Yea i know glen burnie, not tooo far from columbia. My ancestors on one side were with the confederacy and 2 other parts were in the union. Im definetly not fond of the confederacy though, considering im half black. ok....back to topic
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Actually, properly speaking, MD is a divided state. Northern and Western part is mostly Unionist where Southern and Eastern are Rebs. Like, Baltimore (I am from there) is really divided city with leaning toward confederacy so when Union occupied there, half welcomed it, and another half revolted. Maryland's vote to secession is primarily dued to the fact that richer you are, more pro-Confederate you are, that is how North Carolina and Tenn secessed even if most of its people don't want to secede from USA. For example, after battle of Anitem (damn my spelling!), Confederate Marylander regiment tried to fill it uo back to full strength but they failed even with the sing of "My Maryland" so, that should say something. Oh well, I am pro-Unionist. Most of my ancestor are from here, Maryland and they fought for USA, only one fought for CSA and he is a drummer boy.
Maryland is the state that you have literally brother against brother.
This raises my first question- is the Lone Star Republic in the game?
(It existed for nine years, and could have held out longer if the North and South hadn't compromised on annexing it by electing Polk instead of Henry Clay, not to mention that maneuvering via congressional resolution rather than peace treaty. Clay, the leading candidate, advocated not annexing Texas as doing so would cause war with Mexico. Polk, the dark horse, got himself elected and proceeded with Plan B if you will)
I am not to good on American history, but I live in NC as of right now, and if I am right (I could be wrong) 98% of the state voted to succeed! So doesn't that mean just a little more than only the rich people voted to succeed, because I don't know about then, but now NC is a fairly poor state out side of it's metropolitan areas?
Not true. The dissenting votes weren't based on class, but by region. (And I haven't heard of any state seceding without at majority approval in a plebiscite.) The mountain counties were less supportive of secession because of internal regional rivalries in each state. The same phenomenon occured in the War of American Independence, only much more intensely. Most of the Southern States had civil wars of their own, and loyalty to the crown or the revolution depended upon internal politics to a great extent.
By that logic, nobody in Tibet should consider themselves Tibetan, nobody in Quebec should consider themselves Quebecois, and nobody in the USSR should have considered themselves Ukrainian, etc.
National identities are complex things, and North America is more complex than political boundaries suggest. There are different "layers" of nationality. (For example, see Joel Garreau's "The nine nations of North America") Like Canadians, Aussies, and others, we speak English , and started out as Englishmen, but have evolved distinct cultural identities. Being "American" traditionally has been based more on belief in a set of values as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (although we don't always interpret them the same) One can consider one's self Southern AND American, and not be self-contradictory.
It is true about Maryland, though - historically it was Southern (it voted to secede but was prevented from doing so by Union troops), but now it is not - at least the central Baltimore-Washington corridor is not. In fact, a group of my friends from Virginia attended a gaming convention in Baltimore some years back, and found the people there so rude that they voted to move the Mason-Dixon line to Maryland's southern border
That's partly because of all the transplants in the region, and partly because New England created the American public school system and promoted the position that the war was about slavery and only slavery. Today those same schools are controlled by teachers unions that are dominated by Northeastern "political correctness" and socialism*. Kids are taught that "it's bad to be Southern" because "Southernness" is somehow equated with racism. True, slavery and racism were very bad and harmful to all involved, but we've moved way beyond that now - however certain political groups find it expedient not to let it go.
Now it's all about politics. Some political groups are empowered by transferring wealth from one groups of people to another. Southerners tend to be more conservative* and more religious, and their voting patterns create obstacles to the political agendas of those who want to make America more socialist, and make the South more socialist. To achieve this, they want Southerners to stop being Southern.
And that, unfortunately, is the politics of being Southern in the 21st century.
*In America, socialists are called "liberals" because socialism came to be considered "anti-American" during the Cold War. And liberals (in the European sense) are called "conservatives". "Liberal" in America is someone who believes in a loose or liberal interpretation of the Constitution, with inferred meanings, and broader powers of government than the Constitution allows. "Conservatives" are people to believe in a strict, conservative interpretation - it means what is says, and government should be limited accordingly.
Last edited:
Wow. I'm sorry, I'm gonna just have to bite:
Actually all three of these are distinct ethnicities with their own culture and language (except for Quebecois, who nevertheless have a different language than the majority) and which (again Quebec is the exception) also have a history of independence. The Ukraine, BTW, is independent now (in case you haven't noticed, the USSR doesn't exist anymore), so Ukrainians should definitely consider themselves Ukrainian.
As a military brat with Southern parents who grew up all over the Union (though mostly in the South, as that's where most fighter bases are) I think this is just plain silly. Yhea, living in NY I bitch about Yankees all the time and that's all fine and good, but they're really not that different. They just talk funny and some more of them vote democrat. 90% of the differences I've seen are simply the result of life in the big city: they talk faster and walk faster and just don't have time for Southern style friendly lollygagging with the girl behind the counter and are more than willing to bark at someone who does. Overall, though, this isn't really all that different from someone in downtown Atlanta....
After living in DC for a while we used to say that DC was right on the Molotov-Ribbentrop line: South of us were the Facists in 'Ginny and North of us were the Communists in Maryland.
