Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Mr. Mercanto

Civil War Tester
  • Posts

    684
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Mr. Mercanto

  1. This is an interesting response. I can't say I agree with all of it :P. It wasn't trillions though. I believe the conventional estimate of the money invested in slave property was about $4 billion. Granted, that does not necessarily account for the income those slaves would generate on a year-by-year bases.
  2. No need to start with an easy question, right? Ok so I'm going to keep this short because its 3 am where I live lol . The short answer to your question is, they tried exactly what you are saying they should have tried. First off, you are absolutely right that the Northern free labour economy and Southern slave-labour economy were totally co-dependent. Northern free labour growth was promoted by, and at times out right buoyed by the slightly more consistent slave labour economy of the South. Conversely, slave-labour's ennorvative affects on Southern industry were mitigated by the presence of Norther industrial expansion. Slavery was a national problem (or economic strength, if we want to look at things from a very cold, calculated perspective). In the wake of the Panic of 1857, Pro-Slavery polemicist and South Carolina Senator James Henry Hammond went so far as to pronounce that the millions of bales of cotton produced by the South had "saved you [the Free Labour North]" and that "Cotton was King." The recognition that a sudden transformation from chattel slavery to free-labour would be economically devastating was one of the core arguments against abolition. Indeed, even anti-slavery men such as Abraham Lincoln recognised that the sudden transition would cause almost unimaginable political and social upheavel. In his debates with Stephen Douglas, the recognition of this problem led Lincoln to conclude that while it was his personal wish to see all men free, and that though he felt slavery to be a vile evil, he could not condemn the South for having no solution to a problem which he himself could not solve. This argument, that slavery was an evil that could not simply be dispensed with, was not new. indeed, one of America's first anti-slavery political thinkers, Thomas Jefferson, argued that slavery was an economic burden, laden by the British on to the Americans. He lamented that rather then being a hypocrisy to American liberty, that the tyrannical British had cursed the young Republic with a dependence on slavery before the nation was even born. Indeed, slavery's existence was therefore an argument for, rather then against, the legitimacy of a revolution for American liberty. "Slavery," said Jefferson, "is a wolf held by the ears. We don't like it, but we dare not let it go." Fundamentally, Lincoln and the anti-slavery Republicans understood this problem, and so proposed a gradual solution. His party would enact a strict restriction on slavery's expansion. While he would do no harm to slavery where it existed, no new slave territory or states could be organised. Slowly, this restriction of slavery would reduce the value in slaves. As the slave population grew and plantation territory dwindled, the value of slaves would decline. At this point, the government would begin to offer gradual emancipation packages, which would allow the states to set a timeline for state abolition, in which the government would purchase the slaves at retail value. As states began to accept these packages, the value of slaves would decline percipitatiously. Soon, each state would be economically pressured to end slavery. Thus, with a restriction policy, slavery would "be set on a course of natural extinction" (as Lincoln had said in his famous "House Divided Speech"). Lincoln ran on this proposal. Since the time of Jefferson, the fireeaters of the South had moved from slavery apologetics to the radically conservative position that all the territory of the United States should be open to slavery, and that it must be recognised as a "positive good." When the nation took the first steps in actuating Lincoln's gradual emancipation plan by electing him and the Republican party in 1860, the slave holding states (most of them) recognised that this restriction plan would lead to gradual emancipation. South Carolina responded by declaring itself as seceded from the Union. Things escalated from there.
  3. Hi everyone! Since everyone here has presumably some interest in the Late Unpleasantness, I thought it might be fun to try and make a thread for fun, interesting, or thought provoking questions about the Civil War! So I'm thinking this thread could be that! If you've got a question about the war or its aftermath, post away! If you've got an answer to a question, give a post! All I ask is that any responses are respectful in two ways. 1) Respectful of the person who posted the answer and/or question. 2) Respectful of academia. This one is a bit tricky, but basically I think any answer posted here should strictly rely on primary sources and reliable, peer-reviewed academic secondary sources. Basically, if you're quoting pseudo-intellectuals like Thomas D. Lorenzo, or outright anti-intellectual works such as "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War" then you're in the wrong thread, Buster ! Think carefully about where you are getting your info! If this thread is a hit, then let's keep it smart! So, fire away! How did Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation really affect slavery? What was the difference between "anti-slavery" and "abolition?" When did the Civil War truly end? What kinds of rifles did men use in the war? Which battle was really the most important and why? Can we interpret Grand Strategy in the Civil War from the lens of Clausewitz? Was the Civil War a Modern War? Was it a Total War?Why did the "preservation of the Union" matter so much to Americans? What were the Confederates fighting for? Was Chamberlain's moustache really that sexy!? (it was) Was the Civil War really caused by the institution of slavery? (it was) So, if anyone is interested, pop a question!
  4. Historically, Hooker's positions beyond the XI Corps were extremely well fortified, something which the Rebels learned on Day 3 the hard way. Had Lee been able to continue his attack on a fifth day of fighting, it likely would have been a disaster for the Confederates. Gotta bring the historical context because you all out-general me ;P
  5. During the Siege of Yorktown, the Mongolians broke down all the walls...and stuff.
  6. Seriously!? That would improve the game so much! Is that going to be applied to all maps? Or just Fredricksburg?
  7. I really wish we could flank enemy entrenchments. It bugs me to n end when I get my boys around the enemy fortifications and my opponent still enjoys the exact same beneftis of cover. At Fredricksburg, if I get a brigade behind the stonewall, the enemy should be annihilated.
  8. The Mongolians were pivotal in the Civil War.
  9. Yay! Its going to be kind of surreal to play Gettysburg in UG:CW rather then UG:G. Can't wait to see how it makes the transition.
  10. Is it too soon to ask how the Gettysburg patch is coming along?
  11. I'm Berdan then you at shooting!
  12. Don't get to cocky, I'm quite the Hunter.
  13. A night like that puts real Burnsides on your face.
  14. I respect your decision. I'll Grant you that its an unpleasant Wilderness.
  15. Oohh I don't know about that ;P. Last time I had Meade and rang John's Bell I woke up looking at Joe's Johnston....
  16. How's the weather out there? Should I put on my Hood?
  17. Is that the one with the Stonewall around it?
  18. These puns are to much, I need a drink. Does anyone have some Meade?
  19. I feel like arguing that sending Stoneman's cavalry to attack Lee's lines of communications did not constitute a mistake on a theoretical level... But that's probably a bit tangential
  20. On the subject of fortifications, I think they are still far to weak, and that forests have an anachronistically limited effect on the firing capacity of men occupying them. I generally find that I eschew historically accurate defensive positions in order to take cover behind trees. Since the dense forest doesn't seem to negatively impact my men's return fire, provide far better cover then the fortifications, it seems ridiculous not to use them. Furthermore, fortifications spread brigades to thin, and make it inevitable that they have to fight two or even three enemy brigades, rather then one. this makes fortifications practically a death trap rather then the formidable advantage they actually were.
  21. General Lee speaking, I'd prefer if people kept their Johnston's on the south side of the Tennessee
×
×
  • Create New...