"Confederate or federal ?" Topic

Hello everyone,
As for ACW, what is your favorite camp?

The Confederates or the Federals?

And why?

You mean the Army of the Republic versus the League of Traitors Against Their Lawfully Elected Government?

I guess I made my view clear

Probably because great-grandpa George carried his pack in the 4th Minnesota under Grant in the Eastern Theatre

Union. Although I had distant relatives who fought for the South and I was born in South Carolina, and my son graduated from the Citadel, I am a died in the wool Yankee!

I'll play either side…. It's only a game.

@Frederick
Traitors? Yet I believe that some Confederates call this war their war of independence?

@Dye4minis
Yes but that doesn't matter because some born in the Union fought for the South and vice versa, so some born in the South fought for the Union.

@cavcrazy
I wasn't thinking about our games, but about the great butchery that was the ACW.

Federal for me too, at the end of the day, it at least got slavery universally banned in the states.

Federal. Because slavery. And in general, union is better than divisions.

If we are talking about gaming, I don't care what side I play.

My GG Grandfather was with the 79thPa from '61-'65.

Federals.

I grew up in Illinois, where the state motto is "Land of Lincoln."

So Federals.

Federal or Union as I prefer. no tolerance for rebels.

Faugh A Ballagh!

28th Mass.

I beleive some southerners refer to it as the WAr of Northern Aggression

All my family were Confederates. I am proud of my ancestores, who fought in the war of Northern Aggression and tried to stop the Union hordes from invading.

71st Indiana Volunteers. When Ashley Wilkes complained of Union regiments not even speaking English, he may well have been talking about Great-great Grandfather Piepenbrink and his neighbors. Presumably Mom's side too, but good luck sorting out Kunkels and Dietrichs in Pennsylvania.

But in a game, I'll play either side.

Union please.

Most of my research articles have been on the Alabama units though I had one article on Union Generals.
Family research showed some interesting facts. One ancestor joined the CSA was captured.and offered his release if he would serve in the Union army. This notation in local records showed hat this was common. The volunteers were stationed in northern posts or sent out west.
Another ancestor was given 100 acres of land if he would be a substitute in the CSA for a massive land owner. Other stories like the great uncle who liked to go hunting which meant he planned to ambush Union patrols into the Talladega forests. They always hated revenues. Lol.
Gaming does not matter. Painting CSA since they are more diverse.

War of Northern Agression?

Who fired the first shot?

It would have been better if Lincoln and Davis agreed to have a fist fight to decide the matter.

But it lieu of that, I'll play Union please.

Union. Anti-slavery.

You mean the Army of the Republic versus the League of Traitors Against Their Lawfully Elected Government?

It is really hard to resist going there isn't it. I am going to do my best to resist adding the fire.

I have always played Union and lots of my gaming buddies are passionate Confederates gamers so there is no problem with that. I do love the look of the AoNV battle flag.

Well if I'm picking a side it would be Union.

My sympathies are all with the U.S. (i.e. Union) side in the War of the Southern Rebelion, but in a game I will play either side.

I'll play either side. Its just a game. But the North had the moral high ground, and that's not just 21st Century hindsight (see abolitionists).

I had ancestors on both sides.

Sean Clark,
Who would have won a fist fight between Davis and Lincoln. Lincoln had a longer reach, and Davis was unwell much of the time. I there a wargame in here somewhere?

Union 100%.

1. To save the Union
2. To end slavery

A southern boy, so am partial to them. But very glad the Union won in the end.

Will play either side in a game.

have both sides in 15 and 28 :)

USA all the way, although it is a game so I don't care what side I play and I figures for both sides. I'm not generally in favour of slavery though.

Some of my pals are diehard CSA fans though.

@Frédéric
Traitors ?

Yet I believe that some Confederates call this war their war of independence?

@Dye4minis
Yes but that doesn't matter because some born in the Union fought for the South and vice versa, so some born in the South fought for the Union.

There are even many who were not Americans who fought in this war, which is amazing.

@cavcrazy
Well, if you choose the Union, why?

@Herkybird
Slavery?

I bet that at the beginning it was not a priority for Lincoln.

At first he wanted to preserve the union and if there had not been a threat of abolition, with what motive the Confederates could have seceded.

Furthermore, I think that the majority of Yankee soldiers were no more interested in the fate of the slaves than those on the opposite camp, it was certainly not for the blacks that they went to the massacre.

@lawyer
In my opinion, very few of yankees fought for the abolition of slavery.

Is unity better than divisions?

But the Confederates were also united and in a confederation there are more freedoms than in a federal state.

@79ePA
I'm not talking about play, because otherwise I believe that most players would choose the more powerful side.

You write that your grandfather GG was with the 79th Pa from 1961 to 1965.

So he was incorporated 100 years after the start of the war and liberated 100 years after his end?

@0ldYeller
Why?

@Mserafin
It's a reason like any other.

@ZULUPAUL
Fortunately there have always been rebels in the history of humanity.

@3rd5ODeuce
Cé chuige?

