"NEW to ACW" Topic

Mac1638 said:

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

Although I usually play Confederates in my ongoing game against my "bitter yankee nemesis", (and good friend and fellow TMP'er Bill Rosser), I have played Union many times before and in doing so have realized one thing….

Doesn't matter which side I am on….My little, tiny, lead men get butchered…..

I reckon I will just stick to the tabletop for this one and avoid the social political history side of it. I have just ordered some Newline Design 20mm to get started.

charared said:

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*?

The "proof" would have been that had the Confederacy won/survived, it would've found itself an outcast pariah nation in the international world of nations. They would've realized quite quickly that international trade with Europe was an important key to survival and in order to do so, all Britain and Europe had to do was to apply financial trade pressure on them to get them to change. As for "the time growing shorter and shorter", you also seem to forget that by the year 1865 there were only two countries in the Western Hemisphere that were slave countries, the CSA, and Brazil, which abolished theirs in 1877 IIRC. So it's very clear and evident that the institution was already on it's way out, and would've died. As I said before, there would've been those old hangers on, like Alexander Stephens, but by 1880 the entire social attitude would have been different. The CSA would've had to have "evolved or died"…

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

No Southern State voted to end it….and many Northern States didn't either. But then again, many Northern states voted to end black slavery because they already had their own source of cheap labor…and like Texas Jack already said, Mr. Factory owner was not responsible for their feeding, housing, clothing, and medical care…and if one of them fell off a dock into the harbor and drowned, or fell into a coke furnace, well there were plenty more Irishmen, Czechs, Poles, etc. to choose from. Good cheap labor for a few cents a day….

Ned;
On the other side of the coin….Are you looking primarily at Eastern or Western Theater?

Another vote for the Ken Burns documentary….great stuff.

Nice choice Ned, I have some of their Napoleonics and they are very nice figures.

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

Why can't they have OPFOR exercises?

Thatīs a damn fine idea!

Rebelyell, you have a point.

Joseph Johnston had his troops fight mock battles prior to the beginning of the Atlanta campaign.

I seem to remember reading a quote that the men found them memorable because they had the thrills of combat without the human cost and suffering. You may even call them the first re-enactments!!

Ned Ludd – Now you see what happens when you ask about the cause(s) of the ACW. You are wise to avoid the politics. Have you thought about a set of rules yet? I think that might be of interest (and would probably set off another debate). Good gaming with your ACW troops. It is my favorite period for gaming.

Ned Ludd – as a recent convert to the rules I can heartily recommend 'Guns at Gettysburg', though 'Guns at Gettysburg II' is at the play-testing stage.

I've gamed ACW for over 20 years and hand on heart I can recall ever playing as Union …though I don't know what that says about me?

I am almost always acting as a GM. I have no issues playing either side when I do actually get to play. I guess GM activity interest me more. Does that make me a control freak?

B

I have a copy of Guns at Gettysburg and was planning to use them when I have built up the forces from skirmish level. I do like the look of them and there is a Delux version planned if I am not wrong.

my previous comment should read "hand on heart I can recall never playing as Union" ….

The Deluxe version is the one being play-tested ….sounds rather promising from what I've read

Ned – hope you enjoy this period that is obviously somewhat still with us. It is a period with a very unusual mix of colorful characters with the mass war machine of the modern state. I will also recommend "Battle Cry of Freedom" and believe that instead of plowing through Foote it might be easier to watch Ken Burns' documentary – which features a heavy dose of Foote with his wonderful drawl!

You don't mention where you live – if you live in the states I would also recommend trips to some battlefields. I had the good fortune to live in VA for a few years and spent time at Manassas (where I lived), Fredricksburg, Spotsylvania, Antietam, Gettysburg, and the Wilderness. There is nothing quite like walking these battlefields to get the scale of the thing – trying to map the bloody reality of Miller's cornfield at Antietam onto the tabletop will give you pause – as will a walk across the ground where Pickett's charge occurred at Gettysburg (something I did as a Boy Scout). You can also find some great inspiration for painting and terrain at the various museums – and a trip to the museum in Richmond is a must. Someone else mentioned the American Heritage Illustrated History – this is worthwhile for the pictures and the battle maps, though I could not give you a reading on accuracy. You can also find many of the volumes of the Time Life History of the Civil a War in Second Hand book stores – lots of good illustrations can be found in these for further inspiration.

Murphy also asked a key question – Western or Eastern theater. Different engagements – though I do not know how best to describe them for you in a wargames context – maybe others on this thread can help.

