If the USA had just shot the Southern attackers for treason,

[Porker]

instead of engaging in war for the theft of national lands and attacks on United States citizens, would the Confederate apologists still be whining or would we have been well past their century plus whine fest?

It took them 4 years to defeat the Confederacy even though the Southern army was outnumbered more than 3 to 1. No arms/ammunition plants in the south, no rail system to speak of and still fought a war that lasted four years. I don't believe it would have been simple to just execute a few people for treason except maybe in your weak ass mind. Next....

Another one who doesn't know any history.

The shit is oozing from your ears...that's how full of shit you really are. You obviously can't find your ass with either hand.

So then you are evidently completely unaware of the industrial infrastructure built up in Georgia and Alabama after secession. The confederacy produced over two thousand artillery pieces and more than 100,000 rifles, besides all the arms they imported from Europe.

You better educate yourself a WHOLE LOT BETTER before you go making shit up you pulled from your ass. This site is somewhat correct...most estimates are less than 900,000 men (many really just boys) fought for the Confederacy during the ENTIRE WAR. And the weaponry was TOTALLY IN FAVOR OF THE NORTH as was tranportation by rail. Get some facts before shooting off your ass.

Civil War Military Comparison Weapons North South Total List

 

[Liminal]

instead of engaging in war for the theft of national lands and attacks on United States citizens, would the Confederate apologists still be whining or would we have been well past their century plus whine fest?

It took them 4 years to defeat the Confederacy even though the Southern army was outnumbered more than 3 to 1. No arms/ammunition plants in the south, no rail system to speak of and still fought a war that lasted four years. I don't believe it would have been simple to just execute a few people for treason except maybe in your weak ass mind. Next....

Another one who doesn't know any history.

The shit is oozing from your ears...that's how full of shit you really are. You obviously can't find your ass with either hand.

So then you are evidently completely unaware of the industrial infrastructure built up in Georgia and Alabama after secession. The confederacy produced over two thousand artillery pieces and more than 100,000 rifles, besides all the arms they imported from Europe.

You better educate yourself a WHOLE LOT BETTER before you go making shit up you pulled from your ass. This site is somewhat correct...most estimates are less than 900,000 men (many really just boys) fought for the Confederacy during the ENTIRE WAR. And the weaponry was TOTALLY IN FAVOR OF THE NORTH as was tranportation by rail. Get some facts before shooting off your ass.

Civil War Military Comparison Weapons North South Total List

Your unfounded characterizations of the Confederacy were untrue non the less.

 

[Liminal]

How do you spin the other side? The cons were in the wrong.

Spin what? I have no romantic notions regarding the Confederacy and couldn't care less about the south rising again. I simply see that the right to secede is clear, and that Lincoln started a war to force people into a government they didn't want because he wanted their money. Yet somehow people who would laugh at him as just another crook if he were from some other country regard him as "Father Abraham" and so on and so forth.

There is no right to secede; never was.

There is a method to call a Constitutional convention, if enough states ever want to discuss dissolving the Union.

Playing "what if" now, about what happened then, is pointless.

Shit, we have major problems here; the next Presidential election is going to hinge on whether gays can order dick and balls cakes from Christian bakeries.

Let's get real!

Where in the Constitution does it say states can't secede? I did notice a list of powers granted the federal government and a clause saying all other powers are granted the States or the People.

Where in the Constitution does it say you can secede? Why isn't there any clause or legal process specified in the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives a state the power to dissolve the union.

There is no mention of dissolving the union, hence that power is left to the states.
The Constitution does not limit the states beyond several enumerated powers spelled out specifically.
Shall I mail you a copy of the Constitution? I keep several of the bar at Doc's

That seems like a ridiculous premise. Could counties then secede from a state any time they feel like it?

 

[Liminal]

It took them 4 years to defeat the Confederacy even though the Southern army was outnumbered more than 3 to 1. No arms/ammunition plants in the south, no rail system to speak of and still fought a war that lasted four years. I don't believe it would have been simple to just execute a few people for treason except maybe in your weak ass mind. Next....

Another one who doesn't know any history.

The shit is oozing from your ears...that's how full of shit you really are. You obviously can't find your ass with either hand.

So then you are evidently completely unaware of the industrial infrastructure built up in Georgia and Alabama after secession. The confederacy produced over two thousand artillery pieces and more than 100,000 rifles, besides all the arms they imported from Europe.

You better educate yourself a WHOLE LOT BETTER before you go making shit up you pulled from your ass. This site is somewhat correct...most estimates are less than 900,000 men (many really just boys) fought for the Confederacy during the ENTIRE WAR. And the weaponry was TOTALLY IN FAVOR OF THE NORTH as was tranportation by rail. Get some facts before shooting off your ass.

