Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In my school in florida, There wasnt much 'point of view' in the teaching of the war. It seemed very third-person. If there was any, it was from a northern stand point.
Living in TX and FL, they taught the same old south=bad north=good. If anything most southern states teach the same thing south=bad north=good. I have yet to see one defending the south. Most southerners I know just lived to except it, and grow with it. No one in the classrooms really tried to argue any of the logic, they just accepted it as "the north wanted to free the slaves", and "the south hated black people". That's just the way it is. Most dont really care, Heck I didnt even care, and still dont.LOL. Im done with highschool.
yeah my exp in h.s. was like this, was referring to my gfs experience at the college level...
Fight for my state and my people? Or legal slavery? Please clarify. There is a huge difference. And I am sorry for you if you don't see it.
What would have been the alternative? To fight for New England? Where vast fortunes were made on the slave trade? And where slavery was first legalized? Or certain states in the midwest where black people were actually banned from residency?
Would you fight for your state in any conflict, regardless of the subject, if your state had slavery? You don't have to be fighting for slavery, but know that in this scenario you are fighting to maintain a state that sanctions slavery.
Would you fight for your state in any conflict, regardless of the subject, if your state had slavery? You don't have to be fighting for slavery, but know that in this scenario you are fighting to maintain a state that sanctions slavery.
Yes. I would. As I said earlier, I would have been right there with my people, state, and region. The alternative would have been to fight against them.
Like the vast majority -- both North and South -- I expect slavery wouldn't have figured into it one way or another. I know in researching my own family history, I've yet to find any slave-owners. Most of mine were what most Southern families were. That is, poor farmers scratching out a living. They fought because they felt their homeland was being invaded. Likewise, most Northern boys suited up because, as they understood it, their honor had been insulted (i.e. the Ft. Sumter incident as presented to them via the pro-War northern press ).
I am not saying all this to start an argument/debate over the causes of the "Civil War" (there are other threads for that one), but merely to note that had slavery per se been the primary issue in a moral sense, then likely there would have been no war at all. As it is doubtful either side would have been able to muster even a division!
Awesome post! TexasReb, I think we all know your stance on the civil war but I have never related to it as well as right now. I'm a proud American but if anything ever happened I am a New Englander first and would fight for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts before any other 'foreign' country.
Thank you very much for this, TheWereRabbit. You understand very well the point I have always tried to make when it comes to this subject.
You are from Massachusetts, and by extension, New England. That is your home. It is the place on earth where you have roots, family, embrace the traditions and customs, and feel a special attachment to its history and culture. Just like mine are Texas and the South.
If the circumstances had been different. That is, if it had been the Northeastern states which had seceded (for whatever reason) and a war had begun over it all, then as you say -- and I completely understand and respect it -- your first loyalty is to your own home and people. And would be so today. Regardless of larger political and/or economic issues which you may or may not have an interest in.
You are a good man, Deacon...but I totally disagree with you that many of us (meaning we Southerners) would have been on the "other side"
I know I could NEVER fight against my home state and region. Could you? To my way of thinking -- which I freely acknowledge don't mean jack sh*t -- it would mean turning my back on my own people. And this I could never do. Whether back then, today, or even in the 22nd Century...
"Winners history" (and I don't blame them...we Southerners would have written it with a same slant had we won) as concerns the War has turned it into a rebellious Southern states versus the United States.
But thing is? It was not the South against the United States. It was Southern states against Northern states. It really boiled down to young men and teenage boys going off to fight for what they knew best and loved most.
Exactly as I would have have done. And would do so today. Why would I fight for Iowa, New York, or Michigan, simply because they kept the name "United States" by default? No, I would have then, and would do so today, stand with my own. And make no apologies for it.
If my home state were fighting for something as detestable as slavery (and yes, I know that the actual reason for the war wasn't slavery) then I could definitely go against it. My people are ALL of the people of the my home state and of the South...that includes black and white.
Yes. I would. As I said earlier, I would have been right there with my people, state, and region. The alternative would have been to fight against them.
Like the vast majority -- both North and South -- I expect slavery wouldn't have figured into it one way or another. I know in researching my own family history, I've yet to find any slave-owners. Most of mine were what most Southern families were. That is, poor farmers scratching out a living. They fought because they felt their homeland was being invaded. Likewise, most Northern boys suited up because, as they understood it, their honor had been insulted (i.e. the Ft. Sumter incident as presented to them via the pro-War northern press ).
I am not saying all this to start an argument/debate over the causes of the "Civil War" (there are other threads for that one), but merely to note that had slavery per se been the primary issue in a moral sense, then likely there would have been no war at all. As it is doubtful either side would have been able to muster even a division!
If a state legally sanctions violations of human rights in any way shape or form, then it is totally righteous for anyone to act against that state. No home or family loyalty could possibly ever justify fighting for a state that violated basic human rights in my mind. Just doesn't register. It sounds very selfish to me to put hometown pride over the suffering of millions.
Regardless of what the conflict was over, I would hope any post Enlightenment era human being would either be an insurgent against that state or at least an insurgent sympathiser.
In my experience with my children, they do tend to focus on the Southern side, Generals, etc....I know they teach the outcome but they do seem to study more on the south. I can't remember what I as taught though in Ca, though I'm pretty sure it wasn't biased at all lol since we were out of it! I wish I could remember what my daughter's teacher said though about the north, I was pretty shocked, it wasn't nice and it wasn't really part of the lesson, just opinion...ohhh I wish I could remember what it was,lol
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
