Aragos said:
The confederate congress did free the slaves, at least any who were willing to fight for the South, in 1865.
-Scott
-
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.
- Status
The confederate congress did free the slaves, at least any who were willing to fight for the South, in 1865.
-Scott
Even as far back as the months leading up to the American Revolutionary Wars, there was a sizable minority in Parliament who wanted to simply let them go,
At this time "letting them go" would have meant devolved government in the colonies. There would have been no "United States". This should have happened- alas, it didn't.
All right I might need a little clarification here. So you are saying that the Brits should have let the collonists leave and if that happened there would be no USA. I really dont understand what you are saying. There already was a surge of a split between the uk and british collonists. There were many little incidents that simply led to this hatred. One of them was the Boston Tea Party(Trust me they werent drinking tea). The UK was weakened from the French and Indian war which they won, but after that were in massive debts. They raised taxes for the collonists and they did not like that. Most books in school here in the states suggest that the war was because of American nationalism. This was not true until the founding fathers started preaching to the collonists about a new country. So lets say the Brits allowed the Americans to go. You are saying there wouldnt be a USA?
PS Many politicians in the UK wanted a full blockade on the east coast so that they could interrupt american shipping and supplies and allow their own ships to supple the confederates. The British did send blockade runners. This term means (a fast ship that could supply a country through an enemy blockade)
At this time "letting them go" would have meant devolved government in the colonies. There would have been no "United States". This should have happened- alas, it didn't.
All right I might need a little clarification here. So you are saying that the Brits should have let the collonists leave and if that happened there would be no USA. I really dont understand what you are saying. There already was a surge of a split between the uk and british collonists. There were many little incidents that simply led to this hatred. One of them was the Boston Tea Party(Trust me they werent drinking tea). The UK was weakened from the French and Indian war which they won, but after that were in massive debts. They raised taxes for the collonists and they did not like that. Most books in school here in the states suggest that the war was because of American nationalism. This was not true until the founding fathers started preaching to the collonists about a new country. So lets say the Brits allowed the Americans to go. You are saying there wouldnt be a USA?
PS Many politicians in the UK wanted a full blockade on the east coast so that they could interrupt american shipping and supplies and allow their own ships to supple the confederates. The British did send blockade runners. This term means (a fast ship that could supply a country through an enemy blockade)
Revolutionary said:
Yeah- note that this was an action made possible by desperation. Such an act wouldn't have been an option in 1861.
Ironic, really. By the end of the war Southern slaves had been freed twice. Slaves in states which had remained in the Union remained in bondage until after the end of the war.
Franz Ferdinand said:
The cry was "no taxation without representation". There was no such thing as an American in those days- the representation they wanted was under the British crown. As Britain was unwilling to give it to them, they decided to go it alone. By the time we were in open war, it was too late. The United States became more or less an inevitability.
The problem was that the vast distance between Westminster and the colonies, coupled with the laissez-faire rule of Georges I & II, had left the colonists more or less on their own for a generation and more. Hence central rule was not really viable any more. It was, however, no more impractical than ruling all thirteen colonies from a single point in one of them. Likely if Britain had been condusive to giving the colonies self-rule, each colony would have ruled itself.
Actually, we relented on the taxes which were made to pay for that part of the Seven Years' War fought on American territory, but kept one small duty to emphasise the right of parliament to tax the colonies. Big mistake.
Indeed. It's around 1200km from Washington D.C. to the extremities of the 13 colonies. Given the favourable winds, it's easier to make the 3000km journey to British ports.
Yeah. Without the Confederacy, the US has a much shorter coastline. I can see it being blockaded by the Royal Navy fairly easily- unless there's a credible threat from a European power at the time. This would, of course, be an act of war on the Union.
British companies did build ships which were bought by the confederate government under false pretences. These ships were constructed here then sailed to the Americas to be armed. Whilst the British government wasn't directly involved in the process, we weren't all that interested in interfering with it.
First of all French and Indian War is what the the 7 year war is known as here in the states. Second the fact remains the Confederacy did not win. What I am trying to argue here is that:
1) The ACW did not start solely because of the slave issue. Here in the states kids are told that the war was fought to free the slaves. The war was fought to save the Union which had been built for such a long time.
2) Many Brits wanted to intervene since there was still sour grapes between the UK and the US
3) The war of 1812 might have ended with a draw , but it the fact remained that at New Orleans the world's superpower was defeated miserably
4) I can see Golden_Deliciou's point about giving autonomy to the different colonies. However these collonies would have probably later united to form a union. On the other hand when the Revolutionary war started most Southerners were British loyalists. That was one of the reasons why Cornwallice decided to move the war to the South
1) The ACW did not start solely because of the slave issue. Here in the states kids are told that the war was fought to free the slaves. The war was fought to save the Union which had been built for such a long time.
