Odd United States Question

[unmerged(2952)]

I was noticing while looking through the FAQ that it is possible for diffreant nationalities to become 'militant' and so forth. My question is, will this be regulated to regions as well as nationalities? I'll give an example:

Your the United States and after a long, drawn out, war you manage to kick the CSA to the curb. Your rule is harsher than in OTL and so there is a general militancy amongst the white citizens in the South.

Now, how will this be modeled? Will it be possible to increase the militancy of all ethnic groups in a certain region; or will there actually be several differant 'American' population groups(Southerners, Westerns, New Englanders, ect ect?) If the later; would it be concievable(if not likely) to agitate a certain region enough that they try to extablish their own state(The Republic of Wisconsin as an exaple)

 

[Sparrow]

What United States? The Lone Star Republic will always annex the USA by 1860 at the latest.

 

[unmerged(6766)]

Speaking of different American population groups... maybe it will be handled how you mentioned.

Every region will start of with about 100% of New Englanders, Southerners, etc.... and as time progresses they will assimilate to "American." And the would also play a big role in determining how much they are willing to fight in the Civil War to support the Union or secede.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Originally posted by Sparrow
What United States? The Lone Star Republic will always annex the USA by 1860 at the latest.

Sounds like a plan

 

[Spruce]

when the game commences, there shouldn't be much difference in american culture. Ok perhaps something on religion... and so on,

the issue with the confederacy was an ethical question that was directly linked with an economical polarisation between two types of economies,

when you read literature, the years before the civil war were a political balance game keeping the balance between the free and slave states in the game,

after the CSA were defeated there came the time know as the reconstruction. The states were grouped into groups, each under command of a Union general. They needed to follow up - or enforce - the political transition in the South,

The military apparatus prevented a new organised uprising - also the majority of the "Southern" war monuments (f.e. Lee) supported the peacefull reintegration of the rebellious states into the Union.

They could have been militant, but they were under occupation for a lost cause,

So the main question is = this type of militancy is not the same militancy that will cause the war itself. It's more of a disagreement with reforms - but having no meaning to rise up against these reforms - because "game played - game over"

or they should see the occupuying armies reducing militancy very quickly,

 

[Spruce]

so from my earlier post I would like to ad =

a stale mate between Federal and Confederals should not result in a Federal victory - even with better boundary conditions for the Federals. This due to the fact that the victorious party in a secession war has to "occupy" and secure transition of politics etc.

 

[Termite2]

In 1835 there should only be 2 main cultures for the US, Northern[anit-slavery] and Southern[slavery]. States like Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri should have both; the rest of the states, one or the other.

 

[unmerged(2952)]

Originally posted by Termite2
In 1835 there should only be 2 main cultures for the US, Northern[anit-slavery] and Southern[slavery]. States like Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri should have both; the rest of the states, one or the other.

I disagree with you, even at this point Western culture was noticably differant from that of New England which, in turn, was Differant than the old South which was differant from the Deep South, Appalacia and such.

There have been studies done which followed the movement of these differant groups, how they intermingled and so forth.

Admittingly before the 1860's things were not as diverse as they would by the 1880's, but the point still holds that the United States did not possess a monolithic "American" culture at the time.

How will this be represented if at all? I admit it; I just want the chance to create my "Great Lakes Republic"(Wisconsin, Minnesota, Dakota, and the Upper Penninsula) but the point still holds I believe.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

I wish we could get a straight answer to this one. So far I've noticed Dutch and 'British' cultures, which suggest a broad brush approach, so 'American' wouldn't be entirely out of the question. But then what? Is there 'Canadian' frx? Does it emerge when Canada gets autonomy? If Britain annexes part of the USA do 'British' begin to supplant 'Americans'? Or what?

 

[unmerged(17791)]

Originally posted by Termite2
In 1835 there should only be 2 main cultures for the US, Northern[anit-slavery] and Southern[slavery]. States like Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri should have both; the rest of the states, one or the other.

Please explain why Viriginia, the capital state of the CSA, as well as NC and TN are included in that category.

 

[unmerged(6766)]

If Britain annexes part of the USA do 'British' begin to supplant 'Americans'? Or what? [/B][/QUOTE] \

Patric did mention that groups will assimilate... but does that mean assimilate to the dominant national culture or to the dominant provincial culture?

 

[unmerged(9895)]

Originally posted by Jagdmaus
Please explain why Viriginia, the capital state of the CSA, as well as NC and TN are included in that category.

virginia : it was a state split on slavery. the creation of an entire state (west virginia) is an event caused by the civil war. these people did not want a seperated union.

north carolina : dont know, north carolina along with south carolina are the two most southern/plantation culture states i can think of.

tennessee : was a border state, was a late joiner to the confederacy. it would be understandable, but i would think tennessee should be all southern

 

[unmerged(12929)]

Originally posted by KrisKannon


north carolina : dont know, north carolina along with south carolina are the two most southern/plantation culture states i can think of.

North Carolina was against leaving the Union, and nearly left the Confederacy after Ft. Sumter. They only did not for fear of what their fellow southerners would do to them since they could expect no help from the Union since they would be cut off.

