"NEW to ACW" Topic

I am planning on collecting a couple of forces for the Sharp Practice varient of this conflict. Yhing is I know next to nothing about what each side was fighting for only vague ideas which i am sure are not the full story. So can any books be recomended to me which include good battle descriptions and an insight into the two sides real reasons for going to war, that is what the men who did the fighting belived in?

Where to start. I've asked my Librarian (SWMBO) to get a list of 5 introductory works.

I can't think of a better introduction than the one I learned on, the American Heritage Picture History of the Civil War.

link

Written for the centennial, it's 50 years old at this point, but Catton was a master of the subject, a first class writer, and the material doesn't change that much.

Lavishly illustrated, an easy read, divided into sections for the short attention span, the book also contains many contemporary quotes illuminating the thoughts and emotions of the participants.

A new hardback copy looks expensive, but the book has been in print for so long that you should be able to find a used or remaindered copy for a fair price, even in Blighty.

Enjoy.

What she pulled up for me

Went one book over. Heavy on military history. No significant social history but plenty of political history.
________________________________________
Title: The Civil War – Vol. 1 : A Narrative – Fort Sumter to Perryville
Author: Foote, Shelby
Publisher: UNITED STATES
Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group

Publication Year: UNITED STATES: 12 Nov 1986
ISBN-10: 0-394-74623-6
ISBN-13: 978-0-394-74623-4
Format: Paperback – Trade paperback (US)
Price: UNITED STATES
$26.00 USD (USD Retail Price) Random House, Incorporated (Distributor)
Dewey #: 973.7
Quantity: 1

________________________________________
Title: Team of Rivals : The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
Author: Goodwin, Doris Kearns
Publisher: UNITED STATES
Simon & Schuster

Publication Year: UNITED STATES: 25 Oct 2005
ISBN-10: 0-684-82490-6
ISBN-13: 978-0-684-82490-1
Format: Hardback
Price: UNITED STATES
$37.50 USD (USD Retail Price) Simon & Schuster, Incorporated (Distributor)
LC Classification #: E457.45.G66 2005
Dewey #: 973.7092 B
Quantity: 1

________________________________________
Title: Battle Cry of Freedom : The Civil War Era
Author: McPherson, James M.
Publisher: UNITED STATES
Oxford University Press, Incorporated

Publication Year: UNITED STATES: 25 Feb 1988
ISBN-10: 0-19-503863-0
ISBN-13: 978-0-19-503863-7
Format: Hardback
Price: UNITED STATES
$50.00 USD (USD Retail Price) Oxford University Press, Incorporated
LC Classification #: E173.O94
Dewey #: 973.7/3
Quantity: 1

________________________________________
Title: The American Civil War : A Military History
Author: Keegan, John
Publisher: UNITED STATES
Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group

Publication Year: UNITED STATES: 7 Dec 2010
ISBN-10: 0-307-27493-4
ISBN-13: 978-0-307-27493-9
Format: Paperback – Trade paperback (US)
Price: UNITED STATES
$16.95 USD (USD Retail Price) Random House, Incorporated (Distributor)
LC Classification #: E470.K255 2010
Dewey #: 973.7/3
Quantity: 1

________________________________________
Title: This Great Struggle : America's Civil War
Author: Woodworth, Steven E.
Publisher: UNITED STATES
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated

Publication Year: UNITED STATES: 16 Apr 2011
ISBN-10: 0-7425-5184-9
ISBN-13: 978-0-7425-5184-8
Format: Hardback
Price: UNITED STATES
$29.95 USD (USD Retail Price) National Book Network (Distributor)
LC Classification #: E468.W88 2011
Dewey #: 973.7
Quantity: 1

________________________________________
Title: Politics and America in Crisis : The Coming of the Civil War
Author: Green, Michael S.
Publisher: UNITED STATES
Greenwood Publishing Group, Incorporated

Publication Year: UNITED STATES: 1 Dec 2009
ISBN-10: 0-275-99095-8
ISBN-13: 978-0-275-99095-4
Format: Hardback
Price: UNITED STATES
$49.00 USD (USD Retail Price) ABC-CLIO, LLC (Distributor)
LC Classification #: E459.G793 2009
Dewey #: 973.7/11
Quantity: 1

________________________________________
Copyright Đ 2014 Proquest. All rights reserved.

Ned;
At the risk of this once again going "Fez" and "political", you should be willing to understand and accept the fact that depending upon where you are from (if you are an American), the answer can be "States Rights, Slavery, The struggle of power between the Federal Govt and the States, the struggle for power between a strong central government and states trying to maintain their power, secession, preservation of the union, rebellion, territorial expansion, changing geo-social/political conditions, etc..)

