Discussion Who Would You Fight For North Or South Where You Live Today...

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
I wouldn't call people who fight to enslave their fellow Southerners Patriots. I have mentioned them before and we're talking about a small amount of men.
Leftyhunter
Due to its location, the state's local militia companies remained under state status because of the great number of Southern sympathizers, the Indian threat, and possible foreign attack. The state followed the usual military practice of mustering militia companies into regiments. These Volunteers maintained military posts vacated by the regular army units that were ordered east. However,
I wouldn't call people who fight to enslave their fellow Southerners Patriots. I have mentioned them before and we're talking about a small amount of men.
Leftyhunter
Lefty, I would consider a great number a lot. It seems most California unionist patriots spent their time killing Indians which was even worse.

Due to its location, the state's local militia companies remained under state status because of the great number of Southern sympathizers, the Indian threat, and possible foreign attack. The state followed the usual military practice of mustering militia companies into regiments. These Volunteers maintained military posts vacated by the regular army units that were ordered east. However, a number of state militias disbanded and went east. Several of these companies offered their services and were accepted by the Union Army.

The 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th Regiment California Volunteer Infantry and the 1st Battalion California Volunteer Mountaineers provided internal security in Northern California, Oregon, and Washington Territory. 2nd and 6th Volunteer Infantry Regiments and the 1st Battalion California Volunteer Mountaineers served in the Bald Hills War and some other companies in the Snake War.

 

huskerblitz

Captain
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Location
Nebraska
Nebraska sent a little over 3,000 men to serve in the Union army, roughly about 1/3 of the eligible number who could serve.

With that said, I would have remained neutral.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
Germany
If it's 1861 where you live today which side you would fight for?
I´m not sure about the question, as I see it too many things are left open for an answer. Do I know what I know today, as in teleported to that time? Because that is decisive in each and every aspect and a total gamechanger. Without knowlege we only have our current sentiments towards certain matters ... and those lead back to the previous point as they´re built on upbringing, education and experiences and thus knowledge (and of course linked to the current time). Knowledge or not? I think what-ifs need thought and some clear positions to work properly.

Of course where I live today (or originate from) is pretty much off the map when it comes to the ACW, be it then or now. But chances were pretty good for migrating back then - my region saw quite an exodus during that century due to poverty, bad harvests and further social and political upheavel (and immigration was comparably easy).
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Due to its location, the state's local militia companies remained under state status because of the great number of Southern sympathizers, the Indian threat, and possible foreign attack. The state followed the usual military practice of mustering militia companies into regiments. These Volunteers maintained military posts vacated by the regular army units that were ordered east. However,

Lefty, I would consider a great number a lot. It seems most California unionist patriots spent their time killing Indians which was even worse.

Due to its location, the state's local militia companies remained under state status because of the great number of Southern sympathizers, the Indian threat, and possible foreign attack. The state followed the usual military practice of mustering militia companies into regiments. These Volunteers maintained military posts vacated by the regular army units that were ordered east. However, a number of state militias disbanded and went east. Several of these companies offered their services and were accepted by the Union Army.

The 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th Regiment California Volunteer Infantry and the 1st Battalion California Volunteer Mountaineers provided internal security in Northern California, Oregon, and Washington Territory. 2nd and 6th Volunteer Infantry Regiments and the 1st Battalion California Volunteer Mountaineers served in the Bald Hills War and some other companies in the Snake War.

My point is that it is hypocritical for those who supported the Confederacy to claim they were kind to the Indians vs the Union.
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
My point is that there was a lot of changing of minds during the ACW.
Confederate deserters often fought against their fellow Confederate comrades ; Ouch!
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Odd I always had the impression most enlisted in the first two years of the war......when both the president and congress had stated the goal wasn't to end slavery........Later in the war, they were being drafted...........
Not really. We have had previous threads on the draft and historians have been quoted that only five percent of the Union Army was composed of draftee's. There were Veterans regiments composed of those who had previously enlisted for two years.
Also some of our posters have asserted in previous threads that almost the entire Union Army deserted after the EP was issued even though they presented no evidence of that.
Leftyhunter
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

archieclement

Captain
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Not really. We have had previous threads on the draft and historians have been quoted that only five percent of the Union Army was composed of draftee's. There were Veterans regiments composed of those who had previously enlisted for two years.
Also some of our posters have asserted in previous threads that almost the entire Union Army deserted after the EP was issued even though they presented no evidence of that.
Leftyhunter
Not sure your point.......Are you stating you believe the majority of the Union army only enlisted after the EP in mid 1863?

Because if not the political conditions that existed when most enlisted is rather evident. As is the draft was implimented later in 1863 as well....
 

7thWisconsin

First Sergeant
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
I spent a long time thinking this out when I started studying the Civil War at the grand old age of 8. At that time, putting aside everything I thought I knew, I felt I would have been a Union man because I could not comprehend owning another human being. Since then, my understanding of the conflict has grown more complex, but my answer is still the same. I'm a Union man. I served honorably following the Old Flag, and I see no reason to change my loyalty. I genuinely believe all are created equal, and probably would have believed that had I lived where I live, and followed the profession that I have pursued in real life. Yep. I'm a Union man.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Not sure your point.......Are you stating you believe the majority of the Union army only enlisted after the EP in mid 1863?

