It's 150 years since the start of the American Civil War...

[Relic]

The reason and causes behind that war are still being studied even today. It was a war about state's rights, it was a war about slavery, it was a war about economics and ideology, or to some it was just simply about defending your home and family with little regard to any of the above..
So.... if you could transport yourself back in time, which side do you see yourself fighting on?

(not only for US members, there were large numbers of recent immigrants or foreign "adventurers" in the ranks of both sides and there was also support for the South from Britain for instance, so non-US members with knowledge on the subject, please feel free to chime in)

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

I have the same name as the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, but I'm glad he did not win.

[Deluge Of Sound]

Who said anything about fighting?

[beggar98]

The Civil War was fought over slavery, plain and simple. The efforts to make it about anything else are attempts by Confederate apologists after the war to make the staggering death toll seem worthwhile. Yes, they fought for states' rights- the states' right to keep slaves. Yes, they fought for economic issues- their economy would (and did) collapse without slave labor. I would fight for the United States.

[MakiSupaStar]

I like the idea of state's rights, but when they're standing up to defend their right to maintain their economy built upon slave labor, then I would definitely be on the Union side.

[Bassman316]

Originally Posted by beggar98

The Civil War was fought over slavery, plain and simple. The efforts to make it about anything else are attempts by Confederate apologists after the war to make the staggering death toll seem worthwhile. Yes, they fought for states' rights- the states' right to keep slaves. Yes, they fought for economic issues- their economy would (and did) collapse without slave labor. I would fight for the United States.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about the issue and where I would stand had today been April 12 1861.

[Phalex]

Originally Posted by Relic

The reason and causes behind that war are still being studied even today. It was a war about state's rights, it was a war about slavery, it was a war about economics and ideology, or to some it was just simply about defending your home and family with little regard to any of the above..
So.... if you could transport yourself back in time, which side do you see yourself fighting on?

(not only for US members, there were large numbers of recent immigrants or foreign "adventurers" in the ranks of both sides and there was also support for the South from Britain for instance, so non-US members with knowledge on the subject, please feel free to chime in)

What are your recollections about it as events unfolded?

[iamlowsound]

I would stay in Canada

lowsound

[sloasdaylight]

I'm not sure which side I would have fought on, would almost certainly have depended on where I lived, same as everyone else in this thread.

Asking a question like "Which side of the Civil War would you have fought on" in 2011 is kind of a weird one, because the default answer for 95% of people probably will be to fight for the Union, because 150 years of hindsight is better than 20/10 vision.

Originally Posted by beggar98

The Civil War was fought over slavery, plain and simple. The efforts to make it about anything else are attempts by Confederate apologists after the war to make the staggering death toll seem worthwhile. Yes, they fought for states' rights- the states' right to keep slaves. Yes, they fought for economic issues- their economy would (and did) collapse without slave labor. I would fight for the United States.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[MJ5150]

This feels like a trap question. The first person to say "I would have fought with the South" is going to be painted as a racist and ignorant fool.

-Mike

[sloasdaylight]

Originally Posted by MJ5150

This feels like a trap question. The first person to say "I would have fought with the South" is going to be painted as a racist and ignorant fool.

-Mike

This was pretty much my impression too. Many of the southerners who fought in the Civil war did not own slaves themselves, and likely never would. To them, they were fighting to defend their homes and family. To others, it was about whether or not a State should be able to separate itself from the Union if it felt it's rights were being infringed upon. To others Slavery and racism were definitely their main motivators. I'd be willing to wager however that if you asked the average Johnny Reb why they were fighting, they would give you an answer that had little to do with slavery.

[baba]

Originally Posted by beggar98

The Civil War was fought over slavery, plain and simple. The efforts to make it about anything else are attempts by Confederate apologists after the war to make the staggering death toll seem worthwhile. Yes, they fought for states' rights- the states' right to keep slaves. Yes, they fought for economic issues- their economy would (and did) collapse without slave labor. I would fight for the United States.

Word.

[Mark Latimour]

Originally Posted by sloasdaylight

This was pretty much my impression too. Many of the southerners who fought in the Civil war did not own slaves themselves, and likely never would. To them, they were fighting to defend their homes and family. To others, it was about whether or not a State should be able to separate itself from the Union if it felt it's rights were being infringed upon. To others Slavery and racism were definitely their main motivators. I'd be willing to wager however that if you asked the average Johnny Reb why they were fighting, they would give you an answer that had little to do with slavery.

If you asked the average soldier why they were fighting in Iraq, Vietnam etc do you think they would give the same answer as the politicians who sent them there? I think there is a distinct difference between why a war is fought and why any individual person / soldier might fight. They are not necessarily the same thing.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by sloasdaylight

This was pretty much my impression too. Many of the southerners who fought in the Civil war did not own slaves themselves, and likely never would. To them, they were fighting to defend their homes and family. To others, it was about whether or not a State should be able to separate itself from the Union if it felt it's rights were being infringed upon. To others Slavery and racism were definitely their main motivators. I'd be willing to wager however that if you asked the average Johnny Reb why they were fighting, they would give you an answer that had little to do with slavery.

The Confederate military had a surprising amount of similarity to George Washington's army.
One aspect which is often over-looked is the fact that the colonies at the time were fighting (in small part) to hang on to the institution of slavery, yet we celebrate his victories and accomplishments while pushing the whole slavery aspect under the rug.. we do not do that with Lee's army. To many the slavery issue is the one and only aspect that is focused upon..?

[Relic]

BTW - it's not an intended trap question, not at all. I just like talking about history and I may sometimes ask weird questions like that to get up some good convo

[MJ5150]

Originally Posted by Relic

The Confederate military had a surprising amount of similarity to George Washington's army.

Pssstttt. Hey, in case you didn't know, those armies are from two different wars bro.



-Mike

[Relic]

Originally Posted by MJ5150

Pssstttt. Hey, in case you didn't know, those armies are from two different wars bro.



-Mike

Geezus, I know that! I just worded that oddly. What I mean is that in the US Revolution the Continental Army was led by a slave-owner. Part of the economy of the original colonies was based on slave labor - we fought for "freedom from tyranny" yet we kept the slaves...how is that different from Robert E Lee's army in 1861, I ask?

[Diogenes]

In the war of Northern Aggression I would have been the aggressor.

[sloasdaylight]

Originally Posted by Relic

Geezus, I know that! I just worded that oddly. What I mean is that in the US Revolution the Continental Army was led by a slave-owner. Part of the economy of the original colonies was based on slave labor - we fought for "freedom from tyranny" yet we kept the slaves...how is that different from Robert E Lee's army in 1861, I ask?

It's different in the sense that the Colonists didn't have a say in the parliament, whereas the Southern States did have voting members in Congress. Ultimately though both wars are similar because in 1775/6 we decided we didn't like the way the Government in charge did things, and did something about it. In 1861, the Southern States did the same.

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by Relic

The reason and causes behind that war are still being studied even today. It was a war about state's rights, it was a war about slavery, it was a war about economics and ideology, or to some it was just simply about defending your home and family with little regard to any of the above..

It was a war about state's rights - to have slavery.

It was a war about economics and ideology - of slavery.

For most southern enlisted soldiers, it was just simply about defending your home and family with little regard to any of the above.