For many people (), the simple answer is slavery.

Some books I can recommend:
On arms/equipment/uniforms, etc….

"Echoes of Glory" by Time Life Books. This is a three volume set that shows the equipment, uniforms and weaponry, and other items of the armies of the North and the South.
It's an excellent set.

"The Life of Johnny Reb: The Common Soldier of The Confederacy"; by Bell Irvin Wiley.

"The Life of Billy Yank: The Common Soldier of The Union" by the same author.

That is some good initial reading.

I agree 100% with Murphy, and from Saberīs list I really like the Shelby Foote and James McPherson books. Great stuff!

thanks for the help all. I am from the UK and its only a basic understanding I have of the conflict and its causes. I will get down the library and look at Amazon. Thanks again.

McPherson is great. So is Foote though that is 3 long volumes…not a quick read. Keegan is pretty good as well.

Foote is worth it, for completeness if nothing else.

The Ken Burns ACW Documentary Series is also a good starting point.

It is certainly a melting pot of issues that were brought about by slavery.
There were States with economies based on slavery that needed slavery, the incorporation of new states from territories and would they have slavery. That non slave states would not return run away slaves. Several states seceded immediately after Lincoln Won and before he took office.

From the South Carolina decleration of secession.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact, which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

I think Fredd's idea is great. Shelby Foot is fantastic, but if you want to read all three of his volumes, you will be dedicating a massive amount of time to do so. Ken Burns interviewed Shelby Foote extensively for his seminal work on the American Civil War. I advise watching this film series first.

"Battle Cry of Freedom" is regarded by many as the best single volume treatment of the war. It covers the pre-war issues very well. I don't think that the war/shooting actually starts until you're about 200 pages into it.

"For many people (and the lazy, and the politically correct), the simple answer is slavery."

That is the answer by a conservative southerner.

Slavery and the struggle between two different economic systems would be the answer from this progressive ('politically correct' is the sneer) Yankee who had ancestors held in chattel slavery in Virginia.

The war over the meaning of the war still goes on.

As Faulkner said about the Civil War in the South, "It's not past history. It's not even past."

My choice of book "Battle Cry of Freedom".
Good idea to watch the Ken Burns documentary series.

I have to agree with Vincent above. There is a very vocal minority here, and whom you will only find in small minorities in the South today, who try to obfuscate the fact that the war was instigated and carried out due to the South's insistence on their "right" to not only continue, but increase, the practice of slavery, which in their fearful minds mandated a break with the Union. There is simply no way to argue your way around that fact.

I had gained the view that it was about the right to hold people in slavery but I thought it couldnt be so simple as that. It seems it was from what I have read here alone. Seems like poor people fighting for a rich mans cause again, at least on the Confederate side anyway.

That is the answer by a conservative southerner.

Dear Mr. Progressive ("Politically Correct"), sneering, New York Yankee….

No sir, that is the answer of someone with a degree in History that majors in The American Civil War and Reconstruction and lives in the Midwest US, and has been involved in research, graves location and battlefield and artifact preservation.

The fact that you label yourself as a "Progressive" shows your opinionated ignorance of the issue. The fact that you are from New York, also shows your historical bias…

Cheers!

Ned;

Indeed it was on both sides…a rich mans war and a poor mans fight….

The Southern States had the institution of slavery, while the Northern States (for the most part), were "non-slave states", (or so some of them would like for you to believe). However you also have to remember that although many of the Northern abolitionists were hot and heavy to end slavery…they weren't so happy and open to having scores of freed blacks moving "up nawth"…. Look at the Negro hangings in the NYC draft riots….

Also you have to understand that despite the fact that the South had blacks in slavery, and it was frowned upon and acted upon by the abolitionists of the North, they same folks seemingly and willfully turned a blind eye to the conditions of the "other set of slaves" that were mostly "up nawth", and that would be the vast amounts of immigrants that had come to the US over the last 10-20 years and were living as 2nd or 3rd class citizens. Why would the North want blacks up there when they had their own group of serfs to work the factories and docks and warehouses?
And once the war began and the grinder started putting a lot of Billy's into the ground, or sending them home shot up like a piece of driftwood, then those same immigrants just coming off the boat would often find themselves as "substitutes" for Northern "gentlemen", who didn't want to serve….