Ok, here's where I get angry:
If anything American History still takes it too easy on the South. Let's say it all together: "The War was about slavery." It's more than ok to be Southern if being Southern means liking cornbread and appreciating the genius of chicken-fried steak (droool.... Yankees just can't make it right....). I don't think, however, that public schools should spend time trying to make the white southerners feel better about their heritage by making up a bunch of "Stars and Bars Pride" type lies about the war. Everyone learns in high school about how Maryland was occupied by troops. Isn't that horrible? Doesn't it just show how much the southern cause was right? How many textbooks go into detail about how Eastern Tennesee was occupied by Southern troops (and that a mini-guerilla war broke out over it. Sgt. York's ancestors bagged a whole bunch of Confederate Draft Board types. In fact, there were armed guerilla movements in just about every Confederate state. The only problems the North had were in Missouri and during the NYC draft riots). How many mention that in Northern Georgia support for the war was so flimsy that Sherman's march to the sea grew as it went (and that's not including the freed slaves who rallied to Sherman)? How many mention that simply possessing abolitionist literature was a felony in most Southern states and in the Confederacy (a fact which proves as BS all those claims by "the South shoulda' won" types that the Confederacy would have freed the slaves right after they won, as if they just wanted to prove a point first.
And the British never would have joined the South, not while it had slavery. I've read quote after quote by prominent British politicians of the day who called the Civil War a war between good (the Union) and evil (the South). If the South really valued their freedom from Yankee tyranny more than they wanted slavery they could have freed the slaves and lobbied for British involvement. They could have freed the slaves and used them as soldiers (though I doubt the southern blacks whould have gone for it: the South tried that trick during the Revolutionary War and those slaves that fought mostly ended up back in chains at the war's end). But they didn't. They would rather have gone up in flames than freed the slaves.
Alexander Stephens, VP of the Confederacy: "Our new government's 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."
The Confederacy fought for slavery and, partly, lost because of it. Not only did slavery mean they had no allies and kept a good deal of its population in chains instead of in uniform, it also meant that at any one time 1/3 of the Confederate Army was spread throughout the south ready to put down slave insurrections and abolitionist guerilla action. The actions of black soldiers during the Civil War so changed Southern perceptions about blacks that many came to realize that, as Howell Cobb of Georgia said, "If slaves c an make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong." Entire confederate units began to disband and go home. The South collapsed in on itself.
I've ranted long enough so I won't go fully into how much the average textbook lies about Reconstruction. Just to say that the average "Carpetbagger" was a young white woman who headed South to be a schoolteacher to illiterate ex-slaves despite the constant treat of death by racist Southerners (Southerner and racist aren't synonymous, of course). Not exactly the best way to get rich by victimizing the "prostrate South." Most politicians during Reconstruction were Southerners who were either ex-Whigs (converted to Republicans) or educated ex-slaves. Considering Tennessee and a few other states were fairly divided politically between those pro and anti-Confederate finding pro-civil rights Southerners weren't that hard to find. They did a lot of good work (Southern politics was less corrupt during Reconstruction than it was before or after it) and helped the South to get back on it's feet. After it ended we got over a century for textbook committee types to lie about what Reconstruction was all about (and turn the KKK into heroes), and if one state wants a textbook to change it tends to change: no publisher wants to make 50 different versions of the same textbook. And so we got a John Brown who was crazy, a Confederacy with right on its side, and an evil corrupt Reconstruction. (imagine the Germans printing a textbook calling the Marshall Plan a hideous perversion of justice and being morally neutral on whether the Nazi's were right and you pretty much get the picture) /Rant
QUOTE]Originally posted by The Grinch
Now it's all about politics. Some political groups are empowered by transferring wealth from one groups of people to another. Southerners tend to be more conservative* and more religious, and their voting patterns create obstacles to the political agendas of those who want to make America more socialist, and make the South more socialist. To achieve this, they want Southerners to stop being Southern.
And that, unfortunately, is the politics of being Southern in the 21st century.
[/QUOTE]
No, they just want the South to stop upholding a symbol of White Supremacy as a cherished cultural artifact. If advancing the 14th Amendment to do what it was supposed to do (bolster the civil rights of minorities regardless of what state they live in) is Socialist, so be it.
As a student of Constitutional Law I find this kind of stuff laughably simplistic. Both sides of the Supreme Court pull stuff out of their ass just as much. It just depends on what the issue at hand is. Sometimes "Liberals" are giving a "strict interpretation", sometimes the "Conservatives" do. Making it into the Party of the Liars vs the Party of the Truthtellers is just idiotic, no offence.
Conservatives, after all, have no problem with increasing the power of the Federal govt. when it gets their man elected (Bush v. Gore, where the Supreme Court shot down a state's constitutional right to determine how it runs elections).
Actually all three of these are distinct ethnicities with their own culture and language (except for Quebecois, who nevertheless have a different language than the majority) and which (again Quebec is the exception) also have a history of independence. The Ukraine, BTW, is independent now (in case you haven't noticed, the USSR doesn't exist anymore), so Ukrainians should definitely consider themselves Ukrainian.
As a military brat with Southern parents who grew up all over the Union (though mostly in the South, as that's where most fighter bases are) I think this is just plain silly. Yhea, living in NY I bitch about Yankees all the time and that's all fine and good, but they're really not that different. They just talk funny and some more of them vote democrat. 90% of the differences I've seen are simply the result of life in the big city: they talk faster and walk faster and just don't have time for Southern style friendly lollygagging with the girl behind the counter and are more than willing to bark at someone who does. Overall, though, this isn't really all that different from someone in downtown Atlanta....