@oldjarhead
Yes, on April 12, 1861, the Confederate troops should not have fired on Fort Sumter in Charleston (South Carolina) held by units remaining loyal to the federal government.

They should have simply besieged it and we would have seen.

@377CSG
At least you have du "franc-parler"!

@robert piepenbrink
Were the Confederates more English-speaking?

In a game, whatever the period, I will not play both ways.

@martin goddard
Why?

@TimePortal
Are there people who are being fought on both sides?

What ?

The replacement existed in the U.S.A.?

@Sean Clark
Yes, on April 12, 1861, it was the Confederate which first fired on Fort Sumter in Charleston (South Carolina) held by units remaining loyal to the federal government.

They should have simply besieged it and we would have seen.
Lincoln and Davis could not fight, difference in size, if not weight.

@The Nigerian Prime Minister
Slavery?

I bet that at the beginning it was not a priority for the President of the United States.

At the beginning he wanted to preserve the union and if there had not been a threat of abolition there would have been no secession.
Furthermore, I think that the majority of Yankee soldiers were no more interested in the fate of the slaves than those on the opposing side.

@Marcus Brutus
I'm not asking this question in relation to the game, but if you had lived in the U.S.A. at that time.

@donlowry
What, Confederates aren't Americans?

@Cleburne1863
I'm not asking this question in relation to the game.

@Bill N
So you would have fought on both sides

@Texaswalker
Yes Lincoln and Davis could not fight, difference in size, if not weight.

@Grattan54
To save the Union?

So for so many millions of Americans wanting to leave it?

Furthermore, I think that the majority of Yankee soldiers were no more interested in the fate of the slaves than those on the opposing side.

@pzivh43
And at the time you would have fought for the confederacy?

@Wolfshanza
15 and 28 = 1528 :)

@Martin Rapier
It is in our time that people are not generally in favor of slavery, but at the time I think that the majority of fighters did not care about it.

I too have noticed that there are many die-hard CSA fans among wargamers, but because of morale many others prefer to play the yankee.

It's not the same thing with WWII, the german armored troops , mechanized and motorized troops are still very popular.

My state was Union, my friends and immediate family are here. If I was in the same situation and state in 1861, I would have fought for the Union.

Obviously if I had lived in North Carolina in 1861, my views and side would probably have been different.

I thought my relatives all fought for the Union. After gleaning our genealogy, I have found I was wrong. The family originally migrated to North Carolina. Most moved elsewhere, mostly Indiana. But a few stayed in NC and 1 went to Texas while still under the Mexicans.

I had relatives in many Indiana Regiments as well as some in Illinois and Iowa, and maybe Ohio. But I had 5 in NC regiments and 2 in Terry's Texas Rangers.
Some died on both sides and may have fought each other.

I was born in northern Minnesota and am pro-Union. However, a few years back I was told by a psychic that I was once a southern officer of the 10th Virginia Infantry and surrendered what was left of my command at Appomattox.

Believe what you will, but reincarnation definitely tempered my smug attitude!

Paskal, don't be difficult. It is clear that my meaning was 1861-1865 since this is a civil war discussion on a civil war thread.

I don't see how this topic of yours could be about anything other than gaming.

Paskal, your last question was "and why?" I answered your question why. I play both sides, but the Union was right.
It looks to me that you are just looking to argue.

do you want to be morally right and legally wrong or legally right and morally wrong? Down with Federalism.

Pascal, doing history into the side your ancestors fought on is easy, even for a beginner. However you need to be in the area of where they lived.
Church records especially for those in the cemetery may be an option. County courthouse records may be available. Unfortunately in the late 1800s and early 1900s, many courthouses burned during a depression in order to hide the evidence of back taxes due. In Alabama over 60 of 67 burned.
Local historical groups may have records since many compilation of service were written during the 50 & 100 year celebrations.
Land for service was common and I had three great uncles who took advantage of it. One uncle left the area and moved to Arkansas in 1861 and returned in 1865. All of these were Robertsons. Pinkeye was the one who agreed to serve in garrison after capture. This was after exchanges ended.

@Bill N
So you would have fought on both sides

@ Pascal: I probably would have fought for the side where I was living. If you lived in the South and didn't volunteer you would probably have been drafted. If you lived in the North and were under your mid 30's there would have been strong social pressure and attractive financial incentives to sign up.

The reasons why peoples ancestors took up arms for one side or the other vary. Claiming that people's motivations were simply about states' rights or liberating slaves might apply to some, but not others. In his memoirs Sherman wrote that when he met with Lincoln after his March to the Seas was completed, Lincoln was eager to hear the stories of how thousands of Southern civilians, mostly women, children, and old men, were plundered, sometimes murdered, and rendered homeless. Lincoln, according to Sherman, laughed almost uncontrollably at the stories. Even Sherman's biographer Lee Kennett, who writes very favorably of the general, concluded that had the Confederates won the war, they would have been "justified in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants."

