How about a Confederate States of America Civ?

[Zachriel]

Re: How about a Confederate States of America Civ?

Originally posted by ntyatecafe
Believing that America's Civil War was fought over slavery is like believing that WWII was fought over beer.

Here is one of Texas's arguments in their Declaration of Secession:

the federal government proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law.

That does not mean it would be wrong to create a Southern Civ, of course.

[BanastreTa]

Zachriel,

Not to be a legalist, but if you would carefully read the posts in this thread, you'd see this issue has been dealt with. ntyatecafe has since retracted that original statement, and has been extraordinarily classy about the debate the whole way through, I might add.

BT

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by BanastreTa
Zachriel,

Not to be a legalist, but if you would carefully read the posts in this thread, you'd see this issue has been dealt with. ntyatecafe has since retracted that original statement, and has been extraordinarily classy about the debate the whole way through, I might add.

BT

Absolutely. And it was a worthy thread, too, as a Confederate Civilization would have many interesting characteristics.

The other commentary about the causes of the Civil War was mostly "interpretive," and has been subject to nearly endless debate and revisionist history. I was providing very specific documentation so there would be no doubt as to the purpose of the rebellion -- in their own words.

[Delta-V]

Re: civil war

Originally posted by satyajedi
I'm convinced that the South could have won the war in the election of 1864 had they won either Gettysburg (which would have given them the ability to attack major Northern cities and definately convinced many Northerners that this was not worth it), or Vicksburg. And I suspect that if Stonewall Jackson had still been alive (he was shot accidentally by his own men in a Southern rout at Bull Run a year earlier), they would have won one of those battles.

If Jackson had been alive, his men would have probably swept the Union forces off the Cemetary Hill the first day, before they could dig in. As it was, his successor (Ewell) was too timid, and didn't press the attack. On the union side, John Buford's decision to hold the high ground with his cavalry, and his men's valiant defense of said ground, was probably the key point in the battle. I don't think he ever gets enough credit for that.

[Zachriel]

Re: Re: civil war

Originally posted by Delta-V
If Jackson had been alive, his men would have probably swept the Union forces off the Cemetary Hill the first day, before they could dig in. As it was, his successor (Ewell) was too timid, and didn't press the attack. On the union side, John Buford's decision to hold the high ground with his cavalry, and his men's valiant defense of said ground, was probably the key point in the battle. I don't think he ever gets enough credit for that.

However, the Union soldiers had changed too. Lee believed that they would break if pushed. They always had before. But the soldiers had learned that the only way out of the war was to win it.

[Spiffor]

Sorry to disrupt your debate as an european...
But I think an American confederacy could barely be a "Civilization" in itself. No doubt there are true cultural differences with the Yanks (I don't know them, but I trust you wouldn't have the idea if NC and NYC were the same), but thse differences are small, from a foreigner's point of view. To me, it sounds like making a Bavarian civ distinct from the Germans, or a Burgundian civ distinct from the French. Sure there are cultural differences, but not enough to separate them in a truly distinct culture, language, in one word civilization.

[John Biles]

I'll have to disagree here. In 1860, while there continued to be many shared cultural elements, the North and South of the US had more cultural/economic/political differences than say, Bavaria and Hanover or Lombardy and Scicly (I know I spelled that wrong) or even Scotland and England.
The North was an industrializing society resting on a basis of private agriculture producing food in bulk for the markets of the cities and wage labor producing industrial goods for domestic and foreign consumption, with large, growing cities full of immigrants from Europe, torn by the growing problems of the industrial era, and full of nativist vs. immigrant conflicts.

The South was a highly rural society based on slave labor producing commodities for export to other countries, ruled by a small class of planters subscribing to an aristocratic ethic similar to that of 17th-18th century England, in which free planters had been pushed to the marginal land, where they practiced subsistence agriculture. The necessity to control the slaves had turned the South into increasingly a police state in which public freedoms were limited to avoid challenges to the existence of slavery. The aristocratic ethic of the ruling planters led them to support things like dueling which had passed out of favor in the North. The military leadership of the USA was disproportionately Southern as well, which greatly aided the South early on

There's enough difference that while I'd put the CSA way, way, way down my list of nations to be given their own set up, you can make a case for it being distinct from the USA.

