Your opinion of the CSA.

"Rich man's war. Poor man's fight.

Agreed, my friend

My goodness! The war was around 150 years ago. Who would be "they" now? I'm sure most of us have ancestors that fought on both sides. I was just reminded on this thread that so many Southerners fought for the North. However, I agree with you on the slavery part.

I don't know the difference between the draft and conscription. Please explain. I went through the 19 year old lottery in 1971 but wasn't taken.

The they's I was referring to abound on Civil War talk sites everywhere and that is strictly my humble opinion. I do not question anyones post or use them in discussion for or against, but when someone takes a personal shot at my intelligence or lack of it I take umbarge to it. As was the case in the post you have questioned. As a fellow historical fiction novelist I find the discussions on this board exteremely interesting and usually without personal rancor. With exceptions of course.

Mulejack

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conscription
Definition of CONSCRIPTION. : compulsory enrollment of persons especially for military service : draft ·

I don't see a difference.

Will

I understand, friend. Thanks for clearing that up. It can get pretty passionate here.

I don't think it would have made a viable nation.
I think the beating they (both sides, actually) took was necessary, and probably sufficient.

It's history, it's dead; it's ridiculous to go on whinging about it. Three great grandfathers were killed during the British massacre at Ft Griswold. And so what? It was a lousy, raw deal for the widows and children, but there's no point in going on and on and on about it. It was a war; ugly things happen in wars, and to be quite frank, they were among those who brought on the war. Is it just? Is it right? No, it's history. No more, and certainly no less.

Your point would have more merit if the South was not collecting a measly percentage of the revenue. If the South's leaving would cost so much, how is it that the economy of the North didn't suffer when the Southern states seceded?

R

If it had no such intent, why did the secession ordinance and the Charleston Mercury say "the union is dissolved?" Why did the new CSA send representatives to other states to talk them into leaving the Union? They knew they were dissolving the Union. Dissolve = destroy.

Disagree.... dissolve in this instance means leave. You have changed whatever was dissolved. If you dissolve a lump of sugar in water, you have not destroyed the sugar. You have changed it's characteristics.
The destruction came about with the firing on Ft. Sumpter. Absent that event, we would be looking at an entirely different history.

How else can you explain going to war other than to destroy your enemy. Is there some other unexplained reason for armed conf;lict other than to overthrow it's goverment as we did in the American revolution?

Mulejack

So conscription is basically the same as the old british navy impressment?

Yes there is. The Confederate govt. started the war with the intention of fighting a defensive war. This was one of their many strategic errors.

At the moment, I do not know, but if any were organized in southern Ohio, would that somehow be satisfactory to you?

The fact remains, there were Southerners from every state in the Confederacy that supplied men to the Union army and they numbered in the hundreds of thousands. If Lee had been able to have these men available for his use, he could have replaced ALL of his loses during the war.

Prior to Sumpter, there was no war!