2) Many Brits wanted to intervene since there was still sour grapes between the UK and the US
3) The war of 1812 might have ended with a draw , but it the fact remained that at New Orleans the world's superpower was defeated miserably
4) I can see Golden_Deliciou's point about giving autonomy to the different colonies. However these collonies would have probably later united to form a union. On the other hand when the Revolutionary war started most Southerners were British loyalists. That was one of the reasons why Cornwallice decided to move the war to the South
Golden_Deliciou said:
True. True. But, note that the slaves in the border states weren't freed until after the war. I was just thinking, in game terms, you could model a desperation event, freeing the slaves in the south, increasing Confederate manpower, and possibly, depending on the year, increasing the likelyhood of foriegn intervention.
-Scott
I missed that last part of your post...
You already noted the border states got to keep their slaves until the end of the war.
-Scott
You already noted the border states got to keep their slaves until the end of the war.
-Scott
Franz Ferdinand said:
Yeah, I know. I was just being difficult.
Sort of- I think it would be more accurate to say the war was fought to bring about Lincoln (etc.)'s vision of the United States. The old cliche is that before the Civil War it would be proper to say the United States are. After it, one would say the United States is.
Again, sort of. More a matter of those in power wanting to intervene but being constrained by concerns over voters. Actually, on this note I would say that British aid to the South should be represented by consciousness increases and perhaps primary issues changes- emphatically not militancy.
It wasn't that impressive an event. That the British were fighting on American soil around a thousand miles away from their nearest bases is indicative of the course the war was taking by 1815.
Sure- with Britain. When the telegraph across the Atlantic is laid the regional assemblies would be folded up and their representatives would go to serve in Westminster. Certainly it's virtually the same distance by sea from some of America's more far-flung parts to Britain than it is to Washington D.C..
The idea of forming an independent state on the American continent would have seemed strange- and certainly the colonists would have been loathe to take this solution considering the large benefits they would have been receiving from being a part of the Empire.
Ironically, it would have been the South that would have had the most trouble being a part of the British Empire. After all, Britain was vigorously abolitionist from a much earlier stage than the Northern states ever were.
Revolutionary said:
By that stage it was really rather moot. The British etc. weren't going to intervene on the behalf of a dying Confederacy.
Besides, by 1865 the Confederacy was short of arms, not manpower.
Golden_Deliciou said:
The Confederacy was absolutely out of manpower by 1865, the entire white population of the South was around 5 million, EVERY (okay, not every, as in any war you can exclude the rich) able bodied man from about the age of 14 to 65 was serving, or dead, or under Union occupation.. Confederate losses were nearly 300,000 by this point. I'm not sure about the actual percentages, but if you have a population of 5 million, not all of those are going to be able to serve... figure at least 2.5 million women, then adjust for children and the elderly.... subtract the 300,000 dead, the wounded, and perhaps the 150,000 serving... just by looking at this, you can see that the Confederates had a tremendous lack of manpower (juxtapose this with the 23 million white northerners, not counting blacks who could, and did serve in Federal armies). And yes, they were out of arms, and food as well.
Thats not to say, that if the Confederacy were in a more dire situation in, say 1862, but it still looked like the war could drag on a couple of years (as happened with Sherman outside of Atlanta and Grant outside of Petersburg in 1864) and freed their slaves, that the British might not think that the time was right to "negotiate" a peace... seeing as that they were, at this time, still more or less dependant on Southern cotton.
I agree though, if the year is 1865, or 1866 and the war looks just about over, England would not interfere.
-Scott
Last edited:
You aren't going to win the ACW as the Confederacy in your first go around. The CSA is NOT a beginner's country. Try the USA, which is an excellent country for beginners [even if the Mexican War events are broken!] or Brazil. You CANNOT win the ACW as the CSA unless you really have your game together.ltccone said:
Revolutionary said:
They didn't have enough arms for the men who were already in uniform. Nathan Bedford Forrest had whole regiments of unarmed men who were told to mill around in the distance and look formidable, or pick up the rifles of fallen men.
Not really. Southern landowners became officers. See "Gone with the Wind". You statement doesn't apply to many other wars either- in particular, in the First World War British officers (meaning the rich) suffered a higher rate of fatality and injury than the ranks because they wore distinctive uniforms and German snipers were trained to target them.
The situation would have to have been as dire as it became in 1865. Had the North brought about such a situation within such a short time, the outside world wouldn't give the Confederacy a second glance. As it was, the Confederate successes in the early years of the war made the rest of the world sit up and take notice.