Originally posted by The Grinch
It is true about Maryland, though - historically it was Southern (it voted to secede but was prevented from doing so by Union troops), but now it is not - at least the central Baltimore-Washington corridor is not. In fact, a group of my friends from Virginia attended a gaming convention in Baltimore some years back, and found the people there so rude that they voted to move the Mason-Dixon line to Maryland's southern border
After living in DC for a while we used to say that DC was right on the Molotov-Ribbentrop line: South of us were the Facists in 'Ginny and North of us were the Communists in Maryland.
Ok, here's where I get angry:
If anything American History still takes it too easy on the South. Let's say it all together: "The War was about slavery." It's more than ok to be Southern if being Southern means liking cornbread and appreciating the genius of chicken-fried steak (droool.... Yankees just can't make it right....). I don't think, however, that public schools should spend time trying to make the white southerners feel better about their heritage by making up a bunch of "Stars and Bars Pride" type lies about the war. Everyone learns in high school about how Maryland was occupied by troops. Isn't that horrible? Doesn't it just show how much the southern cause was right? How many textbooks go into detail about how Eastern Tennesee was occupied by Southern troops (and that a mini-guerilla war broke out over it. Sgt. York's ancestors bagged a whole bunch of Confederate Draft Board types. In fact, there were armed guerilla movements in just about every Confederate state. The only problems the North had were in Missouri and during the NYC draft riots). How many mention that in Northern Georgia support for the war was so flimsy that Sherman's march to the sea grew as it went (and that's not including the freed slaves who rallied to Sherman)? How many mention that simply possessing abolitionist literature was a felony in most Southern states and in the Confederacy (a fact which proves as BS all those claims by "the South shoulda' won" types that the Confederacy would have freed the slaves right after they won, as if they just wanted to prove a point first.
And the British never would have joined the South, not while it had slavery. I've read quote after quote by prominent British politicians of the day who called the Civil War a war between good (the Union) and evil (the South). If the South really valued their freedom from Yankee tyranny more than they wanted slavery they could have freed the slaves and lobbied for British involvement. They could have freed the slaves and used them as soldiers (though I doubt the southern blacks whould have gone for it: the South tried that trick during the Revolutionary War and those slaves that fought mostly ended up back in chains at the war's end). But they didn't. They would rather have gone up in flames than freed the slaves.
Alexander Stephens, VP of the Confederacy: "Our new government's 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."
The Confederacy fought for slavery and, partly, lost because of it. Not only did slavery mean they had no allies and kept a good deal of its population in chains instead of in uniform, it also meant that at any one time 1/3 of the Confederate Army was spread throughout the south ready to put down slave insurrections and abolitionist guerilla action. The actions of black soldiers during the Civil War so changed Southern perceptions about blacks that many came to realize that, as Howell Cobb of Georgia said, "If slaves c an make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong." Entire confederate units began to disband and go home. The South collapsed in on itself.
I've ranted long enough so I won't go fully into how much the average textbook lies about Reconstruction. Just to say that the average "Carpetbagger" was a young white woman who headed South to be a schoolteacher to illiterate ex-slaves despite the constant treat of death by racist Southerners (Southerner and racist aren't synonymous, of course). Not exactly the best way to get rich by victimizing the "prostrate South." Most politicians during Reconstruction were Southerners who were either ex-Whigs (converted to Republicans) or educated ex-slaves. Considering Tennessee and a few other states were fairly divided politically between those pro and anti-Confederate finding pro-civil rights Southerners weren't that hard to find. They did a lot of good work (Southern politics was less corrupt during Reconstruction than it was before or after it) and helped the South to get back on it's feet. After it ended we got over a century for textbook committee types to lie about what Reconstruction was all about (and turn the KKK into heroes), and if one state wants a textbook to change it tends to change: no publisher wants to make 50 different versions of the same textbook. And so we got a John Brown who was crazy, a Confederacy with right on its side, and an evil corrupt Reconstruction. (imagine the Germans printing a textbook calling the Marshall Plan a hideous perversion of justice and being morally neutral on whether the Nazi's were right and you pretty much get the picture) /Rant
QUOTE]Originally posted by The Grinch
Now it's all about politics. Some political groups are empowered by transferring wealth from one groups of people to another. Southerners tend to be more conservative* and more religious, and their voting patterns create obstacles to the political agendas of those who want to make America more socialist, and make the South more socialist. To achieve this, they want Southerners to stop being Southern.
And that, unfortunately, is the politics of being Southern in the 21st century.
[/QUOTE]
No, they just want the South to stop upholding a symbol of White Supremacy as a cherished cultural artifact. If advancing the 14th Amendment to do what it was supposed to do (bolster the civil rights of minorities regardless of what state they live in) is Socialist, so be it.
[/B][/QUOTE]
As a student of Constitutional Law I find this kind of stuff laughably simplistic. Both sides of the Supreme Court pull stuff out of their ass just as much. It just depends on what the issue at hand is. Sometimes "Liberals" are giving a "strict interpretation", sometimes the "Conservatives" do. Making it into the Party of the Liars vs the Party of the Truthtellers is just idiotic, no offence.