Because if not the political conditions that existed when most enlisted is rather evident. As is the draft was implimented later in 1863 as well....
No my point is simply that after the EP the liberation of slaves in the Confederacy was a key goal of the Union. Draftee's only made up five percent of the Union Army. Many Union soldiers reenlisted post EP so they in essence fought to free slaves.
Leftyhunter
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

archieclement

Captain
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
No my point is simply that after the EP the liberation of slaves in the Confederacy was a key goal of the Union. Draftee's only made up five percent of the Union Army. Many Union soldiers reenlisted post EP so they in essence fought to free slaves.
Leftyhunter
As would be they originally enlisted to defend slavery in essence as well then.......as that was the stated position they originally choose to enlist under.
 
Last edited:

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
As would be they originally enlisted to defend slavery in essence as well then.......as that was the stated position they originally choose to enlist under.
Not true at all. At no time did Lincoln state that the Union was fighting to preserve slavery. Slavery was legal per the US Constitution and Supreme Court rulings but it was President Lincoln who freed slaves in the Confederate States and pushed through the 13th Amendment.
Preserving and expanding slavery was a specific policy of the Confederacy. So no it's not true that both sides had the same policy on slavery.
Leftyhunter
 

archieclement

Captain
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Not true at all. At no time did Lincoln state that the Union was fighting to preserve slavery. Slavery was legal per the US Constitution and Supreme Court rulings but it was President Lincoln who freed slaves in the Confederate States and pushed through the 13th Amendment.
Preserving and expanding slavery was a specific policy of the Confederacy. So no it's not true that both sides had the same policy on slavery.
Leftyhunter
Not sure how you draw such a odd conclusion, if both Lincoln and Congress express they have no intention to interfere with it, it's continuation is a rather obvious effect. One serving a country is in essence defending it's stated and existing policies. That is as true for one side as it is any other

If your trying to say one can serve without agreeing with every position of ones government, I dont disagree......that is also as true for one side as it is for any other
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

major bill

Colonel
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
So based on the OP. What if the Southern states seceded in 2020, because a president was elected in 2020 that wanted to find a way to slowly end slavery, what side would I fight on? By this I would have to assume that chattel slavery still exists in the United States in 2020. I suppose it is possible that from 1860 to 2020 the two sides could have made compromises that might have allowed chattel slavery to exist until 2020. My problem is I can not fully understand what those compromises would look like.

So without knowing what compromises were made over the last 150 plus years, it is hard for me to speculate which side I would fight on. Because I would have grown up with chattel slavery being both legal and morally acceptable in the United States, I would not be who I am today and I would need to take this in to consideration.

So because I live in Michigan, I guess I would fight for the Union. Still the assumption that the South would secede in 2020 over a president that want to find a way to end slavery is hard to comprehend. Although it is possible that chattel slavery could still exist here in 2020, it is difficult for me to understand what chattel slavery would look like in 2020.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Virginia Dave

Sergeant
Member of the Month
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Location
Waynesboro, Virginia
I live in Virginia and would fight to defend my own home & family if attacked. I would not fight to support slavery. Only to protect what was mine. If this makes me a rebel so be it. I could not afford to loose my only home and pull up stakes and move north. I would never be able to replace it, and at 70 would probable go to my grave a pauper. I guess I am just selfish.

*edited modern politics

To the Moderator. Sorry about that. Sometime trying to come up with examples to support my comments give me problems. I will be more careful. I never want to make anyone feel uncomfortable. Again my apologies.
 
Last edited:

7thWisconsin

First Sergeant
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
So based on the OP. What if the Southern states seceded in 2020, because a president was elected in 2020 that wanted to find a way to slowly end slavery, what side would I fight on? By this I would have to assume that chattel slavery still exists in the United States in 2020. I suppose it is possible that from 1860 to 2020 the two sides could have made compromises that might have allowed chattel slavery to exist until 2020. My problem is I can not fully understand what those compromises would look like.

So without knowing what compromises were made over the last 150 plus years, it is hard for me to speculate which side I would fight on. Because I would have grown up with chattel slavery being both legal and morally acceptable in the United States, I would not be who I am today and I would need to take this in to consideration.

So because I live in Michigan, I guess I would fight for the Union. Still the assumption that the South would secede in 2020 over a president that want to find a way to end slavery is hard to comprehend. Although it is possible that chattel slavery could still exist here in 2020, it is difficult for me to understand what chattel slavery would look like in 2020.
Chattel slavery does still exist. It's now called human trafficking, mostly related to the sexual industry. It is both illegal and morally repugnant. (Sorry, mods for the brief modern interlude. I couldn't pass up the PSA.)
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Not sure how you draw such a odd conclusion, if both Lincoln and Congress express they have no intention to interfere with it, it's continuation is a rather obvious effect. One serving a country is in essence defending it's stated and existing policies. That is as true for one side as it is any other

If your trying to say one can serve without agreeing with every position of ones government, I dont disagree......that is also as true for one side as it is for any other
I think we should take this discussion to one of the previous what motivates soldiers to fight thread's
In all candor none of the 21st Century Posters knows how they would react to fighting a Nineteenth Century War with 20/20 hindsight.
Leftyhunter
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

archieclement

Captain
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I think we should take this discussion to one of the previous what motivates soldiers to fight thread's
In all candor none of the 21st Century Posters knows how they would react to fighting a Nineteenth Century War with 20/20 hindsight.
Leftyhunter
Agree the slavery introduction was a red herring as both sides had it, so in essence both sides would be defending it

Not sure i agree posters today shouldn't know how they would react then. If one would defend family, friends and their communities today, see little reason to assume one wouldn't then as well.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top