Let me get this straight...

[elcidce]

There were prominent Southern leaders like Sen. John C. Calhoun who realized the slavery could not continue but struggled with a way to abolish it with out causing chaos and destroying the Southern economy. He wrote about this in his papers. The Nullification issue is overlooked in many explantions for the cause of the war but underlines that the cause was over the growing political power of the Northern politicians who repeatedly acted against the needs of the Southern states and the country in general leading up to the war. Just my two cents. Im looking forward to trying the game out. I think Im going to buy Forge of Freedom first.

[elcidce]

duplicate

[elcidce]

duplicate

[wargamer123]

Erik, entrenched because their economy lived on it. Though millions of former slaves in the North had not much better a lifestyle in Yankee Factories. So honestly either way, the plight of the Slave and his freedom was not going to be answered and was not answered by the Civil War. Rather 100 years of issues that to this day are unresolved fully. I think the North had a lot of Idealistic men, but was it worth the death of so many, including more oppression on Former Slaves after the Civil War..

The South should have been shown the slow way into a new way of doing things. Pay, free and employ Blacks in their cotton fields, as they were foolish to believe they had much better...

I think the South thought they had a chance, maybe a peaceful succession..

Elcidce I wasn't aware of that..

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: wargamer123
Erik, entrenched because their economy lived on it. Though millions of former slaves in the North had not much better a lifestyle in Yankee Factories. So honestly either way, the plight of the Slave and his freedom was not going to be answered and was not answered by the Civil War. Rather 100 years of issues that to this day are unresolved fully. I think the North had a lot of Idealistic men, but was it worth the death of so many, including more oppression on Former Slaves after the Civil War..

But the South was seeking to expand Slavery to new territories as well and from my reading of history, they were getting more ambitious with that over time. It was bound to lead to conflict.

The South should have been shown the slow way into a new way of doing things. Pay, free and employ Blacks in their cotton fields, as they were foolish to believe they had much better...
I think the South thought they had a chance, maybe a peaceful succession..

Well, the South ultimately decided to start the war because they didn't like the way things were going in terms of politics. They seceded, stopped talking and started shooting. I don't see that the North had much choice at that point but to respond in kind.

Who do you think could have shown the South a way to change their entire economic structure peacefully?

It's just unfortunate that Slavery was part of the original colonies and thus already entrenched by the time of the founding of the nation. The founders recognized that this would be a major problem in the future of the nation.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: BossGnome
Alright, I just ran another turn and none of my ships are blockading anything. This is despite me holding two of the coastal islands (the one nearest washington DC and the next one down), and having 4 cruisers stationed in the first island's area. Moreover I have 2 cruisers and 1 gunboat in the gulf of mexico.

To get back on topic for a sec...

BossGnome, have you had a chance to watch the tutorial videos, play the tutorial scenarios and read the manual yet (in that order)? I think the vast majority of what's confusing you will be easily resolved by the information in those sources, and they will probably give you a much more comprehensive understanding of the game than a forum discussion can.

Regards,

- Erik

[wargamer123]

Erik, they were definitely pushing it, wanting I believe New Mexico/Arizona and I'm not sure about California to have Slavery.
I think without the leadership the South had, and determination..the War would not have been so bloody and so long.
The Divisions today are not so deep, but when I was good ole Dixie, I could still feel a tension amongst the people. Ironically to me, most of these types would not have had the money to own slaves, or at least very many. The Bourgeois Southerners adapted to things better, as today they aren't suffering much..
The War in no way in my mind changed the USA. Abolishing only slavery in name, but punishing the South's Aggression and destroying it's way of life. The North did go into the South with Raiding parties, Abolishnists hellbent on changing things. Causing all sorts of havoc or so I read.
I do not believe you are right..the South was bold to want to stretch slavery but it something that would die, I do not feel it would survive 'long'.. It died in every other nation including the North!

[IronWarrior]

True that many in the South were pushing for expansion. My example, Jefferson, was a slave owner. It is said to have weighed heavily on his conscience. Jefferson even helped to pass legislature to stop expansion of slavery in the west. It is also said that he planned to release his own slaves as soon as he got out of debt, which he never did.

The problem I had with what happened is that the Union's new power grabbing, more powerful centralized government was making the new rules, but not giving any solutions to the problems.

[Bo Rearguard]

I guess Yankee ingenuity can be blamed as well. There were many indications that slavery was beginning to die out even in the South in the late 18th century. Then along came Eli Whitney and his 'gin which made the short staple cotton that grew so well in the South wildly profitable. Even more so with free labor to pick it.

[heroldje]

"The War in no way in my mind changed the USA. Abolishing only slavery in name, but punishing the South's Aggression and destroying it's way of life. The North did go into the South with Raiding parties, Abolishnists hellbent on changing things. Causing all sorts of havoc or so I read. "
 
Abolitionists were considered extremists even in the North.  Before the war they had an extremely small political footing.  It wasn't until well into the war that ending slavery became a viable platform.  The emancipation proclamation elicited mixed reactions at best.  There were no raiding abolitionists inciting riots.  You need to shop at a new book store.   The war radically changed the country in so many ways I don't even know where to start...

[Treefrog]

Although the abolition of slavery was certainly a major consequence of the war, I think the consequence that is seldom identified is the complete transfer of political power from the states, north and south, to the federal government.