Kind of a double standard eh?…

Indeed if one was looking for an answer to the "Cause of the war" I would simply say "What are all wars fought for?….Power and money."

That is a good point Murphy about the immigrant issue. The South had slaves, and the North had Irishmen. The only difference was the slaves had to be fed, clothed, and given a place to stay and medical treatment if necessary, whereas at the end of the working day the Northern factory owners told his wage slaves "go home", without any regard as to where and in what condition that home may be.
Double standards indeed.

The immigrant poor is hardly the same as being owned, bought and sold.

While immigrants were poorly paid and discriminated against (no Irish need apply) they were not owned, bought and sold. The poor have always fought in the army as they were easy to recruit with a promise of food, clothing, shelter and pay. That continues to this day.

Yes the North was racist (colored troops paid less as just one example among many) and had slave states but to compare recruiting poorly treated immigrants to being the same as enslaved is just wrong.

The two examples above of the declarations of secession state in their own words that they are seceeding to defend the institution of slavery and the economies and societies it is based on.

David

A degree in history? Well bless me and please forgive my ignorant trespasses. Ah knows when ah is out-gunned.

New Yorkers don't count for anything unless we've been burnt and blown up in our thousands. Then we qualify as martyrs and justify repealing the Bill of Rights and all manner of stuff.

Ah knows when ah is out-gunned

Is that how they talk in New York? Because it sure isnīt how we speak in the South.

And kiltboy, everyone tries to use that South Carolina bit as proof that it was all about slavery. But what Yankees and and other foreigners donīt understand is that it wasnīt slavery that caused the war, it was Yankees trying to tell Southerners what to do with their slaves that started it. And that goes back to…

Statesī Rights.

Those who cannot grasp the difference cannot grasp Southern mentality, and thus cannot understand the cause of the War of Northern Aggression.

I prefer to call the War to Liberate my Mother's family.

Youse can call it what youse prefer.

As you see, Ned Ludd, it isn't over yet.

I prefer to call the War to Liberate my Mother's family.

As I prefer to call it…

"The War to keep invaders from burning my family's farm, destroying their crops, and letting them starve in the Winter of '64-65."

The immigrant poor is hardly the same as being owned, bought and sold.

Really?…tell that to the poor non-english speaking guy fresh off the boat that just found himself "enlisted as a substitute" into the Union Army after his "sponsor" paid a fee and said "here he is"…

While immigrants were poorly paid and discriminated against (no Irish need apply) they were not owned, bought and sold.

In a property sense no…in an economical sense, oh hell yes they were….

Yes the North was racist (colored troops paid less as just one example among many) and had slave states but to compare recruiting poorly treated immigrants to being the same as enslaved is just wrong.

Different types of slavery…If you can't see that….

The two examples above of the declarations of secession state in their own words that they are seceeding to defend the institution of slavery and the economies and societies it is based on.

Yes they were…and now…as Texas Jack has said…the southern economies needed slaves,(which was already a dying practice as unprofitable until that Yankee Mr. Whitney and his cotton gin came along), and even had the practice remained…or if the South would've won…the institution of slavery would've ended within 10 years. The only ones still wanting it would've been sad old men like Alexander Stephens…
As Jack has said…it had to go back to the rights of the states, and well…yes…Northerners essentially wanting to tell Southerners what they could do with their slaves and other things.
Want to see how bad the North wanted it for the South? Easy…read up on The Morrill Tariff….A piece of legislative garbage which was basically extortion on The Southern States…

A degree in history? Well bless me and please forgive my ignorant trespasses. Ah knows when ah is out-gunned.

You are forgiven. We usually have to forgive New Yorkers for all sorts of things like Chuck Schumer, floating garbage barges, bad driving, the flocks of whiny old snowbirds that come down South for their "winters" and then complain about everything, Nanny Bloomberg, and the idea that Jerry Seinfeild's tv show was actually about something….

New Yorkers don't count for anything unless we've been burnt and blown up in our thousands. Then we qualify as martyrs and justify repealing the Bill of Rights and all manner of stuff.

And here good sir is where I recommend that

The War to keep invaders from burning my family's farm

So then you are a southerner, just a generation or two removed. :^)

In my way I am also, about two generations.

