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]

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]

[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).

[whosurdaddy]

Originally posted by ntyatecafe


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 ...

I do not believe what are you are talking about ever was in the original constitution that the states agreed to while first setting up the Union. I believe you are referring to the Fugitive Slave Act, which was a law passed by Congress sometime during the 1850’s, and yes, this law did anger many northern states and many people refused to participate, but that gave no right for the South to secede. Imagine if nowadays (hypothetically), Northerners got angry that Southerners keep on violating the nation’s gun laws by illegally not engaging in background checks at gun stores, would that give the North the right to suddenly drop out of the Union???

And on a sort of different topic which I am currently reminded of and have therefore decided to rant about , I hate it how people like to treat the Constitution as some sort of holy sacred document, and act as if the founding fathers knew everything, such as people who vehemently defend the Second Amendment of the Constitution like to do. News to everyone who hasn’t heard it yet, the original Constitution specifically backed Slavery, and has a thing called the Electoral College which has put several Presidents in office despite having received less votes than their opponents, aka george w bush.

[ntyatecafe]

take the time to read this then. These are some excerpts from S.C.'s secession announcement.

"Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South

Carolina from the Federal Union

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of

April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the

United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights

of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union;

but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she

forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have

continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among

nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the

nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to

this act.

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded

to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed

officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative,

Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their

counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of

Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external

relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly

declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and

independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this

Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation,

and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States,

the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States;

they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take

effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then

invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as

they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the

Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long

after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they

each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles

asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its

formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We

maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual;

that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the

agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is

provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure,

with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of

the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional

obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No

person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into

another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such

service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service

or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not

have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had

previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a

condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which

now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these

stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing

hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has

led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have

ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire,

Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois,

Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts

of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the

fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State

Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New

Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation;

but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which

render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In

the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her

tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice

fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of

Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by

the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released

from her obligation.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled,

appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have

solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other

States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed

her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with

full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to

do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Adopted December 24, 1860 "


If you want to look up the whole thing, you'll find it here .

As far as the constitution...of course it is fallible. Everyone realizes that. Everyone also realizes that even though it has imperfections, it is a necessity. Y'see, the Second Amendment is just one amendment out of several. Yes, the Second Amendment might have outlived its usefullness (I don't think so), but some of the others are kind of beneficial to keep around. The Constitution to some people, unfortunately, will remain forever as just some document written by some imperfect people. But for me, and for those who truly understand, it remains to be the foundation upon which this country was built.

[ntyatecafe]

One more thing...

Imagine if nowadays (hypothetically), Northerners got angry that Southerners keep on violating the nation’s gun laws by illegally not engaging in background checks at gun stores

Did I miss something? Are you now saying that ALL southerners do that? I'm a southerner, and I don't even work in a gun store...and are you claiming that Northern gun store owners have never violated "the nation's gun laws by illegally not engaging in background checks at gun stores"?

[Evil Robot]

He said 'hypothetically'.

[ntyatecafe]

Originally posted by Evil Robot
He said 'hypothetically'.

I might have been mistaken...it just seemed that the "Hypothetical" part was the part about the North seceeding, and the way it was written seemed to mean that this was an actual existing reason.

Ah, some people bring out the worst in me. Thanks for bringing me up short 'Bot.

ALL: I apologize for my previous posting, I was off-subject, and the matter therein was irrelevant. I'll strive to continue answering arguements and debates in as positive a manner I can.

[Guynemer]

ntyatecafe,

You have been far more civil and gracious than posters who have debated this subject over in Off-Topic (where I get the feeling this will be moved soon...).

Anyway, I felt the need to throw this in. In the book I previously mentioned, "Lies My Teacher Told Me," the author quotes a letter written by the VP of the Confederacy, in which the VP declares that the South is fighting for slavery. Flat out. Sadly, I've lent the book to a friend of mine, otherwise I'd be able to cite the letter myself. Perhaps someone who's been reading this thread has the book and can post that letter.

The primary goal of the North was not to free the slaves, but it was a goal. However, the primary goal of the South (not Southerners in general, but the leaders of the South) was to retain slavery, or if you prefer, "state's rights" to slavery, which isn't an important distinction in my mind.

[ntyatecafe]

Guynemer,

Thank you. I try to keep as impersonal as I can, yet sometimes, I fail in that respect (cursed imperfect humanity) .

The primary goal of the North was not to free the slaves, but it was a goal. However, the primary goal of the South (not Southerners in general, but the leaders of the South) was to retain slavery, or if you prefer, "state's rights" to slavery, which isn't an important distinction in my mind.