My only "Blue Fezzy" comment is the great folks in WV followed their economic interests when seceding from VA – at least that was the line we were taught in High School in West "By God" VIrginia. I hope you enjoy your foray into the ACW – it is what got me started in wargaming miniatures in the first place.

I am semi-mixed minds on this and will play either side.

My great Grandfather was captured by Nathan Bedford Forrest He spent his 18th birthday in Andersonville. The rest of my ancestors were in Europe.

My wife's family is Old Virginia and arrived in the early 1600's. Virtually all of her male ancestors were scattered amongst the various Virginia regiments.

Like any war it gets reduced to fighting for your fellow soldiers.

I think the bile here shows the fundamental disconnect in causes of the war. Some significant proportion of the Union troops believed they were fighting to end slavery. A large proportion of southern troops were not slaveowners and were fighting to defend hearth and home. There is room for honor on both sides

…it was Yankees trying to tell Southerners what to do with their slaves that started it…

I find this answer reprehensible for obvious reasons. If you don't understand what the reason is, then all is lost.

No, I'm not going to discuss it – that damned war is over.

BTW, my family was still in Europe when the whole thing happened, but I cannot help but support the North, even while I truly love the South.

…No Southern State voted to end it….and many Northern States didn't either. But then again, many Northern states voted to end black slavery because they already had their own source of cheap labor…and like Texas Jack already said, Mr. Factory owner was not responsible for their feeding, housing, clothing, and medical care…and if one of them fell off a dock into the harbor and drowned, or fell into a coke furnace, well there were plenty more Irishmen, Czechs, Poles, etc. to choose from. Good cheap labor for a few cents a day….

Sorry Murph,… STILL *NOT* pure chattel slavery!

Many European states headed up by landed gentry cruising along with the same blasé attitude towards their former serfs (again NOT slaves)/peasants/poor "artisans". Dickens in England – others on the continent detailing the horrors…

Sorry, but your case for the natural end of slavery in the south within 10 years of 1865 (assuming a southern victory and recognition by the European powers of the legitimacy of same), doesn't hold a DROP of H2O!

The fact that England had OUTRIGHT ABOLISHED chattel slavery throughout it's worldwide empire in the 1830's DID NOT move the southern proto-CSA states to even BEGIN to "downsize" their "peculiar institution" one WHIT! So now we must believe that the abolition of slavery in *BRAZIL* would move "sympathetic" forces in the now established CSA to "abandon" slavery? The same CSA which lost hundreds of thousands – some could posit an entire GENERATION (ala' England/France/Germany fifty years later) of men for "the Cause"?

What would the CSA *do* with ALL those newly "magnanimously" freed slaves now that the CSA was properly(?) chastised by the benevolent world-community? Allow the descendants of heretofore "property" live next to them? Interact with them on ANY kind of social "level"? Maybe ship them off to Liberia etc. and wash their hands of "them" (an idea so simplistic that many northerners toyed with it).

Seriously Murphy…

10 YEARS???

Again… after all what does 10/30/50/100 years matter to enslaved folks? They're being "treated" well… "what do *THEY* want"?

Chaz

A large proportion of southern troops were not slaveowners and were fighting to defend hearth and home.

Absolutely, but there is a *huge* difference between:
1. What individual Southerners were fighting for, which is the point you make.
2. What *caused* the war to be declared in the first place, which is slavery and its off-shoots.

Those like Murphy love to focus on 1 at the expense of 2: "My great-great-granpappy never owned a single slave, and he only took up arms after Gen'l Grant himself insulted his mama, turned her prize milk-cow sour, and pooped in her well."

Moonlight and magnolias. It dishonors the men who fought on both sides.

Control freak Bill? Nah, control freaks do things like start their OWN miniature lines just so they can have the exact figures they want. ; )

Absolutely, but there is a *huge* difference between:
1. What individual Southerners were fighting for, which is the point you make.
2. What *caused* the war to be declared in the first place, which is slavery and its off-shoots.

That's why I like to mention conscription whenever people mistake (1) for (2) for any war.

The "proof" would have been that had the Confederacy won/survived, it would've found itself an outcast pariah nation in the international world of nations.

I'm gonna hafta go bail Murphy outta da joint!

His position here is also mine. This debate is always entertaining but the thing that strikes me every time, is that there are "Americans" who still argue to justify the rebellion of the Southern States. What if the South had won? Think it through. Where would we be today?

I echo the call to read Shelby Foote. I have read it twice and I am now listening to it while I finish painting my AWI regiments. This should inspire me to start my long awaited ACW project that I have miniatures in both 15mm and 28mm.

