How about a Confederate States of America Civ?

[ntyatecafe]

Since just about every country in the world (existing, or extinct) has been represented as "This MUST be in an expansion!!!" I thought I'd through this in just to trip people up.

Please note that #1. This is merely a joke, and #2. While I am a Georgian, I am not racist. Believing that America's Civil War was fought over slavery is like believing that WWII was fought over beer. The Union was founded to serve the states (hence the name - United States), and later started taking more power away from the states. The Civil War happened when several states declared that the state's rights were above the union's, and seceeded from the union. The union of course didn't allow that, and thus the Civil War. Slavery was not the issue of which the war was fought, and for anyone who finds this post offense, I humbly apologize.

The Confederate States of America civ:

President: Jefferson Davis

Leaders: Robert E. Lee, Nathan B. Forrest, Stonewall Jackson, Beauregard, Hardee

Ablilities: industrious, religious

Unique Unit: Georgia Volunteer (3/4/1), or Cavalry

City name:

Richmond, Atlanta, Knoxvill, Tallassee, (just look at a map of Georgia, Florida, S.C., Tenn., VA, Mississipps, AL, etc...

[d_dudy]

the sad thing is some of those leaders are in the game for america.

i think only lee should be, if any.

[dexters]

It you go that route, you'll end up with twice , three times or four times as many civs as you care to count.

All major Civs has had Civil Wars, or periods of Feudal rule where the civilization was divided up among warlords.

The point of the game is not to emulate history, but to provide people with the major world civilizations and make their own history.

Although someone in another thread suggested the idea of civilizations "emerging" as time passes.

I think that is a good idea.

[Andy91]

i'd say militaristic before industrious
-if they'd been industrialized, they probably would have won.
-they had more experienced leaders and troops
(from my limited knowledge)

[Vonotar]

It can't be programmed into the current Civ3 but.....

Wouldn't it be cool if chunks of your Civ could revolt and set up there own government (a-la Civ2) if it was possible then the confederacy would naturally become the break-away country.

Just a pity these things would be too complex to programme into the present Civ3

[d_dudy]

Originally posted by Andy91
i'd say militaristic before industrious
-if they'd been industrialized, they probably would have won.
-they had more experienced leaders and troops
(from my limited knowledge)

well industry maybe, but they had troops who knew country life better, and more experianced, less ignorant, leaders, in general.

they had better generals, just so many fewer men.

[siredgar]

Originally posted by dexters
It you go that route, you'll end up with twice , three times or four times as many civs as you care to count.

All major Civs has had Civil Wars, or periods of Feudal rule where the civilization was divided up among warlords.

The point of the game is not to emulate history, but to provide people with the major world civilizations and make their own history.

Although someone in another thread suggested the idea of civilizations "emerging" as time passes.

I think that is a good idea.

Dexters, are you talking about my "time triggers" idea in the "Stop the America-bashing!" thread?

Yes, I think it's a good idea, too.

[BanastreTa]

As a native Southerner (don't be fooled by the Connecticut location, it is only temporary ) and a vehement defender of modern state's rights in the Federalist system, I must respectfully disagree with your analysis of the civil war.

While there are many complicated factors leading to the eruption of the "war of northern aggression" , these factors almost inevitably link back to slavery in one way or another.

The war was fought for "states rights." However, prime among those rights in the minds of Southern states was the right to keep slaves. That's why the election of Lincoln--a member of the Republican party, which was started four years previous on an almost exclusively abolitionist platform--triggered South Carolina's secession. Source documents from the period indicate as much; the state threatened throughout the election to secede if a "black republican" was elected president.

You can argue that southern states were worried about tariffs. However, the worry was that these tariffs would be unduly burdensome on an agricultural system that was supported on the backs of slaves.

Troubles with the north that had developed over the years can mostly be linked back to the slave system (California into the union as free/slave, general worry of extra free states into the union, Kansas/Nebraska, Tariff of abominations and protest from SC/Calhoun, etc. etc.)

Not a flame, just a respectful disagreement with a historical interpretation.

