Enough talk about the civil war

[The Andy-Man]

Just because the ACW (and war of independance) are aout the only history subjects tauight (very one sidedly) in US Schools, dosn't mean that it [ACW] was as important for every one else as it was for the US. the ACW was about as important for internationaly affairs as the English civil war - and in the long term both turned out to be a catylist of sorts for the nation, but i hardly ever see anyone in the EU forums even mention the English civil war, and if thats all they ever harped on about, think what peoples reactions would be

 

[unmerged(11089)]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
Just because the ACW (and war of independance) are aout the only history subjects tauight (very one sidedly) in US Schools, dosn't mean that it [ACW] was as important for every one else as it was for the US. the ACW was about as important for internationaly affairs as the English civil war - and in the long term both turned out to be a catylist of sorts for the nation, but i hardly ever see anyone in the EU forums even mention the English civil war, and if thats all they ever harped on about, think what peoples reactions would be

Well if they had forums, if they had the internet, if they had computers, if they had...you get the idea, during the time when the sun never set on the British Empire, I am sure that is the only thing we would be talking about. But after the sunset, there is not much to talk about!

 

[The Andy-Man]

Originally posted by czaralex
Well if they had forums, if they had the internet, if they had computers, if they had...you get the idea, during the time when the sun never set on the British Empire, I am sure that is the only thing we would be talking about. But after the sunset, there is not much to talk about!

I'll have you know the British Empire is still standing Strong!!!
Well, ok, it maybe reduced to some strategicly placed rocks here and there in the middle of the ocean, and british India may now consist of the Taj Mahal tandori in Hackney, but it still stands!!!!!!!

 

[unmerged(8351)]

rocky horror the point about the other nations not taking the us seriously was not that they were stupid and did not see the civil war for its great importance

but that it really was actually not that important to these countries within this timeframe

Nice point about the english civil war andy

 

[VinceV]

Well, I wish the programmers good luck at pleasing the American fanbase in its in-game rendition of the ACW. Somehow I think it may be minor in event number: a presidential choice for 1860, revolt dates for CSA from 1840-1870, increased RR after 1860, and a Reconstruction/Emancipation event to close out the whole cycle. Some people are creating some pretty wild expectations I think, about what should/will be in the rendering of the ACW. And you know, if I were the designers, I would make it quite small as well in game terms, because the bigger you make it, the more controversy and discussion that will erupt. There will be just no pleasing some of the ACW enthusiasts out there I am afraid--and certainly no consensus!

I don't wish to be negative, but I really think people are getting artificially worked up about this; my impression is that some might even be expecting to see the cane beating of Senator Sumner in there!

 

[unmerged(14393)]

Originally posted by VinceV
Well, I wish the programmers good luck at pleasing the American fanbase in its in-game rendition of the ACW. Somehow I think it may be minor in event number: a presidential choice for 1860, revolt dates for CSA from 1840-1870, increased RR after 1860, and a Reconstruction/Emancipation event to close out the whole cycle. Some people are creating some pretty wild expectations I think, about what should/will be in the rendering of the ACW. And you know, if I were the designers, I would make it quite small as well in game terms, because the bigger you make it, the more controversy and discussion that will erupt. There will be just no pleasing some of the ACW enthusiasts out there I am afraid--and certainly no consensus!

I don't wish to be negative, but I really think people are getting artificially worked up about this; my impression is that some might even be expecting to see the cane beating of Senator Sumner in there!

Well...I agree with what you are saying. But I think Paradox will give as much attention to the ACW as possible simply because the US-market is gigantic.

 

[unmerged(6473)]

The timing of the American Civil War may be able to be changed--it could have happened earlier or later. However, a military conflict between North and South was more or less inevitable and had been "brewing" ever since the US was created. This is mostly from the fundamental contradictions between the economic systems of North and South. North sought to dominate the South, to tie it to the North's economy rather than to allow it to pursue an independent course. The issue of slavery was a mask for the fundamental issue of who would control the economy of the South. The vicious fights over such things as tariff policy reflected the very real contradictions between them. The desire of Northern industrialists to free the slaves was a desire to crush the independent slave power of the South, in order that the South would fall completely and profitably into the North's hands. The South may have been backward and cruel, but the story is actually one of North's greed and ambition. Like one American scholar says of the South: "If they did not think that they could secede from the Union whenever it pleased them to, then they would have never joined it in the first place--it was simply not part of the social contract."

Anyway, ACW was not a fluke or accident but a really inevitable event. To say that it could have been avoided simply by having the North pursue a different policy really misses the point. Northern greed, ambition, and expansionism could NOT simply be turned off. Any Northern leader who had tried to would have failed and been removed.

In this area, if you want to change history, you might be able to change how long the war lasted or who won, but should not be able to change whether the war happened.

 

[Prufrock451]

EB- Once again, the historical dialectic eludes you!

The causes of the ACW were not primarily economic. If the Northern merchants were so anxious to capture Southern cotton, then why did the merchants who profited most from interaction with the South, the shippers of New York, SUPPORT the Southern cause? So much for Northern greed.

If the North was fulfilling its Manifest Destiny by reuniting the states, then why did the same Republicans who fought against the South block attempts by Grant to acquire El Salvador and rail against the purchase of Alaska? So much for Northern ambition.

If the North was the expansionist power, then why was the South always in the forefront of filubustering, in the wars over Texas and the Southwest, in supporting Walker's invasion of Nicaragua, in agitating for the seizure of Cuba? So much for Northern expansionism.

