Still Don't Like the Combat system

[Zachriel]

Causes of Secession

I was trying to avoid this off-topic discussion, but just want to set the record straight. The causes of secession in their own words:


Mississippi Declaration of Secession
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/re...tml#Mississippi

Texas Declaration of Secession
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Texas

Speech of Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens:
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.

http://www.nv.cc.va.us/home/nvsageh...toneExcerpt.htm

[kailhun]

Re: Causes of Secession

Originally posted by Zachriel
I was trying to avoid this off-topic discussion, but just want to set the record straight. The causes of secession in their own words:


Mississippi Declaration of Secession
(deleted for brevity)

Texas Declaration of Secession
(deleted for brevity)

Speech of Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens:
(deleted for brevity)

But these are all documents from politicians and politically active prominent southerners. They are not the people of the South. They just represent them in government. In decisions like these the people should decide directly.
And in most cases this didn't happen correctly. Firstly, in many states pro-unionists boycotted the referenda so the result is skewed.
Secondly, these referenda were rushed through in the heat of the moment and without a popular debate. I still say it's because the politicians knew that if cooler heads prevailed they would never convince 'The South to leave'.

As a last point, these documents smack of political propaganda. They were designed to link onto what people believed. Not what was true.

I still believe the ultimate reason for secession was fear amongst southern politicians that the South had lost it's dominant position and would be subjected to the same treatment as they had been dealing to the North for decades.

The myth that the South was bullied into secession and war is just that, a myth.

Robert

[Brutus66]

Fact:
The Emancipation Proclamation was directed only to the states that seceded from the Union. Slave states that remained with the Union were not affected.
Fact:
It was the 13th Amendment that freed all slaves. It was not ratified until 1865!
Fact:
The war started in 1860. The Proclamation was not delivered until 1863, just a few months before the battle of Gettysburg.

Lastly, as to the charge that Lee was a traitor, these are his own words: "I cannot raise my hand against my birthplace, my home, my children."
What would you have the guy do, Andrew? Would he have been a better man by helping Sherman burn down Atlanta?

[SpencerH]

Isnt there some truth in that the southern states wanted to sell their cotton to the English directly without interference from the federal government and the northern states that profitted from the status quo. Interference with the rights of the southern states to do so was the real cause of secession and the "War of Northern Aggression". I'm no expert and I'd like to "hear" your views

[Brutus66]

I think you're dead-on, Spence. I have always had the opinion that the war was, ultimately, all about the money.

[kailhun]

Originally posted by Brutus66
Fact:
The Emancipation Proclamation was directed only to the states that seceded from the Union. Slave states that remained with the Union were not affected.

The area stil in rebellion on the 1st of january 1863 (I may be wrong about the date). So slaves in parts of the South that were already under Northern control (quite a bit actually) did not fall under the emancipation declaration.
The ED is a bit of a strange document really. Mostly political, partly legal. Doesn't really do anything because it doesn't effect the areas the North does control, but only the areas the North doesn't control and therefore can't enforce it.
But the aboltion of slavery was started by this document. Like the start of an avalanche. After this there would be no turning back. Northern victory meant abolition of slavery.

Fact:
It was the 13th Amendment that freed all slaves. It was not ratified until 1865!

I remember hearing that Mississipe didn't ratify it untill the 1990's. It sounds very odd and I never checked this out. It seemed like an urban myth of some kind. Anybody know what this rumour could be refering to?

Fact:
The war started in 1860. The Proclamation was not delivered until 1863, just a few months before the battle of Gettysburg.

1861. And it's debatable if it was a war or insurrection. But let's say 'official hositilities'.
And it was after Antietam (September 1862). Lee's first forray into Northern territory. Defeated by McClellan.

Lastly, as to the charge that Lee was a traitor, these are his own words: "I cannot raise my hand against my birthplace, my home, my children."
What would you have the guy do, Andrew? Would he have been a better man by helping Sherman burn down Atlanta?

Well yes, sortoff. If Lee hadn't 'gone South', he would held a high command in the northern Army or not have fought. Either way the war would ended sooner. Little Mac would probably have taken Richmond on the first try and the burning of Atlanta would probably never had happened. No Grant, no Sherman, no burning of Atlanta and probably no Emancipation Declaration or 13th amendment.

Americans experienced the Union different in those days. They felt themselves to be Virginians first and then Americans (to stick with Lee), especially in the South. It was 'The United States are' before the war and 'The United States is' after. It was more like the Europena Union than the USA today.

Robert

[kailhun]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Isnt there some truth in that the southern states wanted to sell their cotton to the English directly without interference from the federal government and the northern states that profitted from the status quo. Interference with the rights of the southern states to do so was the real cause of secession and the "War of Northern Aggression". I'm no expert and I'd like to "hear" your views

Roughly it goes omething like this:

The South relied on Imports for many industrial items. Import from the North and import from Europe. The North was therefore in competition with Europe and wanted high import-taxes. The South didn't because that would mean that Europeans would raise their import-taxes (on cotton for example), thereby reducing the Southern income. The South controlled the US government and therefore there were no high importtaxes.
Lincoln (northern man) gets elected without even being on the southern ballots. Southern politicians have a rough idea where this is headed and decide to get out. A little propaganda with slavery as the wedge and off they go.

Robert

[Brutus66]

1861. And it's debatable if it was a war or insurrection. But let's say 'official hositilities'.

I will give you that one. I used that date because that is when South Carolina seceded. The hostilities weren't official, I guess, until Ft. Sumter was attacked in April of the following year.

