secession events in 1861. Again why Lincoln was speaking precisely to its protection.

If wishing to rail against "slaveholding republics" the primary one certainly in our history was the United States, continuing through ACW as well. It certainly never only existed in only 11 states for only four years...........probably should go for the lions share if that's your desire.

If you believe that both sides were the same on slavery, then you're living in a fantasy land.