Civil War Military Comparison Weapons North South Total List

Your unfounded characterizations of the Confederacy were untrue non the less.

I've forgotten more about the Civil War than you ever knew.

 

[Porker]

You better educate yourself a WHOLE LOT BETTER before you go making shit up you pulled from your ass. This site is somewhat correct...most estimates are less than 900,000 men (many really just boys) fought for the Confederacy during the ENTIRE WAR. And the weaponry was TOTALLY IN FAVOR OF THE NORTH as was tranportation by rail. Get some facts before shooting off your ass.

Civil War Military Comparison Weapons North South Total List

Your unfounded characterizations of the Confederacy were untrue non the less. I've forgotten more about the Civil War than you ever knew.[/QUOTE]

You're are SO FULL of SHIT it's spewing from your mouth. Nothing like a punk trying to be an expert on something he knows absolutely NOTHING about it, whatsoever. What the fuck are you 11 years old?

 

[Porker]

One more time you dumbass...STUDY these statistics you illiterate little bastard.

Civil War Military Comparison Weapons North South Total List

 

[Porker]

Civil War Comparison

American Civil War Homepage

Civil War Comparison of the North and South
Northern and Southern States
Civil War Union and Confederate Comparisons
Total Populations, Manpower, Agriculture, Industry, Military, Casualties, Prisoners



Introduction

Civil War comparison between the North and South covers many aspects of the conflict. From comparing Union military and Confederate army capabilities; total Northern and Southern populations, manufacturing, manpower, and industry; list of weapons in the respective inventories of the North and South at the beginning of the war; army totals by year, with attrition rates; types of infantry, cavalry, and artillery weapons with totals; military strength and casualties per army and year; agriculture and industrial production; battle casualties, including killed, mortally wounded, missing in action, died of disease, prisoner of war deaths, and grand total deaths by state, as well as for the Union and Confederate military. This page contains additional pages with unique, rich facts, data, tables, charts, and statistics. Information has been compiled from US Census Bureau, Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, statisticians Fox, Dyer and Phisterer, The Union Army (1908), U.S. Military Academy, National Archives, National Park Service, Library of Congress, to numerous additional sources. Thanks for visiting and hopefully you will enjoy this site.


Civil War Comparison of the North and South

Map of the Northern, Southern, and Border States

The States of the American Civil War (1861-1865)

The Union, also known as the North, included the states of Maine, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont,Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan,Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, California, Nevada, and Oregon. Although Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States, during the American Civil War he was principally known as President of the Union. While Maryland, Delaware,West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri were known as Border States, they remained under Union control. Because the Border States were critical to overall Union victory during the Civil War, separate and distinct statistics have been applied. President Lincoln, for example, said that to win the Civil War, "I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky!"
The Confederacy, aka South, included the states of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama,Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia. Jefferson Davis was their President.

(Right) Map of Northern, Southern, and Border States. Two states were created during the four year Civil War. The western portion of Virginia seceded from Virginia and became the state of West Virginia on June 20, 1863, and Nevada received statehood on October 31, 1864. West Virginia was heavily recruited by both the Union and Confederate armies and was host to major battles and campaigns during the conflict. Nevada, according to the 1860 US census, had a mere population of 6,857, but its main contribution to the Union effort was financing the war with $400 million in silver. Nevada, per capita, was the wealthiest state in the Union.

Finance
Within the United States, the Union had $234,000,000 in bank deposit and coined money or specie while the Confederacy had $74,000,000 and the Border States had $29,000,000. See also American Civil War: From Cost to Casualties
Populations
The population of the Union was 18.5 million. In the Confederacy, the population was listed as 5.5 million free and 3.5 million enslaved. In the Border States there were 2.5 million free inhabitants and 500,000 enslaved people. Since the North controlled all the Border States, its population was included in the Union. Therefore the Union population was 21,000,000 free persons and an additional 500,000 slaves, and the Confederacy totaled 5,000,000 free persons and an additional 3,500,000 enslaved persons.




North and South Comparisons during the Civil War

Table of Civil War Military Comparisons between the Union and Confederacy






Ag

 

[Liminal]

You better educate yourself a WHOLE LOT BETTER before you go making shit up you pulled from your ass. This site is somewhat correct...most estimates are less than 900,000 men (many really just boys) fought for the Confederacy during the ENTIRE WAR. And the weaponry was TOTALLY IN FAVOR OF THE NORTH as was tranportation by rail. Get some facts before shooting off your ass.