@ essayson7- your comments are spoken like a true Yankee, and, as you say, one that had no dog in that fight, but thank you for mentioning me in dispatches.

@ mandt2- Iīve got the file ready, now I just need to learn how to bake a cake!

Ned enjoy the period. Lots of great rules and miniatures to try. If you are willing to go to smaller scales, Pendraken has a great range. More minis for you back on the same space.

Confederates

I will never tire hearing the lie that the North was the Aggressive party.

The Slave Fugitive Act and Gag Laws predate Lincoln by a lot. Laws and Acts that brought into sleepy Northern towns the "benefits" of Southern political culture.

Laws and Acts imposed on the country by a treasonous minority in the north, and a even more treasonous minority in the South. Laws and acts that brought slavery from a vague concept "over there" to right in my front door through the slave-hunting Posses of southern "gentlemen" and rif-raf grabbed people from their beds. They fired on Fort Sumter. And they have the bloody gall to claim they are the innocent victims of Northern aggression.

They ruled the USA for 60-80 years, the North mostly sitting down shutting up and eating the mud of such Acts, and when the North finally said enough and elected a moderate person, the South said WAAAAGGHH, waaahh, we do not like that game anymore. Its like the bully that decides to leave the school when finally confronted.

The lyrics of the Cumberland Crew say it right 150 years now

"The pennant of treason she proudly was wearing". God bless the Union!

And to be clear. Yes the Southern boys were brave. And they had some excellent generals. And men fight for their friends and family. But that does not change the fact that they marched to the tunes of government proudly founded on the glorification of slavery. Whatever their personal reasons for fighting, their blood and sacrifices also advanced the goal of that government. And that will be a taint.

KTravlos, you have a strange sense of treason. There was no treason at all. The Southern states voted to join the Union, and then later voted to leave. It was a simple civic process that should have been respected. Instead Mr Lincoln, who is the very devil himself in my family, chose to reinforce Ft Sumter and start the war.

And donīt forget, the idea of secession was nothing new. New England wanted to leave the Union after Madison was re-elected and the War of 1812 came.There are also other examples if you care to go into the matter. Even today in many Southern states, the idea of secession is very popular,especially in Texas.

My ancestors were indeed brave, and were proud to fight the Yankees. They were not disloyal, they were true to their state, and THAT is what is important.

Mr Lincoln, who is the very devil himself in my family

'Nuff said.

Aye, maybe not treason, and I will happily be Dawghoused for it, but damn cowardly to the bone when it came to politics. Dominating a country for 80 years and then when that domination comes to an end, via democratic means, deciding to run away and steal from the rest of the country (which is exactly what the taking of federal property was).

Aye they were brave on the battlefield. But cowards in politics. And they paid the price. What use do I have for their bravery in battle when in politics they ran away at the first sign of electoral defeat?

Anyhow, enough bile. The Union was more cowardly. The moment the South proposed the Fugitive Salve Acts all the free states should had seceded. The most shameful act in the history of the US, and they took it and let it be law. Shame, shame and nothing but shame.

Well I certainly donīt think what you are saying is worthy of the Dawghouse, but it is wrong.

The most shameful act in US history is clearly Lincolnīs attack against the Confederacy, which had left the Union peacefully.

And really, you should look more at New England and the War of 1812 if you want to see true disloyalty. To want to leave the Union in a time of war is dishonorable.

The civil war was "not about slavery" in the same way that Tutankhamun and Cleopatra were black Africans (a claim I still here from students in my archaeology classes) – it has nothing to do with the way things actually were, and everything to do with the way some people wished they had been, so that they can feel better about themselves in the here and now. It's an emotional delusion, and so usually can't be argued on the facts, and most unfortunately prevents the appreciation of actual historical achievements. However, the facts of history and effects of history have never been one and the same.

I shudder to think what might have happened if there is no USA to save Europe during WWI and WWII. The world could very well be a different place.

CATenWolde, are you not able to state your opinion without being insulting? I am proud of my familyīs fight against the Yankees. My family were honorable in every way, and I donīt need to make myself feel better about it. You, as a non-Southerner, are not entitled to speak of the way Southernerīs see the war. Your post was disrespectful and not worthy of this discussion.

"The most shameful act in US history is clearly Lincolnīs attack against the Confederacy, which had left the Union peacefully."

Than there is no common moral ground between us sir. To consider the defense of the property of the USA more shameful than the invasion of slavery to where slavery had ceased to exist for 50 years, and the return to irons of those who had been free of them, is the height of moral confusion.

Good Day to you.

Spoken like a gentleman KTravlos.