Conservatives, after all, have no problem with increasing the power of the Federal govt. when it gets their man elected (Bush v. Gore, where the Supreme Court shot down a state's constitutional right to determine how it runs elections).
It seems that you are saying that nationality only exists where an independent government exists. With all due respect, that's hogwash. Governments are only tools established by the people - they do not determine a people's character. According to what you are saying, Ukrainians as an ethnic group did not exist between 1922 and 1991, because the Ukrainian state ceased to exist. And if you say the Quebecois are merely Canadians who speak French, I think you'll find many Quebecois will take issue with you - so where then does their independence movement come from?
Well, as someone who was a military brat, lived in a variety of states, and then as an adult has traveled extensively through North America and beyond, I think you have not been particularly observant. I've been to NY and Atlanta - both are fast-paced, but the way people interact and even think are different. The main similarities come from Yankees who have moved South and brought their attitudes with them. The observations you have cited indicate something deeper - a whole different approach to life. Yankees and Southerners vote diferently because they have different ideas and values. Yankees rush because they live to work; Southerners lollygag because they work to live.
If you think Quebec is just a part of Canada that speaks French, then maybe you don't see the differences between North and South either. Then how do you justify Canada as distinct from the US? I've been in parts of Canada that were very similar to parts of the US, and parts that were very different. Some parts of Canada and the US have more in common with each other than with other regions in their respective unions. And some parts are more like the British Isles than the rest of North America. There's a lot more to nationality than what waves on the flag pole.
No need to get angry - this is supposed to be a forum for friendly discussion. But I think you're starting to let a few things show through, which I'll address in a second. But first - the war was NOT ONLY about slavery.
The idea that it was is grossly over-simplistic. 70-80% of Confederate servicemen were NOT slave owners. Slavery was one, particularly visible difference of many, but the heart of the matter was different cultures, that had evolved differently, and these cultures reflected in politics in a variety of issues. The war was fought over Southern independence - the South wanted it, and Lincoln was afraid it would lead to political balkanisation, European reconquest, and the end of republicanism. I don't know what school you went to, but I don't think it's right for public schools to teach Southern children to be ashamed because SOME Southerners had slaves 150 years ago, and because many Southerners still believe the Bible now, and because many Southerners vote for candidates who want to "destroy the environment, starve children, and kill old people". No, I don't think it's right at all that children be taught that being Southern means being ignorant, racist and stupid, and that the only way NOT to be ignorant, racist, and stupid is to repudiate their own culture.
But it sounds to me like you have bought into this argument.
High school text books have to keep it simple, but mine did mention guerilla movements and the prohibition of abolitionist literature. Incidentally, that prohibition was adopted in the 1830s, shortly after Nat Turner's rebellion I think. It had nothing to do with the war.
The British very nearly did get involved anyway. With the benefit of hindsight, it's quite clear to us that that was the choice at hand, but it was not so clear then. The mechanisms of politics turn slowly, especially in the face of wealthy special interests, but as a matter of fact toward the end of the war, the Confederate government DID authorise freedom for slaves who enlisted, and many African-American Southerners DID serve in the Confederate Army. The measures came too late to help the war effort.
Once again, we have the benefit of hindsight. WE know that slavery was bad for the South. THEY didn't. They didn't realise that it was a dying institution. They feared that suddenly freeing a population that had spent its entire existence in a state of dependence would create choas, that a mass of freed slaves might not be able to fend for themselves. They genuinely believed that these people were incapable of caring for themselves, and that cutting them loose would be wrong. You and I can sit here today and say "they should have got rid of slavery" - but in the 1860s the issue was not that simple.
Once again this is a gross oversimplification, and the conclusion is just wrong. The South collapsed because of the strains of the war, not because some African American soldiers in blue showed up.
There were such soldiers on both sides. Yes, it should have helped prove that the theory of slavery was wrong. But THE WAR WAS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY. [<i>Edit: what I meant to say was the slavery was not the PRIMARY issue, not that it was not an issue at all -Grinch</i>]Just because there were a lot of schoolteachers does not mean there wasn't genuine exploitation as well.
Pro-Union doesn't necessarily mean pro-civil rights, and the North was just as racist as the South. The Reconstruction Act declared that the Southern states were not part of the Union. The fact is that Confederate citizens were disenfranchised, and the only pople who could vote were freed slaves, and those who basically turned against their community. The majority of Southerners were denied the right of self-determination. As for the politics, Union politicians raised a special tax on cotton, that compounded the economic lossed from the war and the collapse of the caootn market. Southerners were compelled to sell off their land to Northern speculators to survive - Northerners benfiting from conditions created by Northerners, at the expense of Southerners both black and white.
A "century" of pro-Southern textbooks? With the KKK as heroes????
I'm old enough that I think I would have remembered that... That sounds like something from about the turn of the 20th century, hardly anything that's around today. There's no wauy the teachers' unions would allow it. (And frankly, I'd take issue with a textbook glorifying the KKK myself- they've done as much to hurt the South as Sherman.) Incidentally, I do think John Brown was crazy - he massacred civilians in Kansas. Basically, he was a terrorist. I liken him to today's abortion clinic bombers - doing horribly bad things for morally correct causes.
I hope you're not seriously likening Reconstruction to the Marshall Plan...
Don't even start with me on the flag issue.