Yakman said:
Actually I clobbered the Union as the Confederate in my one of my first games. I think it was 1.01 though. Back when you could sell expensive clothing that nobody would buy for a massive fortune. And the British raised armies in the hundreds of millions.
Golden_Deliciou said:
That may be, but I assure you the army of the Confederacy, that Lee surrendered to Grant numbered close to 15,000 next to grants 75,000. The south was out of manpower, and this was one of the reasons that the Confederate congress, at Lee's behest, not only freed slaves, but armed them.
And more than lack of weapons, the Southerners lacked ammunition for the weapons they had.
This is pretty much bullshit. Just because a few "patriotic" planters served as officers in the Southern army, does not mean that there was anywhere near parity in the ranks in terms of percentage of class. In fact, after the conscription act of 1862 the only men who didn't have to serve, were the ones who could give 5 slaves, pay $200, or afford to hire a substitute.
Also, according to Sam Watkins (a Confederate soldier from Tennessee), it was after the conscription act of 1862 that the common soldiery considered the war, "A rich man's war, and a poor mans fight".
I'm sure the same goes for the British during WWI. I'm sure some of the upper class served as officers, and they may have had a higher mortality rate than regular soldiers. Somehow I doubt that. Even if it is true
I'm sure that a far greater percentage of Europe's poor died in the Great War, than did the rich. I am also sure, that the rich, who didn't want to serve, didn't have to.
This, you may be right about. However, if the situation is dire, and an event is modeled to free the slaves, and the Confederacy somehow manages to resist another year or so, wether historically possible or not, perhaps there should be a increased chance of British recognition. That was all I was trying to say about that....
-Scott
Last edited:
Franz Ferdinand said:
Golden_Deliciou said:
As I see it, had the British been more willing to ascede to the colonists' demands in the 1770's, and/or had they granted a more "dominion" status to the colonies, the US probably would have ended up like Canada and Australia: they would have remained under more or less direct British control for a few decades, and slowly demanded, and been granted greater autonomy, followed by near-independance, then full independance in all but name.
That's only my guess, though.
And yes, the Southern landed gentry would have caused some form of ruckus over the abolition of slavery, at least by the 1830's, but I highly doubt that the Commonwealths of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia (I doubt that the Louisiana Purchase, or even the Adam-Onis Treaty would have gone as they did historically had the colonies remained loyal) would have dared defy their northern brothers as well as the mother country.
Of course, if you wanted to play that game, the French Revolution might never have happened. And let's not go there.
Revolutionary said:
Popular perception seems to be your main source, here. Hardly the most credible of references. Broadly, my impression is that casualties were appaling across the board, but that the poor whites (particularly those from Tennessee, which was less dominated by plantations) tended to resent the wealth of the slaveholders. Essentially, the poor whites were in competition with slaves- which left their wages very low.
That is utter nonsense. Conscription was entirely class-blind in this case. In fact, more likely to conscript the man of leisure than the working-class machinist.
Some served as officers- others joined the RFC. Another force with a massive casualty rate.
Thing is, the aristocrats were needed. No-one else was deemed suitable for officership by a lot of European states.
You might be able to make a case for the upper-middle class avoiding the worst of the war- but these too would have gone into the officer ranks in large numbers, and as they largely served as bureaucrats a lot of them were expendable.
And once drafted, who was more likely to be lifting a pen in an office working out time tables and pay schedules and who was more likely to be shouldering a rifle, the rich man or the poor man? Conscription might be blind, but the army isn't.
Uhm, guys, you do know that there are some history forums out there somewhere?
Rafiki
Rafiki
Thistletooth said:
The thing is, I see no reason why the thirteen colonies would have anything to do with one another. Georgia would just as soon form a confederation with Jamaica as with Maine.
Thing is, the Dominion model we eventually used (pioneered with Canada) came out of a fear of repetition of the American Revolution. Without that Revolution, I see Britain being keen to restore central rule (with elected representatives being sent to Westminster) as soon as it becomes practical.
The Lousinia Territory's more settled areas would have been seized during the Napoleonic Wars and the rest may well have been ceded to Britain (possibly in exchange for cash, or perhaps some other peice of territory) at the treaty of Amiens (1802).
Of course, if you wanted to play that game, the French Revolution might never have happened. And let's not go there.
You can't propose a hypothetical and then instruct me not to discuss it!
Without the American Revolution, there would still be a lot of problems in France, but the state debt would be less and obviously there would be no model to base a Republic off. For my money, there would still be a great upheaval- but the consequence would more likely be a constitutional monarchy than a Republic, resulting in a much less cataclysmic series of wars.
Yakman said:
An educated man is more useful as an officer. The working man can be used as a courier- or more likely in a factory back home.
- Status