OK, with that being said, I've already toyed with the idea of a "Southern" civilization myself, and I think it would be fun for an expansion pack. I think a "rebel" or a "greycoat" unit would be interesting, perhaps a rifleman with an additional movement point (due to knowledge of terrain/nature).

I think that religious and commercial (for the sale of cotton and other agricultural products) would be a civ traits combo.

Lee is such a paradigmatic symbol of the south, I'm not so sure but if he might be a better representation for the civilization leader than President Davis.

Just some ideas.

BT

[ntyatecafe]

BanastreTa,

You bring up some very good points! I'll have to re-read my histories, which will take some time since the history taught in schools is contaminated (the victor tends to dictate history), and any history from purely southern sources is questionable as well (yes, I'll admit...southerners are opinionated [I'm Georgian by birth & choice]).

I still believe that slavery as an institution would not have lasted more than a decade or two longer, but you have made a valid argument against my point, so I will seek information with which to rebute (or possibly accede) your point.

I would like to thank you for making your argument in a polite tone. I've seen a few threads where the debates have descended into pointless name-calling and racial/nationality slurs, and the point of those debates was hopelessly lost by those who would rather have shouting matches than a true debate to resolve a point. Thank you for your politeness, and though I'll try to prove you wrong, it will always be with respect, and should I (or you) prove my point to be invalid, I will not argue past that, and will accept defeat with pride.

Shall we begin the debate?

I'll look for sources on my point, if you'll find some to prove yours.

Doug
(American by birth...Southerner by the grace of God!)

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by ntyatecafe
BanastreTa,

You bring up some very good points! I'll have to re-read my histories, which will take some time since the history taught in schools is contaminated (the victor tends to dictate history), and any history from purely southern sources is questionable as well (yes, I'll admit...southerners are opinionated [I'm Georgian by birth & choice]).

On the contrary, in America, the victor does not always get to "dictate history." Most textbooks are bought on a statewide basis, with decisions being made by a statewide committee of some sort. Thus, history textbooks that are considered "overly critical" of a state's history are uniformly turned down, in favor of textbooks that ignore the dark shadows of our history. In the book "Lies My Teacher Told Me", the author (last name is Loewen, IIRC) conducted a survey of the most popular U.S. History textbooks. And they are overwhelmingly soft on the South and on slavery.

[ntyatecafe]

Most textbooks are bought on a statewide basis, with decisions being made by a statewide committee of some sort.

I didn't realize that. I still think that [some] history accounts of that era must have been influenced by northern opinion, because slavery wasn't an issue until after the war started. Then Lincoln [cleverly] introduced the slavery issue to gain public approval. He made a fight about rights seem like a fight about morals. If you ask a bunch of people today, "Why was the Civil War fought?" at least 9 out of 10 will say "Because of Slavery", while it was actually fought over a state's rights. Was slavery one of the issues? Yes. Was it the main issue? No. In a nutshell, several states didn't like what the Union had become and attempted to leave it, while the Union...seeing the possibility of loosing about half of its power/population/everything...couldn't allow that - end result...Civil War.

But like I said earlier, I don't claim to know everything, and I know I have as good a chance of being wrong as I do of being right. This is just a personal opinion which I will attempt to find factual evidence to support.

[BanastreTa]

Doug,

I also appreciate your civil response.

Although I rarely pass up an opportunity to discuss history, I'm going to have to decline for now. I'm nearing the end of my first semester of law school, and I'm very busy. In fact, my posting to this forum is taking place mostly during dull points of class . Because this is such an interesting topic, I fear I would be unable to do it justice at this time, and looking through some documentary sources would be a difficult undertaking with outlining/studying for exams.

I'll tell you what, though--I'll continue to be on the forums, and you'll be on the forums, and I'd be happy to resume a dialogue either here or over e-mail in a month or two.

That being said, two brief points though, just to clarify my previous statements. I do agree that to simply say "the civil war was about slavery" is a complete cop-out. There was a complex and rich tableaux of national issues that eventually wound up resulting in the civil war. It is my contention, however, that most if not all of these issues can ultimately find their root in the slave system.