My father's side of the family calls it "The War to tell the stupid sesesh to knock it off so we can go home and mock Minnesota". My mother's family calls it "The War to build resumes and buy a few judgeships in Arkansas and Tennessee". You have to divorce the individual soldier motivations from the overall war, otherwise you wind up saying the Franco-Prussian War was fought over the issue of conscription.

For many people (and the lazy, and the politically correct), the simple answer is slavery.

That is the simple and historically accurate answer. You can add nuance about States' Rights to determine the slavery issue, and the economic differences between wages and chattel slavery, and the growing divide between an agrarian/slave society and an increasingly urbanizing society…

And Battle Cry of Freedom is just a good starting point. Read Shelby Foote next, and just read as much as you can. Limiting yourself to one source just limits yourself to one point of view. Just stay away from the Kennedy brothers crap.

the idea that Jerry Seinfeild's tv show was actually about something

EVERYONE (almost) knows it was a TV show about nothing.

So then you are a southerner, just a generation or two removed.

Never said I wasn't…..

what was this thread about again …I believe I lost track somewhere??

I think the gentleman was seeking good sources of information on "the late unpleasantness". I have another good suggestion. Try " Company Aytch" the diary of Sam Watkins. Another is "All for the Union" the diary of Elisha Hunt Rhodes.

For many people (and the lazy, and the politically correct), the simple answer is slavery.

Sorry, Murph…I'm not lazy and I'm certainly NOT politically correct, but I like the attempt to negatively label those who disagree with you :-)

The reality is that slavery was the issue that drove the south to secede -- way too much evidence to support that. Heck, just compare the voting results from 1860 to slave numbers and you can see why West Virginia left Virginia and why the Appalachian areas were pro-Union all the way down into Alabama -- an indicator. Certainly it was slavery that drove the Southern states' political establishment and that followed the rich, slave-holder elite into secession, Of course, the individual soldier may have been more interested in defending his home until later in the war when desertion rates, etc. climbed tremendously.

Sorry, Murph…I'm not lazy and I'm certainly NOT politically correct, but I like the attempt to negatively label those who disagree with you :-)

Hey raylev3…

I didn't say "All people" I said "for many people"….Heck even in the episode of "The Simpsons" when Apoo is going for US Citizenship one of the questions was "What caused the Civil War?", and he started with "Oh there were many reasons for the war to include…" and the tester said "Just say slavery"….

Heck, just compare the voting results from 1860 to slave numbers and you can see why West Virginia left Virginia and why the Appalachian areas were pro-Union all the way down into Alabama

Uh…Raylev…West Virginia left the state of Virginia in 1861-1862 and became a state in '63..it had nothing to do with the election of 1860….

As Texas Jack has explained, and I have repeated…The slave issue is a major factor…but not "The only factor", AND the main factor goes back to the rights of the states ie: The State of New York in Congress telling the State of Alabama what they could do with their slaves…. so in other words…it was "States rights"… The right of the state to decide for themselves upon whatever action, and course of action that they wish to take or manage, (and that includes the action of slavery) without interference from another state or the Federal Government as outlined in the 10th Amendment.

But here's an exercise for you…lets turn it around. Let's make a massive geo-social change in the mindset of the South, and then have the Southern states form "Immigrant abolitionist movements", and have "meetings"< etc…and then closet (and eventually open) Federal political action against the North for their treatment and virtual socio-economic ownership of immigrants and let's see what the Northern States say and how they would act.

Greeley wanted a war…it would sell papers….

The State of New York in Congress telling the State of Alabama what they could do with their slaves

And the State of Alabama telling the State of New York what they could do with the newly arrived freedmen. It was the States' Rights in slave ownership. But it was also the issue of federal land that had yet to become individual states (the western territories) and what they would become once they turned into full states. Which is what made slavery a federal issue and not simply a case of states needing to mind their own business.

I can't think of a better introduction than the one I learned on, the American Heritage Picture History of the Civil War.

link

Written for the centennial, it's 50 years old at this point, but Catton was a master of the subject, a first class writer, and the material doesn't change that much.

That's what first got me interested in the period as a youngster and to this day is a very good read, but then Catton is an excellent writer. The maps are fascinating and extremely clever how they were done showing painted miniatures engaging on the map.

The Ken Burns ACW Documentary Series is also a good starting point.

I watch that at least once a year since it was first released and still never tire of it.

Pick up Don Troiani's illustrated books which are superb and will further immerse you deeper into the period.

Welcome to a rewarding period to both game and read about and it is my personal favourite.