People today do NOT display the flag as a sysmbol of white supremacy, they display it because they love the South, and everything that makes it unique and special. A few crazies that march around in sheets and dunce caps are NOT representative of the Southern people, no matter how the media tries to hype it. And, incidentally, the klan uses the Stars and Stripes as well. Under the Stars and Stripes, slavery was sanctioned for 89 years. This does NOT make it a racist symbol either.The 14th Amendment does nothing of the kind. It was a legislative procedure to replace the old federal republic with a more centralised national republic. Section 3 provided a legal excuse to disenfranchise ex-Confederate voters and contained an ex-post-facto provision to exclude them from public office. however, it says nothing about the flag, nor does it say anything about the extermination of a culture.
Originally posted by Guinnessmonkey
As a student of Constitutional Law I find this kind of stuff laughably simplistic. Both sides of the Supreme Court pull stuff out of their ass just as much. It just depends on what the issue at hand is. Sometimes "Liberals" are giving a "strict interpretation", sometimes the "Conservatives" do. Making it into the Party of the Liars vs the Party of the Truthtellers is just idiotic, no offence.
I don't believe that's what I did. I did say that a particular party seems to have a particular penchant for arguing that the Constitution does not mean what it says - the "living document" thesis, for example, which is pure guano. It is indeed true, however, that both parties are guilty - but to different degrees.
Originally posted by Guinnessmonkey
Conservatives, after all, have no problem with increasing the power of the Federal govt. when it gets their man elected (Bush v. Gore, where the Supreme Court shot down a state's constitutional right to determine how it runs elections).
Just as liberals have no problem claiming states' rights when it suits their pourposes?
Now THAT was one for the record books! A big a states' rights advocate as I may be, I think the US Supreme Court got that one right - in an election for a national office, all votes in a state need to be counted the same, instead of selectively recounted to secure a desired outcome. If Gore asked for a statewide recount, it wouldn't have been an issue (and we'd still have the same President).
Last edited:
Originally posted by The Grinch
Once again this is a gross oversimplification, and the conclusion is just wrong. The South collapsed because of the strains of the war, not because some African American soldiers in blue showed up.
My entire knowledge of the American Civil War is based on two classes I took at college, so I might be a bit off here, but wasn't it Abraham Lincoln who shifted the focus of the war onto slavery way after the conflict had started, with his famous Gettysburg speech?
Last edited:
Not to be rude, but the South seceeded because they felt that slavery as an issue would soon be abolished since the north was politically superior to the south at this time (Lincoln was elected without carrying a single southern state).
Anyone claiming otherwise is a revisionist on the same scale as people who claim the Holocaust didn't happen.
If WWII taught us anything, it is that revisionism is bad, even if people in the south want to think that their former system of repression, evil, and greed is somehow idealistic.
The CSA would not have abolished slavery ever. It was in their constitution that slavery could neither be abolished by congress nor by individual states. (Article IV section 2 clause 3, Article 4 section 3 clause 3).
Nowhere in the confederate constitution is it mentioned that states have a right to secede from the confederacy. With notable exceptions (slavery), the CSA constitution is the same as the US constitution.
States' rights was not the issue. Accept that.
Anyone claiming otherwise is a revisionist on the same scale as people who claim the Holocaust didn't happen.
If WWII taught us anything, it is that revisionism is bad, even if people in the south want to think that their former system of repression, evil, and greed is somehow idealistic.
The CSA would not have abolished slavery ever. It was in their constitution that slavery could neither be abolished by congress nor by individual states. (Article IV section 2 clause 3, Article 4 section 3 clause 3).
Nowhere in the confederate constitution is it mentioned that states have a right to secede from the confederacy. With notable exceptions (slavery), the CSA constitution is the same as the US constitution.
States' rights was not the issue. Accept that.
Now for something back on topic
Having not played the AoN yet (I already have 2 installs of EU2 on this machine... How many more do I need ), I'm not 100% qualified to help, but I can give some historical suggestions that might help make the CSA fall as scheduled.
Once the civil war starts (trigger war USA v. CSA) revotrisk in all CSA provinces should go up by 10% to represent the need to garrison against slave insurrections.
Manpower in the CSA should be reduced to a trifle. The north didn't win based on better generals or tactics. It won based on more men. Logistics, Logistics, Logistics.
There is no possible way that the UK would have entered the war, and the CSA should have -150 relations with everyone in Europe.
The USN needs to be large to be able to blockade the south. It did happen historically (thus making the price of cotton so high for the UK that they created cotton fields in India ). The CSA needs political crisis events, random desertion events (most of the CSA army was made up of, sorry to say it this way, poor whites that didn't want to fight for their masters any more than slaves would have) and several negative events until at least 1875.
Should the CSA somehow manage to survive this (and they shouldn't -- the CSA was logistically doomed from the moment they fired on Fort Sumter), they need to face their own civil war in the late 1870-1880s when equality for poor whites causes them to realize they are getting screwed by their plantation masters. My suggestion would be that if the capital is rebel held the US would get an inherit event on the CSA to "restore order in the south".
Back to the war though: Once the USA has captured Virginia (control) and Georgia, the war should end with CSA surrender (inherit event). After all, the entire war lasted less than the "truce". (I'm assuming this is how it is handled in AoN anyway).
Anyway. I suppose I should re-install Eu2 yet again for this scenario.
