Which side do YOU view as right?

Thanks alot. anny helpfoel tips for that class.

Take sleeping pills before class.

Thanx Iron! Lol.

And as for you Stuart, if you compare victory to me missing your posts for a couple days, then you are...........hmm..haha...i dont have a name for you lol. It is time.

It's obvious that many people have a thing for the south, but, let me tell you something about the confederet's soldiers. Most of them would not have even faught for the south if they hadnt been drafted in the first place. I should think that if you were to ask a confederate soldier why they were fighting, there responce would be, "For my rights.", but the truth for most would be, "Because I was drafted." The souths drafting was much harsher then the norths. I do not believe in all of the unions reasons for going to war, but I DO believe that if they hadnt suceeded that eventually what would have eventually become the confederate states of america would be a unjust and cruelly racial country.

I will also add that todays goverment is definetely NOT flawless. Far from it, but it's a better turnout then i would have expected from the south and it's leaders.

I don't know how many people know this, but, North Carolina I believe it was that was forcing Quakers into the army. You ought to read some of the accounts of confederate brutality to them.

about the quakers, it might not have been right, but it is hard to pay attention to a person's rights when they have so long ignored their country's needs during war.

Now, Oppie, if you would READ my earlier post on this subject (if it's not here it might be in the "causes" forum) I did share my view of what would happen if the south had won the war.

There is a small movie on the subject, too.
Lincoln with blackface makes me laugh.

Um... IBG have you ever heard of the Union army and what they did to former slaves to get them in the army?

Many accounts have been taken, but I'm just going to go with the one in Hilton Head SC. A Union officer wrote about how the formerly enslaved people wouldn't enlist, so the army forced them to enlist.

I am sure some nutcase did something of the sort.

Yeah. Sherman. Some nutcase he was

No kidding?

Would I kid you? It wasn't Sherman that did it but he was in control of his army.

Sherman couldn't control everything that happened in his army. No one is able to.

I know that, but since he was in the area and was probably reading the southern newspapers (which most of this account was published in, though I didn't get it from there) he would have heard about it

He hated the newspapermen. He always said if he killed them, "news will come out of hell by mornin."

Yes I know that. I've done many a report on Sherman. That still doesn't mean he wasn't reading, or someone in high command, was reading the newspapers.

yourself.

IBG, it's not true that no man can control what goes on in his army. That's what we call responsibility. At the very least, if Sherman cared about righting the wrongs created by his evil mindless minions, (lol) then he would have relieved the officer who was responsible and released the former slaves. And Oppie, about drafting, you have no clue what you're talking about. Every single confederate who fought at Bull Run was a volunteer. But as the war ran on, the confederate government realized that they had to do something about the shortage in manpower. Haven't you ever heard about the population differences between North and South? The ratio is about 4 to 1 in favor of the north. You want to tell me about wrongful acts committed by the Confederate government? The Union had a draft too, you know, which is discraceful, considering the amount of available manpower there. Nobody goes into debth on this because it's quite embarrassing for the north, but Lee's ranks by the time he surrendered were filled with men over the age of 50, all the soul fruits of the draft, and records on boys below the age of enlistment are almost non-existent in the south. That's all that had been keeping Grant, the "hero" of the north, out of Richmond for a year. This is what whipped him at The Wilderness, whipped him again at Cold Harbor, stopped his masses at Spotsylvania, and almost wiped out half of his army at North Anna. Grant managed to turn the war into a siege, and starve Lee out of Richmond. Thus, it was economics that finally defeated the rebels. Not Grant, or his massive armies that had been cowed by a mere handful of old conscripts.

So it was

I said completely control his army. And, I think conscriptions really destroyed both sides.

I think that's true IBG, but if I was alive during the war I dont think I would have fought for eiher side had i known EVERYTHING that was going on.

sounds like you STILL don't know what was going on. ANYBODY can see that the South was in the right

General Stuart wrote:

sounds like you STILL don't know what was going on. ANYBODY can see that the South was in the right

Hah, all it would take for me NOT to fight for the south was the fact that they supported slavery.

Same here.

same with me.

I will take the stand of the British, get rid of Slavery and I would have joined. I am not so sure that they would have gone to the Souths aid just because of victories on the field. They did talk about it, but, they needed alot more then just that.