Christopher

Really?…tell that to the poor non-english speaking guy fresh off the boat that just found himself "enlisted as a substitute" into the Union Army after his "sponsor" paid a fee and said "here he is"…

Yes it is different Murphy and to suggest that service in the Union Army is the same as enslavement is ridiculous. Where people duped? Of course it has happened in the past and continues to this day when people sign up for their preferred MOS or whatever else is required.

In a property sense no…in an economical sense, oh hell yes they were….

And as we are talking about the legalities of slavery viz the consitiution and states rights your philisophical argument is irrelevant and a poor attempt at equivalency.

Different types of slavery…If you can't see that….

So no they are not different types of slavery as the slavery we are discussing has a defined legal sense. Only one of them is slavery and that would be actual slavery. Again to bring a philisophical argument in to defend your point is irrelevant. And if you can't see that well…..

I don't disagree that slavery was central to the Southern states economy and I think the m
Mississippi declaration covers the points nicely. However, to then say that a central institution of a state, integral to the economy and worth billions of dollars was going to disappear in ten years is implausible. To go from central to non existant and billions to worthless in the ten years from 1860-1870 is a fantasy. It still exists in the world today.

It doesn't go back to state rights, you and Jack have both said it yourself it's what the state can do with their SLAVES. The other declarations I have read all have SLavery as the main issue. Is the whole States rights argument just a more palatable way of saying we wanted to keep slavery and enslave people? Even enslave free men that we thought were runaway slaves just because we could and to hell with Life, Libety and the Pursuit of happiness? What other rights were being infringed? Serious question I read a little about Texas being upset about a lack of protection from Native Americans As to the Morril Tariff I believe that passed after the Southern States representatives left after secession.

So here is another question why is it the War of Northern Aggression if South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter?

From the Texas declaration:

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

Congratulations everyone. You couldn't keep your mouths shut long enough to help a fellow gamer. I doubt he even wants to play ACW now.

Here is the best I have ever seen on total battle and lots of pictures!

link

Uh…Raylev…West Virginia left the state of Virginia in 1861-1862 and became a state in '63..it had nothing to do with the election of 1860….

To clarify, compare the 1860 election results, county by county, to the number of slaves county by county. There was a clear difference in the number of slaves and slave owners between Appalachian counties and other southern areas, and a difference in voting results.

West VA became a state a few years later because those counties did not want to secede with the rest of VA. Other southern states had continuous problems with their mountainous areas because they leaned Union.

I second life of johnny reb and billy yank for the common soldiers perspective.

Bruce Catton books are really good.

Most can be had second hand for dirt cheap. Basically just paid shipping recently on amazon for some civil war books.

…"…the institution of slavery would've ended within 10 years."…

And "what" ten years would THOSE have been?…

Every time I hear *that* defense of slavery, the time span seems to grow shorter and shorter…

First that slavery would've ended by 1900. Then by 1880. Then by?…

Where is there any "proof" that it would've ended at *all*?

What southern state voted to end slavery in a particular year… ANY year… which many northern states had done by 1826?

Agreed that the invention and adoption of the cotton "gin" in the 1790's once again made chattel slavery 'profitable" for LARGE plantation owners in those climes where Cotton and Tobacco could be more easily grown… BUT how can ANYONE augur that the southern states would "abolish" slavery at ALL let alone in a set amount of years. If YOU were a slave, would YOU wait contentedly for 10 years… 20 years, five generations… to live relatively free in a land largely built by the sweat and blood of your ancestors AND descendants?

10 years… REALLY???

Next I'll read that chattel slavery had ALREADY ended in the south and it's continuation was a nasty Republican Party lie to upset northern immigrants disenchanted with their own mistreatment at the hands of uncaring and unbridled capitalists.

PLEASE!!!…

"STATES RIGHTS"?

The "OLD Canard" strikes again! "States Rights" to maintain the "Peculiar Institution"?…
Really "Nothing" to do with slavery at all, see….'cause it was about, um "states rights" you know… maintain the er, "peculiar institution" of slavery in those particular states where it existed . Nothing to do with chattel slavery at all. Yes. "states rights".

And so it goes.

To the OP, as mentioned above, the Ken Burns video series is useful as a primer/introduction… from there you can go to an OCEAN of *good* material on a struggle that truly began at *least* 80 years BEFORE the first cannonball reached Ft. Sumter and (as you can read from many of the replies here) STILL touches deeply on the American "soul" today.