Duuk
Having not played the AoN yet (I already have 2 installs of EU2 on this machine... How many more do I need
), I'm not 100% qualified to help, but I can give some historical suggestions that might help make the CSA fall as scheduled.Once the civil war starts (trigger war USA v. CSA) revotrisk in all CSA provinces should go up by 10% to represent the need to garrison against slave insurrections.
Manpower in the CSA should be reduced to a trifle. The north didn't win based on better generals or tactics. It won based on more men. Logistics, Logistics, Logistics.
There is no possible way that the UK would have entered the war, and the CSA should have -150 relations with everyone in Europe.
The USN needs to be large to be able to blockade the south. It did happen historically (thus making the price of cotton so high for the UK that they created cotton fields in India
). The CSA needs political crisis events, random desertion events (most of the CSA army was made up of, sorry to say it this way, poor whites that didn't want to fight for their masters any more than slaves would have) and several negative events until at least 1875.Should the CSA somehow manage to survive this (and they shouldn't -- the CSA was logistically doomed from the moment they fired on Fort Sumter), they need to face their own civil war in the late 1870-1880s when equality for poor whites causes them to realize they are getting screwed by their plantation masters. My suggestion would be that if the capital is rebel held the US would get an inherit event on the CSA to "restore order in the south".
Back to the war though: Once the USA has captured Virginia (control) and Georgia, the war should end with CSA surrender (inherit event). After all, the entire war lasted less than the "truce". (I'm assuming this is how it is handled in AoN anyway).
Anyway. I suppose I should re-install Eu2 yet again for this scenario.
Duuk
Your right that slavery would never be abolished in the CSA, it would still be on the books today if the CSA had survived, however it would be rare by today.
However states rights was the main issue the CS constitution was a lot looser in the federal powers than the US constitution, although the president had a few extra powers. The CSA was basically an alliance states and not much more. The south resented the fact that northern states could now vote in bills and laws and statutes even if all southern states voted no. Slavery was the prime example of this but it could have easily been another issue.
As for slave revolts I doubt this, slave revolts were a no issue in the civil war and did not tie up that much manpower what did was that the Union navy could land forces at any point along the coast.
The CS should have low relations with the UK, as they would not join the war.
The US navy was small at the beginning of the war maybe a gain ships event is needed.
And as for
“They need to face their own civil war in the late 1870-1880s when equality for poor whites causes them to realize they are getting screwed by their plantation masters.”
Well that was way out of left field please explain further.
All else sound good.
However states rights was the main issue the CS constitution was a lot looser in the federal powers than the US constitution, although the president had a few extra powers. The CSA was basically an alliance states and not much more. The south resented the fact that northern states could now vote in bills and laws and statutes even if all southern states voted no. Slavery was the prime example of this but it could have easily been another issue.
As for slave revolts I doubt this, slave revolts were a no issue in the civil war and did not tie up that much manpower what did was that the Union navy could land forces at any point along the coast.
The CS should have low relations with the UK, as they would not join the war.
The US navy was small at the beginning of the war maybe a gain ships event is needed.
And as for
“They need to face their own civil war in the late 1870-1880s when equality for poor whites causes them to realize they are getting screwed by their plantation masters.”
Well that was way out of left field please explain further.
All else sound good.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/csa.htm
That's the CSA constitution. It's almost identical to the US one of the time.
Show me how the "States' Rights" are any different, and I'll show you that you're deliberately misconstruing it for the benefit of denying that the only issue was slavery.
--
Slave revolts were not historically an issue, you are correct. But the _possibility_ of slave revolts kept 1/3 to 1/2 of the CSA Army in (effectively) garrison duty to prevent it. Therefore, since the only way to really simulate that in-game would be to increase RR and actually have revolts occur, that is what I propose.
--
The US navy was fairly small historically, but it did manage to choke off the cotton trade from the CSA to the UK. In-game, this can only be simulated by having tons of ships available for the US. I would recommend using "galleys" as a substitute for the short-haul ships that the USN used at the time. After all, the UK had the finest high-seas fleet in the world, but close-in the USN was a good group. Since the US has to "blockade" the CSA in-game, they're going to need a ton of galleys.
--
I was looking for a quick and easy cite, but haven't managed to find one for the poor white comment. So I guess I'll just have to explain in massively ugly detail
In the CSA (as in the Union), wealthy people could pay a proxy to serve in the army for them. In the north, this meant that patrician families often paid locals. In the south, however, this had a strange effect that slaveholding families (far and away a minority) paid unlanded poor whites to serve in their stead. The result of this is that the average Johnny Reb was really someone with no vested interest in the status of slavery in the US. Thus the battle cry of States Rights. This means that the army itself has more in common with the slave than with the slaveholder.
Assuming a CSA "victory" in the ACW (extremely impossible historically, but for the sake of argument I'll handwave in that even a loss that doesn't result in their annexation is a "win"), eventually that same poor white trash is going to want to vote and have a say in their national government. When that occurs, one of two results will occur: Either the government will accept that, in which case massive anger among the landed gentry will cause them to have a very large "political crisis" event, or that will be denied and the possibility of revolution comes into play.
Voting rights were defined by the states at the time of the ACW, and most states in the south had landholding requirements. (Many in the north as well).
How will the CSA deal with things like the 14th and 15th amendment to the US constitution? No poor whites in the CSA will notice that their voting rights are not the same as the northerners?