As much as I want to argue the point, I've finally seen to many facts, and even my arrogant stubborness ( ) must finally concede this arguement to you, and all of the others who argued against my point. You are right. The issue was slavery. State's Rights was just the tool that they used to try to maintain their way of life. As I read through the Secession documents which S.C. read to the congress so many years ago, I had to admit it to myself. Were slavery not an issue, the civil war would have never occured.

I'd like to thank you, and all of the others who argued this point so well. Each of you did a superb job with providing facts, and mentioning possible reference materials. Well done, all!

So with this debate over, I salute you, and look forward to our next debate (whatever, and whenever that may be!).

[Guynemer]

Egads... Southern hospitality lives!

There is no other way to say this--You, sir, are a class act. No wonder we don't see you in the Off Topic forum.

Happy to have made your acquaintance. May our paths cross again.

[satyajedi]

A couple of points:

I think there is some semantic difference here. The South and North definately had philosophic differences about the degree of state power vs. federal power in the American government. I would suggest that the reason for this difference was that the South was very aware, starting well before the Constitutional convention and continuing until the Civil War itself, that a strong Federal government would mean the end of slavery. Yes, there were other issues as well in which the South had disagreements with the Northern, some which toched on issues of Federal power. (for example, on trade with Europe -- as a raw goods manufacturer, the South stood to benefit from free trade, while the industrial North wanted tariffs against superior British imports). However, there are still issues over federalism today, and have been ever since, that don't erupt into violence. We rarely see Jesse Helms threaten to leave the country because of Federal controls over Education, taxes, social welfare spending, etc. My summary statement would be:

1. The primary reason the South fought the civil war was because the South did not want a powerful Federal Government,
2. The primary reason the South did not want a powerful Federal government was because a powerful Federal Government would end slavery,
3. The primary power the South did not wasnt to see in the hands of the Federal Government was the power to end slavery.

Had the North said, we want a powerfull Federal government to establish a National Bank, or regulate education, the South might have grumbled, but it would not have rebelled.

Two other points:

As Lies my Teacher Told me points out, the South definately (and oddly) lost the war, but won the peace. Reconstruction died a quick death with virtually none of the signficant goals accomplished, those who argued for significant changes in the immoral South were called in the history books (inaccurately) radical Republicans, Jim Crow effectively reinstituted white supremacy and, effectively, slavery for a century, and the late 19th century saw a very weak Federal government and almost all power to the states -- until Theodore Roosevelt. In history books, the war was called "The War of Northern Aggression" in history books throughout the America, and D.W. Griffith's ode to the Ku Klux Klan ("Birth of a Nation") was understood to be history in both the North and South [technically, Civil War is also a biased name; the American Civil War was not a civil war per sae, it was a war of succession].

And also, a random note to the person who said that if the South had more resources & leaders, it could have won the war. I am a firm believer that the South could have won the war, as it was fought. First, the South had vastly superior generals and leaders, it was the North that was so horribly disorganized and incompetant. The South boasted the best military tactician of the 19th century, Stonewall Jackson, as well as several other talented generals (like RObert E. Lee). As for the resources and manpower, remember that the South's conditions for victory were much lower than the North's. The North had to crush the South into submission; in the end by literally burning most of it to the ground. All the South needed to do was drag out the war long enough to convince Northerners that it wasn't worth having the South in the country anymore. Before the Southern losses at Vicksburg and Gettysburg, this was happening; Irish in New York burned draft cards in 1862, and that same year Lincoln lost seats in Congress to anti-war canidates. 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.

Personally, country music and the Southern dominance over American politics has already convinced me that the North would be better off without the South. Maybe they should have worked that into the strategy?

-Satya,

Founding member of the New England seccessionist movement (currently with a following of 4 people, and growing).

[Malone]

I would like to make a few comments here. I will apologize in advance to anyone who takes exception to what I have to say. To the gentleman from the great state of Georgia, shame on you for changing your view based on this yankee rhetoric. The war between the states was most definatly STARTED over the issue of slavery by wealthy aristocrats and congressmen who owned slaves. They wanted to protect their interests. However, the war was most definately not FOUGHT over this issue. Most combatants from the southern states were not slave holders. In fact most were so poor that they had almost the same economical and social standing as a slave. They fought the war to protect their homes, families, and most importantly their right to live however they desired.

[BanastreTa]

Well, I thought this thread had died down, but apparently not.

Yankee rhetoric? Hardly. Read closer, my friend. I am the one who started the dialogue; I am a southerner, born, bred, and largely educated. Don't let the current location fool you--it's just a brief, three year sojourn before I return to my homeland.