[Brutus66]

Well yes, sortoff.

Ridiculous. Glad I don't have neighbors like you.

Little Mac would probably have taken Richmond on the first try

Also ridiculous. Maclellan could never act with speed and decisiveness. Totally out of chracter for him.

No Grant, no Sherman, no burning of Atlanta and probably no Emancipation Declaration or 13th amendment.

I object on the grounds that you are engaging in pure speculation.

Americans experienced the Union different in those days. They felt themselves to be Virginians first and then Americans (to stick with Lee), especially in the South.

My point to begin with...

[number6]

There have been many good posts to this thread about problems with the combat system. I am glad to see that others are dissatisfied with the current combat model in Civ 3. A few posters mentioned that they thought the combat system is fine as is. I agree that the combat system is functional, but I still think it is a far cry from the Civ 2 combat system. I think removing fire power was a bad idea. I also think that leveling the hit points across eras is a bad idea. How can a spearmen unit withstand the same amount of damage as a tank? I think the hit points is really the biggest problem. Even if an ancient unit has a winning streak it would not be able to kill a modern unit if the hit points were more weighted. Maybe 10 spearmen could kill a tank, but never just one or two. The game is still fun, but not as engrossing as a Civ game should be.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by kailhun
I remember hearing that Mississipe didn't ratify it untill the 1990's. It sounds very odd and I never checked this out. It seemed like an urban myth of some kind. Anybody know what this rumour could be refering to?

Well, since any southern state that wished to get back into the union had to ratify the 13th and 14th amendments, I would say that this is more than likley untrue. But I am fairly sure that Mississippi didn't celebrate MLK jr day until the 90s...


1861. And it's debatable if it was a war or insurrection. But let's say 'official hositilities'.
And it was after Antietam (September 1862). Lee's first forray into Northern territory. Defeated by McClellan.

Originally posted by kailhun
Well yes, sortoff. If Lee hadn't 'gone South', he would held a high command in the northern Army or not have fought. Either way the war would ended sooner. Little Mac would probably have taken Richmond on the first try and the burning of Atlanta would probably never had happened.

If R. E. Lee had stayed loyal, and taken the commission that Lincon offered him to head the US forces, I belive that much of the heart would have gone right out of the confederacy...

BTW: I do not wish to imply that Lee was anything short of brilliant millitairly, he was inarguably the best Stratagist and tactition that America produced until WWII, and possibly the best ever. It is merely his failings as a citizen which I call up...

[Spook42]

Originally posted by Andrew Cory
BTW: I do not wish to imply that Lee was anything short of brilliant millitairly, he was inarguably the best Stratagist and tactition that America produced until WWII, and possibly the best ever.

That Lee had excellent skills in campaigning, organization, and battlefield leadership can be agreed upon. But earnest study of the ACW reveals that as a "strategist," he was much more limited, and in this one regard Grant or even Sherman was his superior.

It is merely his failings as a citizen which I call up...

What failings? Much as Lee disfavored that Virginia secede, he could not bring himself to take arms against his home state which, for all intents & purposes, opted to become part of a new nation. He resigned his US Army commission before joining the CSA.

It wasn't a failing, it was a choice that he agonized over, and he accepted the consequences of his choice post-war. One just as well could argue that all of the leaders of the American Revolution (political & military) were nothing more than "traitors" and "failed citizens" too..........

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Spook42
What failings? Much as Lee disfavored that Virginia secede, he could not bring himself to take arms against his home state which, for all intents & purposes, opted to become part of a new nation. He resigned his US Army commission before joining the CSA.

It wasn't a failing, it was a choice that he agonized over, and he accepted the consequences of his choice post-war. One just as well could argue that all of the leaders of the American Revolution (political & military) were nothing more than "traitors" and "failed citizens" too..........

Well, I am elswhere arguing that Lee did, indeed, betray the USA. Since I earlier today took a couple of hours to write several pages defending this statment, I don't feel _too_ inclined to rehash it right now. If you drop me an E-Mail, I might just send it on, though...

[Encomium]

[SIZE=1]
If R. E. Lee had stayed loyal, and taken the commission that Lincon offered him to head the US forces, I belive that much of the heart would have gone right out of the confederacy...

BTW: I do not wish to imply that Lee was anything short of brilliant millitairly, he was inarguably the best Stratagist and tactition that America produced until WWII, and possibly the best ever. It is merely his failings as a citizen which I call up...

You are HALF right.

Evil can most easily triumph when "good" men do nothing - or when they rationalize and choose the wrong side, as Lee did. He also made it quite clear he was not an "American"; he considered himself a Virgininian. Lee deserves much of the blame for the horrors and deaths of the Civil War.

As for Lee as a strategist, his inept performance at Gettysburg removes him from consideration as one of the "greatest". His other victories came as the result of he being lucky enough to go up against incompetent Union commanders, such as Pope and Burnside; the gutless McClellan, also.

Southerners revere Lee not so much because he is so great a general but because he was a more acceptable version of the Southern "gentleman". Blatant racists and slavery-proponents such as Forrest and Hood could not become "symbols" of the South. And neither could a fine general such as Longstreet who reluctantly fought for the South (though he did well) and after the war led Republican militias (some black) against racist white mobs in New Orleans.

And all this IS off-topic, but interesting!

[number6]

Now I see why people get upset when posts are off topic. I will never highjack a thread again.