The South started it. The North finished it. And let's face it- the Civil War is the only thing in the 19th century that the average American can talk about with any degree of education. That's why we blab about it so much.

 

[unmerged(2567)]

Well...there are things that either side could have done to prevent it. The war could have been, at least, postponed by the selection of a different candidate in 1860 for president.

One of my best history professors said, simply, that sectionalism in the south - prior to 1860 - kept appearing every time that there was a controversy. There's a long run-up to the civil war - remember, all those compromises going back a half-century - and in each event there's the propensity for a large-scale war. But there were characters like Henry Clay that kept tying things together again, and eventually things cooled down.

The civil war would have likely been at least postponed if one of the moderate candidates had been elected in 1860. I don't think even the Deep South would have seceded if there wasn't a hope of the moderate states, like Virginia, for joining the Confederacy.

The hope for a player wanting to avoid the Civil War is to compromise long enough that slavery becomes economically unfeasible - or at least so apparently unfeasible that the southern states voluntarily give it up. And I think it could have happened, over time; all the other states of the world gave up slavery with conflagrations less than the ACW, and I think that given enough compromises the civil war could have been avoided.

This of course comes with the proviso that trying to wean the country off slavery would lead to a lot more dissent in the long run, and may very well hamper the player's ability to expand, and leave the state open to foreign designs, possibly. In short, not going for the civil war might leave the US in a bit of a bind, even though it never has to face a full-blown war. So, the player makes a choice.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
the ACW was about as important for internationaly affairs as the English civil war - and in the long term both turned out to be a catylist of sorts for the nation

That's a really good point!

I'll love to play through the American Civil War (maybe use it as an excuse for the British Empire to reclaim its wayward colonies ), but it's hardly the be-all and end-all of 19th century history.

 

[crazy canuck]

Originally posted by EB.
The timing of the American Civil War may be able to be changed--it could have happened earlier or later. However, a military conflict between North and South was more or less inevitable and had been "brewing" ever since the US was created. This is mostly from the fundamental contradictions between the economic systems of North and South. North sought to dominate the South, to tie it to the North's economy rather than to allow it to pursue an independent course. The issue of slavery was a mask for the fundamental issue of who would control the economy of the South. The vicious fights over such things as tariff policy reflected the very real contradictions between them. The desire of Northern industrialists to free the slaves was a desire to crush the independent slave power of the South, in order that the South would fall completely and profitably into the North's hands. The South may have been backward and cruel, but the story is actually one of North's greed and ambition. Like one American scholar says of the South: "If they did not think that they could secede from the Union whenever it pleased them to, then they would have never joined it in the first place--it was simply not part of the social contract."

Anyway, ACW was not a fluke or accident but a really inevitable event. To say that it could have been avoided simply by having the North pursue a different policy really misses the point. Northern greed, ambition, and expansionism could NOT simply be turned off. Any Northern leader who had tried to would have failed and been removed.

In this area, if you want to change history, you might be able to change how long the war lasted or who won, but should not be able to change whether the war happened.

Ah, there is the determinism I miss so much when struggling through conflict theory

To some degree some form of struggle was inevitable between the centralists in the North and the Southern view of autonomous States. But to say that armed conflict was inevitable is perhaps overstating the case.

There are some examples in history where political struggles do not need to end in armed conflict. I would name them but I would be starting another Canada string

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Originally posted by Suvorov
When a European player, I could support the Union immediately after the slavery debate starts heating up. Brits landing in Lousiana as soon as the CSA proclaims independence. There will be a war, but it won't look anything like the real ACW.

First off watch America shit its collective pants as the US Govt not only fires on its own people but gets the hated Brits in to extirpate the Southern gentry. Can you imagine? Sod Baltimore, Massachusetts should join the Confederacy if you do that.

 

[Killerjes]

Re: effects

Originally posted by czaralex
If you look at the effects of WWI on the modern world, you see that that are very few in any. There are no more colonial empires that WWI was fought over, no arms race between Germany and England, no Soviet Union that was formed because of it, nothing.
On the other hand if you look at the effects of the American Civil War, you seem them everywhere from: Kabul to Baghdad, from Moscow, Paris, and Berlin, where the respective leaders are basically begging President Bush to forgive them like little toodlers begging their parents for forgiveness, to New York, where the economic future of the entire world is decided. (This is probably the worst run-on sentence I have ever written )
The American Civil War was the catalyst needed to turn an Isolationist Agrarian republic into the United States of America that we know and love today.

That doesn't make the ACW any more important - that the USA haven't evolved since then - no offence
My point is - if there had been no ACW, USA might just as well have looked the same! Europe is more or less in the same process with peacefull unification (not precisely the same - I know), but if someone 20 years ago had said that the Baltic states should be part of EU or Nato - the would have been labelled as mad!
The world changes and relatively small matters can result in huge changes down the road!
True - USSR doesn't exist today, but the effects of it's creation and downfall still impact the way Europe look today.
That's, as I see it, the hole point of playing the game - to change and try to influence world history
Some events instantly influence things world wide (WWI for instance), ACW wasn't one of them, but it was an important event in the US/Confederacy - and subsequently "the new USA" impacted the world greatly.

 

[crazy canuck]

Re: Re: effects

Originally posted by Killerjes
Some events instantly influence things world wide (WWI for instance), ACW wasn't one of them, but it was an important event in the US/Confederacy - and subsequently "the new USA" impacted the world greatly.

Maybe not a global impact but the ACW sure had a fundamental impact on North America. Having such a large standing American army was a significant factor motivating Canadian Confederation.