The Tenth Amendment* died long before slavery was ended.

* paraphrased: Powers not given to the Federal government are reserved to the states and people, respectively.

Very hard to find much evidence of the Tenth Amendment anymore. The Federal government controls everything, [:(]largely by giving back the tax money it bleeds from the states and people, respectively.

[wargamer123]

Maybe not inciting riots but fear enough for South Carolina to start the Whole Shabang with Harpers Ferry? Did the war not start in SC the first state to succeed from the Union and I might consider that a riot or rather I correct my words.... spreading of panic and fear amongst the Hard Line Pro-Slavery State in SC

ORIGINAL: heroldje


Abolitionists were considered extremists even in the North.  Before the war they had an extremely small political footing.  It wasn't until well into the war that ending slavery became a viable platform.  The emancipation proclamation elicited mixed reactions at best.  There were no raiding abolitionists inciting riots.  You need to shop at a new book store.   The war radically changed the country in so many ways I don't even know where to start...

[John Neal]

It's informative to read how the states in rebellion justified their actions.
Note the clause in the Constitution they cite: article 4, section 2, 3rd paragraph

Party Platforms and Secession Documents

[elcidce]

There were plenty of New England ship owners who owned slave ships and were hesitant to give the trade up. Northern interests gained economically from the trade as well as the South. Abolition was not popular in those Northern circles for that very reason.

[elcidce]

dup.

[elcidce]

Dup

[Doc o War]

Treefrog- the Federalizing of the United States had so many huge effects its hard to begin to list them- the most important I think- which was later stated by many veterans on both sides- was that before the War Between the States, people were from their states- few people considered themselves Americans- except maybe when discussing it with a Brit. They were Virginians or Rhode Islanders first, and Americans as an after thought. But after the War,  being a person from x state became secondary to just being an American- Lincoln's goal to preserve the Union worked. This has been pointed out as a very singular effect- I read a great article about it in the Civ war Times a few years ago. There are distinct social measures of this. These days we are Americans first, from x state second.
 
Further- as one of my Black Army Buddies pointed out once- the only "state right" that the old south was really ready to fight and die for was to preserve an economic system that was built on slavery- (which by the way had also included indentured whites and later sharecroppers- who were effectively slaves also.)  Each land owner who owned slaves got to gain an extra 3/5s of a vote for every slave they owned. So a big slave holder, with say 500 slaves- had 1 + 300 votes in the local election, that could swing local elections to candidates of their choice.- slave owners dominated southern state governments and ruled the roost, in every way.
 
The world would have been a very different place after 1865 if there had ended up being two weak countries- north and south- after the war- some scholars have said it would likely have split even more-maybe to 5 or even six small countires.
    What would have happened in WW1- if the Doughboys had not arrived?
     What about WW2?
     
The South clung to their old way of agrarian life that was already changing any way- possibly they might have given up slavery eventually,  but that question- one which they died for- was settled for all time right there. It opened up many other issues, and those too were eventually dealt with. Not to take away anything from the south's honor, but they are much stronger and more vibrant today than they were in the Anti Bellum times. Because they are part of the United States.
        
Finally- the Federal power to tax- as Oliver Wendel Holmes said in one of his Supream Court Decisions- "Taxes are the price  people pay for Civilization."
           Think about all the ways taxes you pay effect your life every day- do you drive on roads? Eat safe food? Fly in safe airspace? Enjoy the protection of a modern Military?  Are your kids going to a school that is supported witth tax dolllars, are your kids getting student loans? Was your house loan federal money? Is your local hospital supported by goverment dollars.
              We are not living in caves anymore- civilization costs money.
  And government- since the time of the Cities of Ur and Mesopotemia, has been the engine that paid for social advancement and progress through taxes.
    
Many people over the Last 140 years have said the Civil War was a bloody but necessary step in our developement into a modern state.

[wargamer123]

Interesting ideas Doc,

"Unionizing the Union?" I like the sound of what you write. Whether over the subject of Slavery or a greater Right of Independence, I might debate. I disagree, IMO The Union and the CSA would have been brothers and Allies and Doughboys would've been in the WW1 Trenches, perhaps even Johnny Reb! Especially if the CSA's won freedom was on British Ships! History is a series of possibilities, not an ending grinding halt. That's why we play these games! The Fracture of States into Countries does weaken the whole but sometimes strengthens the Individuals to such a degree, i.e. Prussia during the 18th-19th century, that the Individual could be a Super Power in itself.
Perhaps we can debate a second War, of the first Civil War or a Third in some hypothetical late 1800s altered History, that or fight over the New Western Territories.

Great Discussion though regardless

[John Neal]

....the only "state right" that the old south was really ready to fight and die for was to preserve an economic system that was built on slavery- ...

The truth of that can be readily seen if one reads the justifications I referenced in my Post #32, contrary to the grade school history I was taught

[heroldje]

"The North did go into the South with Raiding parties, Abolishnists hellbent on changing things. Causing all sorts of havoc or so I read. "

Thats a far cry from John Browns raid in Harpers Ferry, VA... which I assume you're refering to.    A raid conducted by about 15 men, half of which were slaves who refused to partake in the conflict. It's a gigantic stretch to say it started the whole 'shabang', if anything it reinforced the South's wild beliefs that a mass slave revolt was imminent.