 

[unmerged(17791)]

Originally posted by KrisKannon
virginia : it was a state split on slavery. the creation of an entire state (west virginia) is an event caused by the civil war. these people did not want a seperated union.

north carolina : dont know, north carolina along with south carolina are the two most southern/plantation culture states i can think of.

tennessee : was a border state, was a late joiner to the confederacy. it would be understandable, but i would think tennessee should be all southern

Virginia: OK, I thought we were assuming the split had already occured. What is Viriginia on our maps today, was - back then, almost 100% pro-CSA!

North Carolina: No, I can think of a couple that are much more Southern - like Georgia, Alabama, and Missisippi - but NC is definitely southern!

Tennessee: My home State. Are you kidding?! There is no doubt! Kentucky is the one that couldn't make up it's mind... and Missouri.

 

[Culise]

Quite right...looking it up, the Secession went as follows:
Dec, 1860: South Carolina secedes
Jan, 1861: Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas secede
8 Feb, 1861: Delegates from above states meet at Montgomery, Alabama, to form CSA (This city serves as de-facto capital until it is moved to Richmond)
17 April, 1861: Virginia secedes after fall of Fort Sumter, Lincoln's nation-wide call for volunteers to put down the rebellion. Trans-Appalachia (West Virginia) secedes from Virginia.
Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee followed Virginia out of Union.
Missouri, Kentucky split evenly between secessionists, unionists. Delaware never had serious secessionist problems. Maryland legislature refused to summon a state convention regarding secession despite some public sentiment for secession.

Somehow, though, I doubt the USA's culture should be split between pro- and anti-slavery...just put slave pops in the slave states. The question was, as others said, economic and political primarily (The differing economic bases of the North and South, and the idea of state or federal supremacy respectively), and not a question of cultural differences except insofar as they had resulted from said economic conditions. A series of events firing on certain triggers (Election of a Republican/Free-born, or overtly banning slavery in any way, for example) could trigger the secession as a certainity in the USA, or, in the case of other nations, such as Brazil, which also had slavery for part of the relevant time frame, a powerful militancy factor added in regions with slave pops and a slightly lesser factor in the rest of the nation (A greater factor in the former regions as opposed to the latter because of proximity to those most directly affected, the slaves and their former owners) which has a chance of seizing the nation and overturning the offending legislation.

 

[Tim O]

Originally posted by KrisKannon
virginia : it was a state split on slavery. the creation of an entire state (west virginia) is an event caused by the civil war. these people did not want a seperated union.

north carolina : dont know, north carolina along with south carolina are the two most southern/plantation culture states i can think of.

tennessee : was a border state, was a late joiner to the confederacy. it would be understandable, but i would think tennessee should be all southern

Eastern tennessee was Unionist and sent 30,000 men to fight for the Union. If it had been "liberated" in 1862 rather then late in '63 there would be with out a doubt a state of East Tennessee.

North Carolina was one of the later states to seccede, I think it secceded after Virginia did.

 

[unmerged(17791)]

Eastern TN: hills and mountains.

Western TN: flat as a board, lots of cotton fields...

 

[Buke]

Yep Eastern Tennessee was the most Unionist aria in the South while the western part was one of the most eager arias to brake away.

The Virginia we know today was not pro Union at all. Those counties that voted not to leave the Union broke away as west Virginia leaving the core secessionists behind.

And as a North Carolinian I can say we had more Unionists than most southern states, mostly in the northeast coastal arias. But since NC lost more men than any other CSA state and provided 1/6th the entire confederate army it should be safe to leave the Unionists to small numbers.

Now the question I have is will there be a separate northern and southern culture in game? Personally I think there was enough difference to warrant one but I really hope they are separate for game balance. Just so you wont get the CSA easily ruling Indiana just because they both have "American" Culture if the civil war goes horribly wrong.

 

[unmerged(18885)]

Originally posted by Buke
Now the question I have is will there be a separate northern and southern culture in game? Personally I think there was enough difference to warrant one but I really hope they are separate for game balance. Just so you wont get the CSA easily ruling Indiana just because they both have "American" Culture if the civil war goes horribly wrong.

The problem I see with having two different cultures is that:
a) When do you start getting southerners? ie do they migrate etc. - or - Would you have 10000 southerners at the start and by the 1850s they are the majority in the southern states.
a2)If they are there at the start, how does their population increase? Ive never heard of a group of people from europe called the southerners that had a mass migration to the southern US.

b)Where do they go after the civil war? I know there was resentment in the south and for game purposes a second civil war should be possible but that still leaves the question of where do the southerers go.

Answers)I guess it would be possible to have two cultures from the start and come around the 1850s the southerners become militant and rebel. Then after the war they settle down.
Only problem i see with that is come late in the game, there are still going to be southerners and northerners and by making unpopular descisions, a second civil war is possible. That just doesnt seem right.

 

[unmerged(17791)]

Yeah, by the way, I was going to mention about North Carolina, that in the very few Civil War strategy games I've played, it did seem like there was quite an abundance of NC divisions for the CSA Army. Tons from Virginia, too. On the other hand, not very many from Florida were to be found.