Let me ask you the following questions--do you honestly think that, circa 1861, there would have been a widespread sentiment, removed from any propaganda, amongst poor southern farmers to start a war? Do you really think that the fear of Southerners to "defend" his homeland had nothing to do with the rhetoric of secessionist firebrands like WB Rhett and WL Yancey? Is it really plausible that, in the absence of seccession and subsequent events by the elite of South Carolina et. al. there would have been a mass uprising amongst hardscrabble Southern wage farmers to invade Pennsylvania and Maryland? What did these soldiers really have to gain by fighting, other than defending their honor once the war had already begun?

The answer is, I think, clearly no. The soldiers, though admirable in their courage, were mere cannon fodder to the large landowners, and it was the plantation oligarchy that prodded the civil war into being. The Civil War was not fought for the benefit of Johnny Reb; it was fought for the benefit of the Pinckney family.

The soldiers, unfortunately, were only fighting at the behest of the plantation class. If the southern elite had decided suddenly in 1863, "oh, on second thought, we don't really need slaves, let's stop the war", the soldiers would have stopped fighting. If the southern elite had not been so uptight about slavery in the first place, the soldiers would not have laid down their lives at all. If the elite had decided that they wanted to prosecute the effort longer than 1865, beyond their real capacity, even more men would have died. Post d-day, you can vindicate the individual German soldier in WW2, forced into a non-choice of defending his homeland against invaders. You cannot, however, vindicate the German war effort.

Really, I don't understand why more Southerners aren't at least a little bit offended by this. Our ancestors--honest, God-fearing men who worked the land for a hard living--were duped by the rich plantation class. They were told to defend their homeland, when in fact the homeland itself wasn't really in any danger. Essentially, they were lied to, and laid down their lives as the pawns of the plantation class. Being misled, they died to protect an evil institution.

I'll not rehash the arguments that have been mentioned above.

Admitting the historical truth of the Civil War does nothing to deny our unique Southern heritage, nor does it diminish the courage of these men. It does, however, assign blame where blame is due.

[Arrian]

While this has definitely shifted off-topic, I love the topic. Ok, I'll say up front that the location, in my case, is correct, I'm a Connecticut Yankee.

I must say that I have always been struck by the rhetoric that various Southern politicians spewed (a harsh word, yes, but so was the anti-Northern rhetoric) in the years leading up to the war. The South's political power was waning (due to more populous northern states), and those that stood to lose (wealthy slaveholders) were unhappy about it. Their vehement arguments regarding state's rights were an attempt to protect the South's right to have slaves. Yes, some of the arguments for state's rights are valid and important for numerous other reasons, but it's slavery that had everyone so upset. South Carolina politicians had been huffing and puffing about succession, IIRC, since the 1820's. It was the election of Lincoln that pushed them over the edge. The thing that makes the Civil War so cool is that, even if you take slavery out of it, there are compelling issues. Take succession itself. There is something people are still arguing over. Why? Because, unless I'm mistaken, the Constitution is silent on the issue.

I find it hugely ironic that the party of Abraham Lincoln has become the right-wing, conservative, pro-states's rights party. Of course, Lincoln himself didn't really intend to abolish slavery, which is an irony unto itself. He repeatedly stated that the South's right to hold slaves was secure. Look at the Emancipation Proclamation! If the Southern States had thrown in the towel and rejoined the Union, they would have been allowed to keep their slaves. The War, from Lincoln's perspective, was all about the preservation of the Union. Slavery, while it may have sparked the whole shebang, was not HIS main issue.

I also find it pertty funny that it was the "State's rights, weak central government" CSA that first instituted conscription during the Civil War.

As for whether or not the South could have won... well, we will never know. Man for man, their soldiers were better, and at least until the last couple of years, their leadership was superior. The North started off badly, with poor organization, bungling generals and green troops. If the North's will to fight had crumbled (and there are indications that one more serious defeat might have done it), the South may well have won its independence.

-Arrian

[Guynemer]

BanestreTa--

That was probably the most intelligent and insightful thing I've ever read on these forums.

[BanastreTa]

Why thank you very much, Guynemer. I appreciate the compliment.

To be colloquial for a moment--

"I loves me some Southern history!"

Carolina dreaming,

BT

[Zachriel]

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

That is what is known as revisionist history. Here are the facts:

The Mississippi Declaration of Secession 1861:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/rea...ml#Mississippi

Speech of Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
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/...oneExcerpt.htm

This is possibly very painful for many of you to read. But it is important that people understand the history of that time.