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

I'd fight in the 2nd Michigan Cavalry of course!
87796688_10222403237968626_4287291266024079360_o.jpg

Rampage on the River: The Battle of Island No.10
The Perils of Perryville
 
Idaho was more concerned with the Oregon Trail and gold at that time. I suppose I'd been mining, farming, or something like that if I was in Idaho in 1860's.

But my ancestors on my dad's side were in TX, LA, and AR and they fought with their states when they seceded, to protect their farms and their families (not a slave among them). My heart is with them.
 
to protect their farms and their families (not a slave among them)

What were they protecting against in TX? Union occupation never went beyond Galveston and a couple barrier islands. Many (most?) Texas units spent the war serving outside of Texas.
 
Note, I also said Arkansas and Louisiana. No need to name anything there. And some of my TX ancestors were in action in Indian Territory.

What were they protecting against in TX? Union occupation never went beyond Galveston and a couple barrier islands. Many (most?) Texas units spent the war serving outside of Texas.

But the state, recently a sovereign nation in its own right (having seceded from Mexico), seceded from the United States and joined the other Southern states in seeking independence together on their own. Whereupon there were many who said, like many today,

"The secessionists had no good reason to leave. They left in response to a free and fair democratic election because they were dissatisfied with the result. They left unilaterally rather than making any effort to use Congress to effect peaceful, multilateral, mutually acceptable separation.

They deserved to be stomped into oblivion.
"

Saying "they left unilaterally without making an effort etc" ignores the national and sectional conflicts of the previous 30-40 years and is disingenuous at best. Whatever. States seceded. The President called in 1861 for troops to stomp them into oblivion quell the rebellion. More states seceded. Battles happened in 1861 and in early 1862. My TX ancestors joined up in March 1862. Doesn't seem that hard to understand. I can appreciate folks not agreeing with that decision, but in war you don't just sit on your porch watching the corn grow and the cattle graze, waiting for the largest military force in the world to show up in the next county before you decide to do something.

With all due respect... not trying to fight with anyone. But there's more than one opinion, more than one point of view, and a lot of the time, there's no good answers in 2020 for what they did in 1862. Grace, and peace, y'all.
 
Well let's see here. I was born and raised in Virginia. Lived in Virginia my entire 46 years.

Going back on both my mom and dad's side of the family....Virginia. Mom's side is from the Valley/Eastern Shore. Dad is Caroline/King and Queen and King William counties. All the way back until all direct lineages came to the colonies.

So yeah....for the Commonwealth I would fight.
 
I agree to the extent that for the first time (1860), that a sectional political party threatened to increased Northern political power permanently leaving the South unable to defend its interests whatever they were.



That is certainly A way to look at it. But, not very historical, IMO.
Lincoln and the Republican Party presented No threat to any rights of the southern peoples that did not threaten all the same rights of all the peoples of the United States except slavery of course.

As a matter of historical history, the continuing politiical controversy over slavery in ante-bellum America was not slavery as much as its expanson. The previous compromises by Congress, 1820 and 1850, were attempts to control its expansion; not the legality of slavery itself.

Your contention is correct only in relation to its refeerence to Slavery AND its expansion. Tosoutherners at the time, you could not touch the one without touching the other.
 
Well, at some point we have to exercise some judgement about what's worth fighting for and what the alternatives are.
I agree, entirely why I said I would fight for my state, whether then or today I would think family, neighbors, and your local community would always top the list, I honestly can't see anyone wanting to fight and kill everyone they know.

Politics would always be secondary to family and friends to me.

I would think before killing everyone you know, you might consider the majority of your community is right. Because honestly today anyone who is willing to kill the majority and their friends is generally considered a psychopath.........

If faced with a civil war today, I would defend the people I've known my entire life over abstract people i don't know from a state 1000 miles away
 
Last edited:
That is certainly A way to look at it. But, not very historical, IMO.
Lincoln and the Republican Party presented No threat to any rights of the southern peoples that did not threaten all the same rights of all the peoples of the United States except slavery of course.

As a matter of historical history, the continuing politiical controversy over slavery in ante-bellum America was not slavery as much as its expanson. The previous compromises by Congress, 1820 and 1850, were attempts to control its expansion; not the legality of slavery itself.

Your contention is correct only in relation to its refeerence to Slavery AND its expansion. Tosoutherners at the time, you could not touch the one without touching the other.

How were Southerners going to expand slavery into the western US by seceding from that country?
 
Because the question of slavery and what to do with its expansion was politically insoluable. i.e., It defied rational compromise by the normal give and take of conventional political processes provided in its basic laws(Constitution).
Compromise had been tried through the 50's without any permanent success. Southerners seemed to get more and more riled at not getting their way. The two sides are basically incompatible.
 
Where in Montana...? I've been all over Montana. It's one of the most beautiful states I've ever been to. I wouldn't want to spend a winter there but, spring/summer are fantastic.
Hey Viper, live in a little Mayberry like place about 30 miles south of the capitol Helena called Townsend . Love it but I do miss Bama sometimes lol .....
 
Hey Viper, live in a little Mayberry like place about 30 miles south of the capitol Helena called Townsend . Love it but I do miss Bama sometimes lol .....
Cool..! I've been to Helena, Missoula, Great Falls, Anaconda, & Kalispell. I dig Montana. I could live there from May to early Sept :cool: Not so much after.... lol
 
Back
Top