Which side do YOU view as right?

Which side does everyone support?

I believe the question is overly simplified, and that neither side was completely right. That is always the case, but with the American war of 1861-1865 it was even more so than usual. Very complicated.

A more interesting line of questioning, to my mind, would be to ask what all the causes were, for each side, and to examine those at length. Not with the intent to say "Oh, this side had a just cause." or "Surely this side was wrong" but to try to learn why those men did what they did.

Once you learn about each side in great depth, then you can make guesses. If you study on side more then the other, you aren't getting a fair picture of the situation.

Well lean toward the Confedearcy, but I think the Union was right on soe stuff too.

Once you read about some of the stuff the yankees did, you don't like them as much.

Civility_C wrote:

Once you read about some of the stuff the yankees did, you don't like them as much.

How right you are!!! thats one of the truest statements Ive ever heard!

Why thank you, Sir.

I have heard both sides of the doing bad stuff argument. The South had Quantrill, the north had Sherman. If Jackson had had his way, all yankees wouldn't have been taken prisoner, just killed. Sheridan wasted the whole Shenedoah Valley. Quantrill butchered every man in Saint Louis. Sherman sent 400 women north to be raped.

Can you give some examples of non-partisan atrocites (against civilians)? See there is a difference between Sherman officially allowing and promoting (and getting promoted for promoting) total war against civilians and the Missouri Partisans who werent even officially Confederates... (their state never seceded) I wont deny the fact that the Partisans murdered and pilaged but look at the fact that they technically werent even Confederate! (though I and everyone I know look upon them as such) After Quantrill the biggest thing the South has pinned on them (as far as I know) is the "massacre at fort Pillow" (which though in my opinion wrong... It was a battle and it was not against civilians)! (By the way I have never heard of Confederates raping women (Not saying that Ive heard everything) whereas there are MANY acounts of Yankees doing it and gitting off scot free! (General Butler actually told his men to!).

Your Friend
General Lee

And what about the unfair trial of Henry Wirz? Yes it was unfair.

How 'bout the pillaging done? How about the story of 15 year old Union solider putting a knife to the throat of a woman, while she was trying to protect her children and property (no not slaves)?
As far as I know, that never happend when the Confederate army was in Maryland and PA.

YES Henry Wirz trial was totally unfair. Very little if any pillaging happened in MD and Penn. in fact the CS army was so strict about pillaging and plundering that they executed at least six soldiers who disobeyed orders by doing it.

What makes me mad about that was that he wasn't even american. A little known fact is that my great-great grandfather, quartermaster John A. Harman of Jackson Corps, had several houses dismantled despite the pleas of the inhabitants and floated the planks down river to Lee's army after Gettysburg. Stuart raided Cashtown and took several people hostage and emptied all the shoes from the city and took all the horses they could find during 1862. But, those are just a few examples.

You know what I like; all the different views. I agree that each side had it's strengths and weaknesses.

During just about any war regadless of what was stake, there were always a bunch of screw-ups from both sides.

That's just the way of war.

I agree with you there. I lean towards the union becuase they wanted they wanted to keep the Union together. I don't agree with all they did. I do think though that the people with good intentions (which were most) outway those who didn't.

If we want to look at atrocities, it is obviouse that we will find more northern crimes than southern, since most of the war took place in the south, and the Army of Northern Virginia was very strict on that subject. One figure I thought would have come up on this topic by now is Gen. John S. Mosby, CSA, another confederate officer who started out as a partisan ranger in West Virginia. He didn't commit a single war crime throughout the conflict, and was still able to drive Union commanders crazy, whereas Sherman felt he could only succeed by destroying the people themselves, and laying waste to the land.

As to who I think is RIGHT, that is totally different. I had to think a moment before answering the poll. I know that I support the south so far as that I would root for them. I think they were justified in their actions. But I also think it was in the interests of future generations for the north to win. It is very unrealistic to believe that two nations, formerly one, would be able to live peacefully side by side. Imagine the rush there would be to claim the plains lands not settled as of yet. That would probably give the North just the excuse it needs to set off another war with the runaway states. I don't think the Union ever would have given up hope of regaining the south someday. Besides this, the southern ideal of a loose, decentralized government was practicly hell to work with during a war, nevermind trying to hold that together during peace. The Confederate States of America probably would have dissolved even further when faced with these trials, sparking either their own civil war that any European nation seeking easy land might jump in on, or the unrealistic ideals would be declared faulty, and the whole point of the "southern revolution" would be lost. In order to hold off civil war or revolution, the Confederate government would be forced to either centralize, and make itself powerful enough to stop such an occurance. And the Union, and the rest of the wold, would be faced with a top-heavy republic bordering on dictatorship, that would most likely only be able to keep itself united while at war.

Thus the belief that the south's next targets of conquest would be Mexico and Cuba. These rumors were even fueled by candid remarks made by Confederate President Jefferson Davis to that effect. I'll stop now lol.

When i looked at the poll I admit I was a little suprised. I have run into more people then less who have favored the Union. As for who i consider to be in the "right", there is no doubt in my mind that the union had every right to do what they did. I just watched Gods and Generals a few days ago. Very good flick i thought.

OK COME ON POEPLE WHAT IS THE DEAL HERE? Sure the Union had it's faults but look at what they were fighting for. Not only to keep the nation strong and unified, but all the things thatwould be righted once the conflict was over. I'm not even gona get started on Slavery.
granted each side had it's faults but i firmly believe that the our country is better off because of The Union's victory.

The Opposition wrote:

OK COME ON POEPLE WHAT IS THE DEAL HERE? Sure the Union had it's faults but look at what they were fighting for. Not only to keep the nation strong and unified, but all the things thatwould be righted once the conflict was over.

You are right: the north was fighting to strengthen the federal government, strangling the natural soverign rights of the states themselves. THIS is what the south was fighting for: to maintain their rights. NOT slavery. Please read my earlier post on this subject. But I also agree with you that we are 100% better off because the north won. So, it's really alot of mixed feelings.

I fully agree with General Stuart.

Thnx

You're welcome

Hey, Civ, I like your sig.

Haha thanks

The scarey thing about it is now we have napalm and stuff. Total warfare is now truely total warfare.

Yah your right. I didnt mean they were fighting to preserve slavery, it was just a wrong that was righted. Persay.

Even though there was still slavery in parts of the North. But yeah it's a lot of mixed feelings.