This is a silly question, I think your side would depend almost entirely on the region you were living in. My ancestor was an immigrant living in Wisconsin who took the place of a drafted man for cash. Easiest 4 months ever then the war ended and he bought his farm.
So I said North.
But the CSA states weren’t composed of free people so they weren’t free to do so … I take it that’s your meaning? So why then support them?
Then every time one of the CSA states a had a tiff with the others it would have asserted the right to secede from the Confederacy. And the CSA could hardly have stopped them, given they’d just fought for exactly that right. The CSA would have ended up with a handful of states and a miscellany of independent unviable microstates. And then in 50 years WWI comes along and Germany wins it. Well done, CSA.
And on that note I’d have to go with the Union, being from the same great state that, you know, gave us Grant and Sherman. 
Don’t forget WWI. 
I’m not proud of it; my point was that it’s worth noting that not all Southerners placed region or state over nation. Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles, when Southern officers would come to offer their resignations in the early days of the war, would often ask them to which they had sworn an oath before God, and to which they owed their education (most of them were Naval Academy graduates), career and standing in society, their state or the United States? The answer was obvious.
The Vice President of the United States was from Tennessee, as I recall.
Not first term, but it’s a good point. He was also a Democrat.
Yes. See post 97.
I don’t find it depressing at all. I find it realistic and honest. They’re not necessarily saying that they want to see slavery re-instated or want to kill all niggers. They’re saying that, assuming they grew up in the South of the mid-1800s, they would probably have been acculturated to value the sovereignty of their native State over that of the Union.
I can even understand why Southerners might have opposed slavery personally but felt compelled to take up arms against the Union. I thought GW Bush was a perfectly awful president who brought a number of odious policies into place, but I’d never have taken up arms against him and, if it were necessary, would have fought to defend the country, because I am an American and I love my country. And at that time, it was still “the United States are,” not “the United States is.” Many persons considered their primary loyalty to be to their state, not the alliance to which that state belonged.
Which isn’t a bad thing actually as that means no Nazis and Kaiser’s Germany would have liberalized.
Ah, I found it. My maternal ancestor was in Company I of the 34th Arkansas Infantry Regiment of the CSA. He and either two brothers or a brother and a cousin all joined up together in July 1862. He and one of the others both deserted five months later four days apart, while the other one deserted in August 1863.
Any idea why?
Where were they in action?
I have no idea why. All I have is my previous speculation, that maybe coming from the fringes of the Confederacy and not even owning any slaves had something to do with it. Since my next ancestor down the rung was born after the war ended, I’m very glad this one did not get executed for desertion. Since he deserted more than two years before the end of the war, I’d be curious to know what he was doing in the meantime, but no one is left who would know that answer.
Winfield Scott, who was general-in-chief of the United States Army, was a Virginian. George Thomas, who commanded the Union Army of the Cumberland, was also a Virginian. Sam Houston was a strong unionist and resigned as Governor of Texas when the state seceded.
I think there was a union “presence” in Northern Arkansas for most of the war.
Good catch. I hadn’t mentioned Scott, who told Robert E. Lee that Lee was making the worst mistake of his life in not accepting command of the Union Army.
I wonder if Lee would have later become president if he’d taken command of the Union army. Assuming he still died in 1870, he would have had at most one term, but that would be a very interesting alternate universe to see anyway.
Did I miss the OP’s answer to the OP’s question?
Setting aside the objection to the use of “free people” in this context, the idea that any sub-group can secede at any time creates all sorts of problems. Perhaps someone else has already noted that several counties within the South attempted to secede from the newly seceded Confederacy. There’s also the issue that secession campaigns failed in eight slave states until the war was on and leaders some of those states joined the effort apparently without the prior approval of their own citizens.
Today, if a state were to secede would its people no longer be required to pay taxes to the U.S. government or be responsible for their share of the national debt? Can Rhode Island secede and then allow a North Korean missile base to be constructed on its soil? Can my town secede from the county we’re in and form our own county? (This last one is not hypothetical – I live in suburban Cook County, Illinois, which is dominated by the city of Chicago. If we could freely form our own county or join Lake County, we would.)
But let’s suppose that Southern states had the right to secede. So the US then shared a border with a hostile country that severely oppressed a significant perecentage of its people, and I guess they fired on us first. We’ve attacked other countries with less provocation than that. It seems to me that not accepting secession as valid was just about the nicest thing the USA could have done to the South after defeating it. We might have put former slaves in charge of all the plantations and put all the former landholders on ships bound for Africa. Winners get to do what they want to losers.
I could easily see that. If Lee had commanded U.S. forces from the outset, the Civil War might only have lasted a year or two. Of course, it would probably mean slavery would persist.
Heheh. You’re gonna love this: Whatever: States' Rights Stupidity