Just as most Russians were probably not motivated by their love of Stalin or Communism to fight the Germans, but by the outrages of the Nazi invaders, so too were many in the South motivated to take up arms against Yankees for far more basic reasons than states' rights. When my father was a boy, his grandmother lived with him. His grandmother lived through the Civil War and witnessed the outrages committed by Union soldiers in North West Arkansas first hand. She passed these stories down to my father. About 15 years ago her stories prompted me to do a little research into the atrocities committed by Yankees in my part of Arkansas. I will be happy to post some of the reports that I discovered in my research (both from the Union side and the Confederate side) concerning specific outrages. Suffice us to say that if I were to witness such outrages committed against my family and neighbors today by soldiers, then I would do the same thing my ancestors did and take up arms against the barbarians.

As a Southerner born and bred I would have fought for the Confederacy although I subscribe to a comment attributed to Grant that "better men never fought for a worse cause."

I shall prefer not to say…

To finish my supplemental comments. In the South if your spouse received death benefits from the State which started in 1875, after Reconstruction, the husband fought for the South. However if you got benefits earlier than 1875 then he fought for the North.

@35thOVI
Yes, very, very difficult normally to fight those you meet every day and sometimes since childhood and sometimes members of your family.

@P Carl Ruidl
Thank God, I don't know any medium.

@79thPA
I know but you made me laugh.

@Cleburne1863
No, but some people think the question concerns wargaming, which is not the case.

@mildbill
hi EEE' ya!

@TimePortal
"The story of the side your ancestors fought for is easy, even for a beginner.However, you must be in the area where they lived."

And what do you do with those who were not Americans and yet fought in the ACW?

They made a well-considered choice.

@Bill N
It was not systematic.

@Kevin C
Well said.

Freeing slaves could apply to only a tiny minority and Lincoln was no saint.

Yes, people generally forget the atrocities committed by the Yankees during this war and I would also take up arms against the barbarians, already seeing that in ordinary life, I get angry very easily.

@Shagnasty
"the best men never fought for a worse cause."

What was bad about this cause for him?

@Murphy
hi EEE' ya!

" Yes, very, very difficult normally to fight those you meet every day and sometimes since childhood and sometimes members of your family."

Yes Paskal, I believe some try and interject the beliefs of today, with what their decisions would have been then. People are a product of their times. The beliefs, views and morals of 1860, were very different than today. So what one would have done then, might very well have been different. If you lived in Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, you would more than likely fought for the Union. If you lived in Tennessee, Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama, you would most probably have fought for the Confederacy. that was your home, your family, your friends, your morals and your beliefs. There were those who did not follow the dictates of their home state, but they were a minority. Then of course there were those drafted, or grabbed off the immigrant ships and thrown into the fray.

@35thOVI
Yes there were those who were forcibly conscripted or torn from immigrant ships and thrown into the fray, precisely, those who were torn from immigrant ships should have been able to choose.

Moreover, emigrating to a country in the middle of a war is strange, what did they think, that they could be neutral?

"Moreover, emigrating to a country in the middle of a war is strange, what did they think, that they could be neutral?"

A better life, land, famine, work, a criminal trying to get away, a fortune, religious persecution, oppression by another country, family. There were as many reasons as people immigrating.

Or if you lived in a border state, you made your own choice. One of my great-grandfathers was a private in the 20th Kentucky (Union), and fought at Shiloh on the 2nd day (Nelson's division). His regiment was later captured by Morgan's cavalry near the start of his raid across the Ohio. He was later a 1st Lt. in the 48th Ky Mounted Infantry, which fought guerillas and raiders in Kentucky.

A GGF on the other side of my family tree was conscripted into the Confederate Army (I suspect during a cavalry sweep through western KY while Hood was "besieging" Nashville.) The story in the family was that he bitched so loudly and so often that they finally let him go home, but I suspect that he just walked off one night when no one was watching. There was an old musket in the family that my brother and I used to play with as kids that I think was his. Don't know what happened to it, but I still have a bayonet that I think went with it.

@35thOVI
There were as many reasons as people who immigrated, but it was certainly not to go to war.

Isn't emigrating to a country at war weird?

@donlowry
hi EEE' ya!

Or not?

Federals. For all sorts of reasons--even though I'm distantly related to George Pickett :)

"There were as many reasons as people who immigrated, but it was certainly not to go to war.

Isn't emigrating to a country at war weird?"

Actually some were willing, on both sides. Also for some it was steady pay, food and clothing, unlike what they might be facing otherwise.

Yes emigrating to a country at war may seem odd, but they have been doing that into the US since the beginning. The potential outweighs the risks, I guess, or what you left was worse.

My ancestors came during a time of war. But they were in an area of Europe being overrun by Prussian, German States, Austrian and French armies constantly during the mid 1700's. They settled on the frontier, fought Indians and then fought on the Colonial side in the Revolutionary War.

Moreover, emigrating to a country in the middle of a war is strange, what did they think, that they could be neutral?

Abroad at that time the Union Federal Army was perceived as an army of foreigners and emigrants from Europe

there were also 40 to 100 000 Canadians coming from a neutral neighbouring country who choose to cross the border or remaining in New England and taking part in the this foreign civil war