Civil War Military Comparison Weapons North South Total List

Your unfounded characterizations of the Confederacy were untrue non the less. I've forgotten more about the Civil War than you ever knew.

You're are SO FULL of SHIT it's spewing from your mouth. Nothing like a punk trying to be an expert on something he knows absolutely NOTHING about it, whatsoever. What the fuck are you 11 years old?[/QUOTE]

The difference is: I know actual history, I read books. Unlike you, I don't need to refer to websites.

 

[Liminal]

One more time you dumbass...STUDY these statistics you illiterate little bastard.

Civil War Military Comparison Weapons North South Total List

You've just proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't know anything about anything.

 

[Porker]

Your unfounded characterizations of the Confederacy were untrue non the less.

That would be nonetheless. One word.

 

[Liminal]

Your unfounded characterizations of the Confederacy were untrue non the less.

That would be nonetheless. One word.

Spell check, I think you've found something you're good at.

 

[Ernie S.]

Spin what? I have no romantic notions regarding the Confederacy and couldn't care less about the south rising again. I simply see that the right to secede is clear, and that Lincoln started a war to force people into a government they didn't want because he wanted their money. Yet somehow people who would laugh at him as just another crook if he were from some other country regard him as "Father Abraham" and so on and so forth.

There is no right to secede; never was.

There is a method to call a Constitutional convention, if enough states ever want to discuss dissolving the Union.

Playing "what if" now, about what happened then, is pointless.

Shit, we have major problems here; the next Presidential election is going to hinge on whether gays can order dick and balls cakes from Christian bakeries.

Let's get real!

Where in the Constitution does it say states can't secede? I did notice a list of powers granted the federal government and a clause saying all other powers are granted the States or the People.

Where in the Constitution does it say you can secede? Why isn't there any clause or legal process specified in the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives a state the power to dissolve the union.

There is no mention of dissolving the union, hence that power is left to the states.
The Constitution does not limit the states beyond several enumerated powers spelled out specifically.
Shall I mail you a copy of the Constitution? I keep several of the bar at Doc's

That seems like a ridiculous premise. Could counties then secede from a state any time they feel like it?

Depends on the state Constitution, I suppose.
The US Constitution contains no such prohibition.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How do you spin the other side? The cons were in the wrong.

Spin what? I have no romantic notions regarding the Confederacy and couldn't care less about the south rising again. I simply see that the right to secede is clear, and that Lincoln started a war to force people into a government they didn't want because he wanted their money. Yet somehow people who would laugh at him as just another crook if he were from some other country regard him as "Father Abraham" and so on and so forth.

There is no right to secede; never was.

There is a method to call a Constitutional convention, if enough states ever want to discuss dissolving the Union.

Playing "what if" now, about what happened then, is pointless.

Shit, we have major problems here; the next Presidential election is going to hinge on whether gays can order dick and balls cakes from Christian bakeries.

Let's get real!

Where in the Constitution does it say states can't secede? I did notice a list of powers granted the federal government and a clause saying all other powers are granted the States or the People.

Where in the Constitution does it say you can secede? Why isn't there any clause or legal process specified in the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives a state the power to dissolve the union.

Seceding doesn't dissolve the Union; any states who want to remain in the Union are free to do so. Regardless, the Tenth Amendment makes clear that the States don't have to have their powers explicitly spelled out. Furthermore, it was understood during the ratifying conventions that secession was perfectly legal, otherwise states like Virginia wouldn't have ratified it in the first place.

 

[Liminal]

How do you spin the other side? The cons were in the wrong.

Spin what? I have no romantic notions regarding the Confederacy and couldn't care less about the south rising again. I simply see that the right to secede is clear, and that Lincoln started a war to force people into a government they didn't want because he wanted their money. Yet somehow people who would laugh at him as just another crook if he were from some other country regard him as "Father Abraham" and so on and so forth.

There is no right to secede; never was.

There is a method to call a Constitutional convention, if enough states ever want to discuss dissolving the Union.

Playing "what if" now, about what happened then, is pointless.

Shit, we have major problems here; the next Presidential election is going to hinge on whether gays can order dick and balls cakes from Christian bakeries.

Let's get real!

Where in the Constitution does it say states can't secede? I did notice a list of powers granted the federal government and a clause saying all other powers are granted the States or the People.

Where in the Constitution does it say you can secede? Why isn't there any clause or legal process specified in the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives a state the power to dissolve the union.

Seceding doesn't dissolve the Union; any states who want to remain in the Union are free to do so. Regardless, the Tenth Amendment makes clear that the States don't have to have their powers explicitly spelled out. Furthermore, it was understood during the ratifying conventions that secession was perfectly legal, otherwise states like Virginia wouldn't have ratified it in the first place.

