Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Mr. Mercanto

Civil War Tester
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    684

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Mr. Mercanto

    The Civil War: Everything You Wanted to Know but Were too Afraid to Ask!

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    55 minutes ago, GeneralPITA said:

    Here's one for you...why such political austerity from the north? Yes, slavery was abhorrent, but it was the lynch pin of the southern economy. Wouldn't it have made more sense to industrialize the south instead? It's analogous to having oil outlawed tomorrow and forcing us all to buy cold fusion. Nobody likes fossil fuels unless you're an oil barron, but we need a transition period. In that spirit, I've thought of the Gettysburg Address as less of a unifying speech for unionists, and more of a radicalizing motivator for the confederates.

    In other words, I wonder if it would've been feasible to "wean" the confederates off of slavery by providing economic alternatives and avoiding the war. 

    So can we consider the first question of Game-Lab's hottest new thread answered? ;) 

    The Civil War: Everything You Wanted to Know but Were too Afraid to Ask!

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

    That is the great 'what if'. 

    By today's standards there were trillions of dollars invested. A quality slave would cost between $30,000 to $50,000 in our currency. 

    One: how do you talk the nation into paying the bill. 

    Two: how do you get the Fire-eaters to accept fair reparations. 

    Three: who harvests the cotton. 

    Four: what do you do with the ex-slaves. 

    In an ideal world, you would have kicked in something like the Jewish laws of slavery and build in the Year of Jubilee. Tax credits would be issued over a seven year period, and slaves became wage earning citizens thereafter. 

    But, alas. Slavery was ended in the absolute worst manner possible to have any hope of a happy outcome for the enslaved. Whatever hatred for the black man existed before the war was increased by the order of a magnitude after the war. Whose repercussions are felt on the front pages even today. 

    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.

    The Civil War: Everything You Wanted to Know but Were too Afraid to Ask!

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    17 minutes ago, GeneralPITA said:

    Here's one for you...why such political austerity from the north? Yes, slavery was abhorrent, but it was the lynch pin of the southern economy. Wouldn't it have made more sense to industrialize the south instead? It's analogous to having oil outlawed tomorrow and forcing us all to buy cold fusion. Nobody likes fossil fuels unless you're an oil barron, but we need a transition period. In that spirit, I've thought of the Gettysburg Address as less of a unifying speech for unionists, and more of a radicalizing motivator for the confederates.

    In other words, I wonder if it would've been feasible to "wean" the confederates off of slavery by providing economic alternatives and avoiding the war. 

    No need to start with an easy question, right? :P 

    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. 

    • Like 5

    The Civil War: Everything You Wanted to Know but Were too Afraid to Ask!

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    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! :D 


    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) 


    :D So, if anyone is interested, pop a question! :D 
     

    UGCW Feedack v0.74

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    On 30/01/2017 at 0:10 PM, vren55 said:

     

     

    On 30/01/2017 at 0:02 PM, vren55 said:

    It's... POSSIBLE, but frankly in Chancelloresville, the best way to win it is to space it out. Day 1, arrive and bleed the Union a bit, Day 2 execute the flanking maneuver to kill as many as Porter's corp as possible as well as continue to bleed the Union on their defensive positions by having like 3 brigades shoot up those fences before the forest. Day 3 you rinse and repeat, (keeping some big bridages in reserve) and then surround the union around the farm to create a salient (basically surround them on three sides) gradually slowly tightening the noose until you seize Chancelloresville by bleeding the local Union forces in area. (do not try to charge, it doesn't work :P)

    I tried this... and won... but I have to say that I'm somewhat unsatisfied because the position of Chancelloresville was ridiculously well fortified. I killed more Union troops despite being outnumbered, but lost half my entire army in the process... and Gettysburg is next. Honestly I'm not sure if I should have just gone for a draw and save my forces... 

    2017-01-29.png

    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

    • Like 3

    UGCW Feedack v0.74

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    39 minutes ago, Fred Sanford said:

     

    Mongolians are how the fortifications get fixed.  Southpark tells me they are specialists in breaking down...umm...walls n' stuff.

    During the Siege of Yorktown, the Mongolians broke down all the walls...and stuff.

    UGCW Feedack v0.74

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    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. 

    • Like 1

    UGCW Feedack v0.74

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, GeneralPITA said:

    Koro posted this to the tester forum today, it will be looked at. The hope is that the new performance tweaks may make it possible to expand to a full map but don't quote me. 

    I use my monogolian horde in both stages of battle at Fburg to great effect. I know, I'm cheap. 

    The Mongolians were pivotal in the Civil War.

    • Like 1

    UGCW Feedack v0.74

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, GeneralPITA said:

    Not too soon, AI and unit improvements have been made, Gburg is coming after that's fine tuned. Can't give a day specifically. 

    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. 

    Incorrect Quote

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

    Perhaps, next time, arrive Early and find a nice Hooker. If you get along with her, perhaps you can Battle between the sheets for Seven Days. 

    A night like that puts real Burnsides on your face. 

    • Like 3

    UGCW Feedack v0.74

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    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. 

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...