How I'd do it:

Names: Confederate States of America, the Confederates, Confederate
Ruler/ Title: Jefferson Davis/ President
Leaders: Lee, Jackson, Forrest, Joe Johnson
UU: Either the Commerce Raider (an upgraded Privateer) or a cheaper to produce form of Cavalry (to reflect that the South had an easy time building very good cavalry units in the war, until the very end)
CSA : Militaristic, Commercial
Shunned/Favored Gov.: Monarchy/Republic

I chose Militaristic because the South produced a lot of great military leaders and had higher quality troops at the beginning of its existence, and Commercial because the South, while not producing a lot of manufactured goods and having a bad infrastructure (which would have made it Industrious if not for this), had a lot of money and was very dependent on foreign trade.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by John Biles
UU: Either the Commerce Raider (an upgraded Privateer) or a cheaper to produce form of Cavalry (to reflect that the South had an easy time building very good cavalry units in the war, until the very end)

How 'bout fast moving riflemen. Jackson's division was called foot cavalry.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Sorry to disrupt your debate as an european...
But I think an American confederacy could barely be a "Civilization" in itself.

Unless they had won, of course.

[Spiffor]

Unless they had won, of course

Sure: If the confederacy had won, the American Civ would have "Confederate States of America" instead of "United States of America" as their attached country, like the Zulu have "Zululand". What I meant is that Yank and Reb cultures are not far away enough, in my european point of view, to make them 2 different civs. Again, there has been an independant Bavaria, and it could have been the name of the German country if Bavaria had won. But bavarian culture is not far enough of the German one to be considered as a separate Civ.

[WesW]

Hi guys, good thread.
As to why soldiers fought in the war, this topic always gets debated by people giving numerous reasons why the common Northerner or Southener fought. I believe that if you had polled the soldiers, you would have seen several reasons given by soldiers on both sides, each with different meaning to different individuals.

I would argue that many southerners fought like most people vote- with their pocketbooks. The people who defended slavery did so because it was the source of their wealth, and ending slavery would be akin to confiscating all of their possessions. There was never any talk of compensating slaveholders for their financial losses if there slaves were set free. In Alabama, about half the white families owned at least one slave, with the average being 4. (The percentage of families may have been one fourth- it has been a long time since high-school history.) The pop of Alabama in 1860 was 50% white and 50% black.
Also, since the Southern economy was founded upon slavery, many people who did not own slaves feared that the economy would collapse if the slaves were set free.
To many people today, and to the New England abolitionist of that time (note that this was the section of the country farthest from the South), the issue is simply the morality of slavery, but to the Southerners of the time, it was much more than that.

Also, many undecided Southerners decided to fight the Union only after Lincoln called for a Northern army to invade and violently quell the seceding states (this was when Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina and most importantly Virginia seceded). From this you could argue that states rights (the right to secede) were an important factor in their decision.

On the other hand, many Southerners supported the Union. Approximately 10,000 Alabamians fought for the Union, and one northern county, Winston, felt so strongly that it seceded from Alabama. There was talk of forming a union state from northern Alabama and Georgia, and eastern Tennessee. This talk, and a possible civil war within the southern states, stopped when Lincoln made his call.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by WesW
Hi guys, good thread.
As to why soldiers fought in the war, this topic always gets debated by people giving numerous reasons why the common Northerner or Southener fought.

Actually, the political reasons for the war are stated by the articles of succession.

However, you are right in that soldiers fight for other reasons; honor, hatred, duty, adventure, escape from ordinary life, loot, etc.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Spiffor


Sure: If the confederacy had won, the American Civ would have "Confederate States of America" instead of "United States of America" as their attached country, like the Zulu have "Zululand".

Again, there has been an independant Bavaria, and it could have been the name of the German country if Bavaria had won. But bavarian culture is not far enough of the German one to be considered as a separate Civ.

The civil war was a war for independence. If the south had won there would be the USA and the CSA, not just an CSA. AFAIK the CSA had not intention of conquering the north, just like the colonies had no intention of conquering Britain nearly 100yrs before.

[godinex]

How about a Latin America Confederation?

[Herr David]

What about a CSA that has gobbled up Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico and maybe even some central American countries. I doubt they'd have much fun in those countries (full of dirt-poor peasants, ruthless bandits and radicals) but they could rival the USA. Wasn't the social structure in the south somethat similar to the social structures in Mexico? Rich aristocrats owning all the valuable land, having dirt-poor tenants work for them and doing pretty much what they liked with their "subjects"...

(Yes I AM a fan of alternative History)