Dissolving the union is exactly what secession does.

 

[Liminal]

There is no right to secede; never was.

There is a method to call a Constitutional convention, if enough states ever want to discuss dissolving the Union.

Playing "what if" now, about what happened then, is pointless.

Shit, we have major problems here; the next Presidential election is going to hinge on whether gays can order dick and balls cakes from Christian bakeries.

Let's get real!

Where in the Constitution does it say states can't secede? I did notice a list of powers granted the federal government and a clause saying all other powers are granted the States or the People.

Where in the Constitution does it say you can secede? Why isn't there any clause or legal process specified in the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives a state the power to dissolve the union.

There is no mention of dissolving the union, hence that power is left to the states.
The Constitution does not limit the states beyond several enumerated powers spelled out specifically.
Shall I mail you a copy of the Constitution? I keep several of the bar at Doc's

That seems like a ridiculous premise. Could counties then secede from a state any time they feel like it?

Depends on the state Constitution, I suppose.
The US Constitution contains no such prohibition.

Then you should have no problem if certain counties in Texas decide to secede from the state and rejoin Mexico.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Spin what? I have no romantic notions regarding the Confederacy and couldn't care less about the south rising again. I simply see that the right to secede is clear, and that Lincoln started a war to force people into a government they didn't want because he wanted their money. Yet somehow people who would laugh at him as just another crook if he were from some other country regard him as "Father Abraham" and so on and so forth.

There is no right to secede; never was.

There is a method to call a Constitutional convention, if enough states ever want to discuss dissolving the Union.

Playing "what if" now, about what happened then, is pointless.

Shit, we have major problems here; the next Presidential election is going to hinge on whether gays can order dick and balls cakes from Christian bakeries.

Let's get real!

Where in the Constitution does it say states can't secede? I did notice a list of powers granted the federal government and a clause saying all other powers are granted the States or the People.

Where in the Constitution does it say you can secede? Why isn't there any clause or legal process specified in the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives a state the power to dissolve the union.

Seceding doesn't dissolve the Union; any states who want to remain in the Union are free to do so. Regardless, the Tenth Amendment makes clear that the States don't have to have their powers explicitly spelled out. Furthermore, it was understood during the ratifying conventions that secession was perfectly legal, otherwise states like Virginia wouldn't have ratified it in the first place.

Dissolving the union is exactly what secession does.

Then how did the Union defeat the Confederacy if it was dissolved when the southern states seceded?

 

[Ernie S.]

Spin what? I have no romantic notions regarding the Confederacy and couldn't care less about the south rising again. I simply see that the right to secede is clear, and that Lincoln started a war to force people into a government they didn't want because he wanted their money. Yet somehow people who would laugh at him as just another crook if he were from some other country regard him as "Father Abraham" and so on and so forth.

There is no right to secede; never was.

There is a method to call a Constitutional convention, if enough states ever want to discuss dissolving the Union.

Playing "what if" now, about what happened then, is pointless.

Shit, we have major problems here; the next Presidential election is going to hinge on whether gays can order dick and balls cakes from Christian bakeries.

Let's get real!

Where in the Constitution does it say states can't secede? I did notice a list of powers granted the federal government and a clause saying all other powers are granted the States or the People.

Where in the Constitution does it say you can secede? Why isn't there any clause or legal process specified in the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives a state the power to dissolve the union.

Seceding doesn't dissolve the Union; any states who want to remain in the Union are free to do so. Regardless, the Tenth Amendment makes clear that the States don't have to have their powers explicitly spelled out. Furthermore, it was understood during the ratifying conventions that secession was perfectly legal, otherwise states like Virginia wouldn't have ratified it in the first place.

Dissolving the union is exactly what secession does.

Like if one employee leaves a company? You're daft.

 

[Ernie S.]

Where in the Constitution does it say states can't secede? I did notice a list of powers granted the federal government and a clause saying all other powers are granted the States or the People.

Where in the Constitution does it say you can secede? Why isn't there any clause or legal process specified in the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives a state the power to dissolve the union.

There is no mention of dissolving the union, hence that power is left to the states.
The Constitution does not limit the states beyond several enumerated powers spelled out specifically.
Shall I mail you a copy of the Constitution? I keep several of the bar at Doc's

That seems like a ridiculous premise. Could counties then secede from a state any time they feel like it?

Depends on the state Constitution, I suppose.
The US Constitution contains no such prohibition.

Then you should have no problem if certain counties in Texas decide to secede from the state and rejoin Mexico.

Not at all, but I really don't see that as likely. Do you?