The second point is that I could possibly accede to the point that many of the men who actually FOUGHT were not fighting over slavery. Most confederate soldiers--while certainly no supporters of racial equality--were simply fighting to protect their homeland. Unfortunately, these soldiers were not the ones who ignited the civil war--it was the bigwigs in Columbia and Richmond.

But this is a very interesting topic, and as I mentioned, I'd love to discuss it in further detail at some not too distant juncture

(American by birth...Southerner by the grace of God!)

I think that's something we can both agree on!

BT

[BanastreTa]

I'm also very disturbed to see that the ID number of my last post is post # "666666"...maybe this doesn't bode so well for me...

[whosurdaddy]

Re: How about a Confederate States of America Civ?

[SIZE=1] Slavery was not the issue of which the war was fought

I’m sorry but I definitely will have to disagree with that. As a person who has taken many history classes at New York University and has reviewed many of the documents actually published by southern state legislatures prior to the Civil War, I can attest to the fact that the MAIN, AND PERHAPS ONLY REASON THAT THE SOUTH DECIDED TO SECEDE FROM THE UNION WAS DUE TO FEAR THAT SLAVERY WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE SOUTH, AND NOT BE ALLOWED TO EXPAND INTO THE TERRITORIES. Abraham Lincoln’s platform had declared that he would in fact not allow slavery to be expanded from the current slave states and into the territories, and his election by the North (Abraham Lincoln was elected president without receiving a single electoral vote from the Southern slave states) was seen as an attack on the way of life of southerners (slavery being an essential component to the southern way of life). Ntyatecafe, in no way am I calling you a liar for what you said, but I do mean to suggest that perhaps the environment in which you were brought up in did in fact misrepresent many of the facts concerning the civil war. Quite frankly, the notion that the civil war was merely over “states rights” is simply untrue, if anything the fight over “states rights” was an offshoot of the slavery question, not vice-versa. Adios.

[ntyatecafe]

I’m sorry but I definitely will have to disagree with that. As a person who has taken many history classes at New York University and has reviewed many of the documents actually published by southern state legislatures prior to the Civil War, I can attest to the fact that the MAIN, AND PERHAPS ONLY REASON THAT THE SOUTH DECIDED TO SECEDE FROM THE UNION WAS DUE TO FEAR THAT SLAVERY WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE SOUTH, AND NOT BE ALLOWED TO EXPAND INTO THE TERRITORIES.

Depends on how you look at it. I've already conceded my point to Banastre...I found a site that contained transcripts of the actual documents read when S.C. seceeded from the Union. The issue WAS state's rights, but the rights in question pretty much dealt only with slavery.

Before the Southern states joined the Union, they made an agreement that a rule (or whatever you want to call it) would be written in and that the Union was to enforce that rule. The rule was that if a slave escaped to another state, that state MUST return the slave to his/her owner (if no owner could be found, then the slave was to be returned to the state from which he/she fled).

Northern states (after a while) stopped obeying this rule, and when the southern states pressed the issue with the Union, they were ignored. --Please keep in mind that the Southern states actually had the LAW on their side, and the Union was breaking its agreement. Then the Union refused to allow the creation of additional slave states, and furthermore, blocked existing slave states from expanding by creating new non-slave states on their borders.

Now the actions performed by the Union, while ethical and morally just, were in fact ILLEGAL by the contract which formed the Union. South Carolina was the first to seceed from the Union, --BTW for those who don't understand that, it means that South Carolina became its own country for a short time, and listed all of the affore-mentioned reasons in their secession documentation.

Was the Union wrong for its actions? In my opinion...yes. The Union was guilty of breaking the very rules and laws which created it, and then added to its guilt by provoking a war with a sovreign nation, the C.S.A.


--Now, before curses and shouts are directed my way, please realize that while I do love history, I don't agree with slavery/racism/discremination/segregation or any other actions that take advantage of other human beings. Furthermore, I'm glad that things worked out the way they did (regarding the conclusion of the war). I think that things are better this way, than if the CSA still existed.

Let me request that if anyone here wishes to argue against my point, then let's debate the point - and not my moral or ethical values (which are quite sound).