It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Civil War, which side would you be on?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 05:58 AM
Seeing as how my last two threads were crap and turned into a non-stop flame fest I decided I would take a different course.

The Civil War, we have two types of history and we have to decide which is correct first. On the one side is the Civil War like we were all taught in school and on the other side is the alternative(not meaning wrong) side of history.

Commonly taught:

It is explained in depth in this Wiki page:

Alternative history:

It is explained pretty good here:

So were you a Unionist, a person who supported the north and Abraham Lincoln?

Or were you a Confederate, a person who supported the south and Jefferson Davis?

This is a very touchy subject, and with the two different versions of the Civil War it's really hard to pick which side I would be on. But if you look at the country in the eyes of its' founders we were suppose to act as a Union not an actual federal nation. States were to be treated almost like countries and to impose on another countries will that was not permitted within the contexts of the constitution was illegal. So then it becomes a legal question. I support an end to slavery in any form, but I'm not a fan of states' rights.

I don't think I can side with Lincoln on this one, he established a military dictatorship by stopping the Supreme Court. I just can't side with someone who can establish a military dictatorship and kill so many innocent people on both sides for something he could have done ecoomically.

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 06:06 AM
I responded to your last thread.. and it was without flame too.

I suppose I'll part ways with you here yet again, as I would have sided with neither and headed West.

The Civil War is a very complicated part of American History.. with several schools of thought on both sides. It was not merely a slavery issue in the way we see it today, as it wasn't a conflict over rights to property vs the immoral act of owning persons as property. I would have certainly been anti-slavery from the beginning, but I would have parted ways with the North when they decided the only way to end the stalemate was to shed blood over it. That has been our problem for as far back as history goes.. thinking we can solve problems with the barrel of a gun, so to speak.

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 10:36 PM
If I was an American it will either depend one of two things my family heritage being the first . If you go back to the American Civil War era then your place of birth would have determined what side of the war you fought on . This is due to the fact that trade tariffs played a greater role in the Northern - Southern divided then Slavery did . Slavery wasn't really an issue it was more about what powers the Federal government should or should not have .

Cheers xpert11.

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 01:40 AM
reply to post by xpert11

The first part of what you said is true. State loyalty far surpassed loyalty to the rest of the country. If South Carolina had joined the Union, then everyone there would have happily fought in navy blue uniforms.

However, the reasons for the civil war are largely about slavery. Slavery is mentioned in most of the succession statements as one of the reasons for succession. Trade tariffs were high because the South was using free labor, and could produce mass quantities of product for extremely cheap, almost free. This, in contrast with the industrial North, produced a very heavy ended economy.

I used to think that slavery wasn't a major reason, but I've since learned that what I had previously known was a revised history by southern conservatives. If you really look at the evidence, it's clear that Slavery caused the Civil War.

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:46 AM
reply to post by PieKeeper

If your assertion that Slavery was the primary issue and not the powers the Federal Government should have was correct then Lee would have sided with the Union . Lee sided against the Union because while he was against Slavery he didn't think the Federal Government had or should have the power to outlaw it . Enough said .

top topics

log in