However remember, to view the acts of yesterday through the morals of today will not give you a clear picture of the past. I think I read that in a fortune cookie in Chicago.

Except that these were the morals of people then as well. Maybe not your people, but indeed of those opposed to the Fugitive Slave Act. I will leave it there. Where there is no common ground debate and argument are useless. Peace then relies on avoidance of topics or people.

Fair enough, but I think you are being too generous to the abolitionists by looking at them in a modern light. And you do know that Liberia was Lincolnīs idea, right?

See you on the pre-dread boards.

Liberia was not Lincoln's idea. That country had been established years earlier. You are thinking of an attempted colony set up in Haiti.

What I was speaking about was Lincolnīs support prior to his presidency of sending slaves to Liberia, but no, it was not his sole idea to do so, you are certainly right. And you bring up a very good point with the disastrous Haiti attempt. The Great Emancipator indeed.

To the OP, my advice is simple Old Boy; play the Franco-Prussian War. No one is refighting that one, except on the tabletop, 150 years later.

As to this tread it does look like the "Gentlemen of the South" are throwing their toys out of the perambulator again.

You're looking at it from a modern viewpoint and with the benefit of hindsight, Texas Jack. At that time, finding a good land for former slaves was a compromise to win back the South, and an opportunity to spread America's influence by spreading it's territorial reach. Plus Haiti had no slavery, so it was still emancipation. The smallpox wrecked it.

Rebelyell, I wasnīt the one who wrote the Emancipation Proclamation, and if I had I certainly wouldnīt have tried to send the former slaves to certain feverish death in Haiti.

138th- "Gentlemen of the South" is correct, for the most part it is supporters of the North who are behaving badly here. Really, if you cannot discuss without insults how can anyone take you seriously?

So New England "thinking" of secession in 1812 was disloyal. But the CSA actually leaving and firing on US troops is loyal? Don't think so.

And the Northern supporters on here are behaving well, none of them got dog housed, yet the "lost causers" have been dismissive of anyone's beliefs that differ from theirs.

I did say "for the most part", and if you call the behavior of the revisionists here good, then your standards are rather low.

Now, getting back to the question you raised, Yankee troops were on South Carolinaīs land, and they were not at all welcome there.

Honestly, I really cannot understand how everyone feels the need to tell us why we went to war. Donīt you think we know that a bit better than you?

My grandmother was the sixth and last child of a Confederate soldier.Her father joined up in 1862 at the age of 19, and was embarrassed that he didnīt go in 1861. But his father was ill at the time, and with his brothers in the army, someone had to get the crops in (without slaves, by the way). My grandmother was born in 1890 and lived to be 96 years old. Incidentally, she attributed her long life to Louisiana moonshine and LSU football, but that is neither here nor there. What is important is that I learned from an early age about the war, and in fact I donīt remember a time I didnīt know about it.

My motherīs side of the family is similar, except it was her grandfather who fought, and she too was happy to discuss the war, even that no-good cousin of hers who ran away to Missouri to fight for the Union of all things. That side of the family we STILL do not speak to.

Aside from that turncoat, I am very proud of all my relatives who fought, and I am happy to be able to defend their honor today.

So please, enjoy your revisionist Yankee poppycock, while folks like Murphy and me will be content with the truth. Oh, Murphy says hi, and if you all donīt behave yourselves he will channel himself through me.

Haiti was not a certain feverish death for anybody, otherwise the hundreds of thousands of citizens there (descendants of a successful slave revolt) would have died long before the failed colony attempt.

folks like Murphy and me will be content with the truth.

You are confusing your revised notion of truth with actual historic truth.

Those folks were born there Rebelyell. There is a reason why the French and British would send their less than sterling officers to the islands.

Honestly, I really cannot understand how everyone feels the need to tell us why we went to war. Donīt you think we know that a bit better than you?

"We"? Who the is "we"? You go a 160-year-old Confederate mouse in your pocket?

While you and Murphy are content with your truthiness, I think you'd both see more clearly if you'd just take off the butternut-colored glasses.

I donīt have a Confederate mouse in my pocket, nor any other one would hope, however "We" would be the South, and I specifically said that to rile up Yankees and those who refuse to acknowledge what they cannot comprehend. It worked.

Maybe the North went to war about slavery, but we sure as hell didnīt in the South. And this guy pretty much says it all:
link

Now, if yīall will excuse me, it is getting late in this part of the world. I still live in the South, but nowadays it is South Bohemia.

Well, then, by that same token, "we" whipped your great-grandfathers on both sides of the family.

You're welcome.

….. 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.

Difficult to tell, but I think this is a good example of Poe's Law.