I really don't want to debate this, since this isn't the place for it and borders dangerously off topic, but event if the CSA wins, things are not all ducks and roses for them.
Duuk
That's the CSA constitution. It's almost identical to the US one of the time.
Show me how the "States' Rights" are any different, and I'll show you that you're deliberately misconstruing it for the benefit of denying that the only issue was slavery.
--
Slave revolts were not historically an issue, you are correct. But the _possibility_ of slave revolts kept 1/3 to 1/2 of the CSA Army in (effectively) garrison duty to prevent it. Therefore, since the only way to really simulate that in-game would be to increase RR and actually have revolts occur, that is what I propose.
--
The US navy was fairly small historically, but it did manage to choke off the cotton trade from the CSA to the UK. In-game, this can only be simulated by having tons of ships available for the US. I would recommend using "galleys" as a substitute for the short-haul ships that the USN used at the time. After all, the UK had the finest high-seas fleet in the world, but close-in the USN was a good group. Since the US has to "blockade" the CSA in-game, they're going to need a ton of galleys.
--
I was looking for a quick and easy cite, but haven't managed to find one for the poor white comment. So I guess I'll just have to explain in massively ugly detail
In the CSA (as in the Union), wealthy people could pay a proxy to serve in the army for them. In the north, this meant that patrician families often paid locals. In the south, however, this had a strange effect that slaveholding families (far and away a minority) paid unlanded poor whites to serve in their stead. The result of this is that the average Johnny Reb was really someone with no vested interest in the status of slavery in the US. Thus the battle cry of States Rights. This means that the army itself has more in common with the slave than with the slaveholder.
Assuming a CSA "victory" in the ACW (extremely impossible historically, but for the sake of argument I'll handwave in that even a loss that doesn't result in their annexation is a "win"), eventually that same poor white trash is going to want to vote and have a say in their national government. When that occurs, one of two results will occur: Either the government will accept that, in which case massive anger among the landed gentry will cause them to have a very large "political crisis" event, or that will be denied and the possibility of revolution comes into play.
Voting rights were defined by the states at the time of the ACW, and most states in the south had landholding requirements. (Many in the north as well).
How will the CSA deal with things like the 14th and 15th amendment to the US constitution? No poor whites in the CSA will notice that their voting rights are not the same as the northerners?
I really don't want to debate this, since this isn't the place for it and borders dangerously off topic, but event if the CSA wins, things are not all ducks and roses for them.
Duuk
Of course slavery was an issue, the newly declared CSA had only one industry and that was agriculture. Slavery was the whole basis of the economy there was no heavy industry if you take out slaves the whole country would collapse in economic ruin.
But that was by far not the only issue there. Your looking at it from a 20th century standpoint In 1860 slavery had been a fact of life for 200 years for only a few was it a real moral question for most it was a simple economic fact. As you have said most southerners did not own slaves and did not care about slavery, they were not there fighting for slavery just as most northerners were not fighting to abolish slavery.
After a victory Confederate troops did not throw their hands in the air proclaiming slavery forever.
That’s like saying that if we have to invade Iraq our troops will have “Oil forever” as their battlecry.
Many were fighting to free slaves but few if any were fighting to preserve slavery.
As for the CS constitution it’s filled with things that cripple federal authority and give power to the states. The first line of the preamble says it all,
“ We the people of the Confederate states, each acting in its sovereign and independent character in order to form a permanent federal union”
Sovereign and independent character being added to immediately show that this was about States Rights first.
States were allowed to impeach "any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any state also the states were allowed to impose their own import and export taxes on sea traffic and enter into pacts for taxing river traffic, federal courts lost some power, The federal government was not allowed to create federal works projects (so tax money from say Texas would not go to build a railroad in South Carolina), The federal government was not allowed to tax foreign goods and such to spur industrial growth ( that would be up to the states as they chose, big changes to the introduction of amendments structure, and no federal review of any states courts. There is probably more as well.
The southern soldier was fighting because he believed the Federal government had grown to strong, to authoritarian. This was not the southern vision of America. The southerners felt they were being cheated by the Federal government and they wished to leave and try again.
____________________________________________________
Now that I have said that
You may be right about the RR after all that could represent anything, a slave revolt, local Unionist partisan, food riots it just depends on where and how severe you think the RR should be. A good place for a lot of RR would be Eastern Tennessee for instance.
The US navy was large but it was mostly crap by European standards galleys would do very well at representing this.
And as for the confederate class warfare problems well that doesn’t sound very plausible.
Substitution was less common in the South than in the North (Any man especially rich was expected to fight or at least do some other type of war work and would have been shunned had he not) and in any case Substitutions were outlawed in 1863 in the South. As for voting rights only 7 states ever had any real property requirements for voting and the last to abolish this was North Carolina in 1856. Landed gentry as you call them were not that much of a problem for the average person most people had some land even if it was just a shack and a small garden, it wasn’t Britain; there was always more land.
Things should not be all ducks and roses for them if they win but I think something along the lines of an economic collapse in the late 19th century due to falling cotton value and a rush to industrialize in the face of an overpowering and expanding north might be more plausible.
But that was by far not the only issue there. Your looking at it from a 20th century standpoint In 1860 slavery had been a fact of life for 200 years for only a few was it a real moral question for most it was a simple economic fact. As you have said most southerners did not own slaves and did not care about slavery, they were not there fighting for slavery just as most northerners were not fighting to abolish slavery.