Cheers!

Dan 055. It does make one think a little more deeply about it.
Its the reason I have not got into the period before now. The battles are really interesting and they offer a range of size of actions that work well with figure gaming.

Here is an artical on events in Britain which I was aware of already but it may be of interest here. Maybe people at the time of the events were a lot more clear about what it boiled down too than some people seem to be now, I dont know?

link

I am guessing Ned that you are wondering how such an innocent question could lead to such an intense debate. One explanation is that the military conflict known as the American Civil War was part of a bigger political conflict in the United States that is still ongoing. Complicating matters is that much of what will be recommended comes from one of two camps.

On the one side you have the group that argues it wasn't about slavery. However I don't see how the country breaks down the way it did if slavery didn't have a major role. Contrary to what some sources suggest, you don't have an industrial north fighting an agricultural south. Most of the U.S., north and south, was agricultural in the 1860s. Slavery was what the deep south cotton states, the industrializing states of the upper south and protectionist sugar growers of Louisiana had in common. In the north you have similar divisions, but they don't have slaves.

On the other side you have the "its just slavery" folks. The problem with this argument is that it doesn't explain why the war broke out in the 1860s. Lincoln said the nation could not survive half slave and half free, but it had been doing so for 40 years. The Lincoln administration was not the first that was perceived to be anti-slavery, and there was some fairly strong sentiments in the north to simply let the seceeding states go. I could go on.

If you are looking for a simple reason for why we fought the ACW, I say it is because the Confederates fired on the U.S. troops garrisoning Fort Sumter. It is as true as saying WW1 was fought because of the assasination of the Archduke of Austria, and just as incomplete. If you are looking for a more complete answer, you are going to be wading through a number of sources, many of which will be biased. Short of that the Ken Burns documentary can provide a hint of this.

@Ned – don't worry about all this crap!

I've been playing ACW for several years now, and frankly the only place I run into this sort of scab-scratching is here on TMP. Gaming with your group of friends, it will all come down to putting on a good-looking game (which you can really do with the ACW, especially if you pay attention to the terrain) and enjoying the tactical challenges of the period – which were many, and well suited to wargaming.

It's an enjoyable period to learn about, collect, and game, with many options. So enjoy!

Cheers,

Christopher

PS – what I've done for reading is go back and forth between Foote and McPherson, and then follow the narrative with books on specific campaigns and battles.

I think our little discussion underscores just how much fun it is to play ACW. The fact that folks can be so passionate about it 150 years later really brings the conflict to life.

I agree completely with Murphy, but I donīt blame Yankees for believing what they believe, as they were probably taught that way.

Most non-gaming Yankees Iīve met donīt think too much about the war one way or another, aside from getting all romantic about it if there is a good movie on.

But Southerners grow up with the war, and it is as alive within them today as it was for their ancestors. Now there are some turncoats around here from the South who believe the war was about slavery, but I blame that on various school systems within the South that have been watered down by Yankee immigrants over the years. Again, these folks are misguided but I suppose it isnīt their fault.

So enjoy it Ned, and have a great time, this is a very exciting conflict to game!

When emotion is removed from the formula, the period offers alot of fascinating characters and military men of note. Some were outstanding field commanders, many were buffoons. I love reading the history of the campaigns and battles themselves. Ned, I hope your delving into the ACW brings you as much personal satisfaction as it has for me.

The Civil War is located at one of those transitional periods in history. Modern technology is appearing on the battlefield, but isn't yet dominant. It's an age where you can lead a bayonet charge and either carry the day in one glorious charge or be shot to pieces where you stand. Some battles feel like textbook Napoleonic operations, others are brutal sieges almost straight out of the Great War.

It has many amazing and noteworthy characters, spectacular victories and defeats, events that nobody would ever dare come up with in fiction because it seems too far-fetched. It is one of the first photographed wars, a large litterate population left a huge (much of it still untapped) amount of documentary evidence.

It's a war of passions and causes, of bitter rivalry and grudging respect, of those who grew tired of war and made peace and others who carried the grudge long after.

It's an unusual and much more colourful war than most imagine.

I think passion in a thread and on the table top is to be commended.
I do think some of you are a little close to the subject to be objective.

Can you all play Johnny Reb or Billy Yank with the same enthusiasm ?
Or can you only play one side ?

I can only play one side (guess which!), but as a solo gamer that makes things a little difficult.