After a victory Confederate troops did not throw their hands in the air proclaiming slavery forever.
That’s like saying that if we have to invade Iraq our troops will have “Oil forever” as their battlecry.
Many were fighting to free slaves but few if any were fighting to preserve slavery.
As for the CS constitution it’s filled with things that cripple federal authority and give power to the states. The first line of the preamble says it all,
“ We the people of the Confederate states, each acting in its sovereign and independent character in order to form a permanent federal union”
Sovereign and independent character being added to immediately show that this was about States Rights first.
States were allowed to impeach "any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any state also the states were allowed to impose their own import and export taxes on sea traffic and enter into pacts for taxing river traffic, federal courts lost some power, The federal government was not allowed to create federal works projects (so tax money from say Texas would not go to build a railroad in South Carolina), The federal government was not allowed to tax foreign goods and such to spur industrial growth ( that would be up to the states as they chose, big changes to the introduction of amendments structure, and no federal review of any states courts. There is probably more as well.
The southern soldier was fighting because he believed the Federal government had grown to strong, to authoritarian. This was not the southern vision of America. The southerners felt they were being cheated by the Federal government and they wished to leave and try again.
____________________________________________________
Now that I have said that
You may be right about the RR after all that could represent anything, a slave revolt, local Unionist partisan, food riots it just depends on where and how severe you think the RR should be. A good place for a lot of RR would be Eastern Tennessee for instance.
The US navy was large but it was mostly crap by European standards galleys would do very well at representing this.
And as for the confederate class warfare problems well that doesn’t sound very plausible.
Substitution was less common in the South than in the North (Any man especially rich was expected to fight or at least do some other type of war work and would have been shunned had he not) and in any case Substitutions were outlawed in 1863 in the South. As for voting rights only 7 states ever had any real property requirements for voting and the last to abolish this was North Carolina in 1856. Landed gentry as you call them were not that much of a problem for the average person most people had some land even if it was just a shack and a small garden, it wasn’t Britain; there was always more land.
Things should not be all ducks and roses for them if they win but I think something along the lines of an economic collapse in the late 19th century due to falling cotton value and a rush to industrialize in the face of an overpowering and expanding north might be more plausible.
Amazing. What could have turned into a nasty flame war has turned into a fairly rational agreement on the parts that matter (ie: The in game stuff).
Economic collapse based on the UK no longer solely relying on the south for cotton is extremely plausible.
Revolt Risk of like +4 during the period the US is at war with the CSA sounds fair to me. Nothing excessive (I don't want their gov't to collapse, just cause them some heartburn)
How is the "End of the Civil War" handled (I don't have AoN yet)? I'd hope there is an inherit event if Richmond is held or rebels hold richmond. (Well, capital. Likely won't always be richmond).
Duuk
Economic collapse based on the UK no longer solely relying on the south for cotton is extremely plausible.
Revolt Risk of like +4 during the period the US is at war with the CSA sounds fair to me. Nothing excessive (I don't want their gov't to collapse, just cause them some heartburn)
How is the "End of the Civil War" handled (I don't have AoN yet)? I'd hope there is an inherit event if Richmond is held or rebels hold richmond. (Well, capital. Likely won't always be richmond).
Duuk
The surrender event reads like this witch triggers an inherit event for the USA. Though it will probably change in the next version province 68 there I believe is the Southern capital "Richmond" however in the game I think the province is "Baltimore?" this will be fixed in the next version I think. Province 45 "New Orleans" is also a posibility for the capital in another event.
event = {
id = 17406
trigger = {
war = { country = USA country = CAS }
control = { province = 68 data = USA }
control = { province = 45 data = USA }
control = { province = 62 data = USA }
control = { province = 46 data = USA }
control = { province = 51 data = USA }
control = { province = 54 data = USA }
control = { province = 56 data = USA }
}
random = no
country = CAS
name = "Confederate Surrender"
desc = "Faced with overwhelming defeat, the Confederates chose to surrender to the Union instead of fighting a guerilla war."
date = { day = 15 month = july year = 1864 }
offset = 0
deathdate = { day = 16 month = july year = 1890 }
action_a = {
name = "Let us sow the seeds of peace (Game Over)"
command = { type = trigger which = 17405 }
}
action_b = {
name = "We have not begun to fight!"
command = { type = stability value = -4 }
event = {
id = 17406
trigger = {
war = { country = USA country = CAS }
control = { province = 68 data = USA }
control = { province = 45 data = USA }
control = { province = 62 data = USA }
control = { province = 46 data = USA }
control = { province = 51 data = USA }
control = { province = 54 data = USA }
control = { province = 56 data = USA }
}
random = no
country = CAS
name = "Confederate Surrender"
desc = "Faced with overwhelming defeat, the Confederates chose to surrender to the Union instead of fighting a guerilla war."
date = { day = 15 month = july year = 1864 }
offset = 0
deathdate = { day = 16 month = july year = 1890 }
action_a = {
name = "Let us sow the seeds of peace (Game Over)"
command = { type = trigger which = 17405 }
}
action_b = {
name = "We have not begun to fight!"
command = { type = stability value = -4 }
Hmmm. I understand the idea behind having an option in inherit events to continue the game for the player, but in this one case I think the game would be better served by making this event not have any options other than surrender.