"Ideas for ACW of 185_?" Topic
11 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the ACW Media Message Board Back to the ACW Painting Guides Message Board Back to the ACW Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestAmerican Civil War
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article
|
Pvt Snuffy | 31 Mar 2019 8:25 p.m. PST |
Interesting alternative history proposition I read elsewhere…and fun gaming idea. Instead of a large war of secession and a union lead by Lincoln, the war breaks out earlier, under the presidency of Fillmore, Pierce or Buchanan. Perhaps due to *weak* leadership, the executive office gives the states too much free reign and numerous border raids result in a more localized, shorter campaign along the mason-dixon line. I'm not an expert in this area of history, so how would this series of "John Brown Affairs" happen and get a bit out of control? Perhaps a campaign between radicalized Pennsylvanians and Virginians, with Marylanders, Delawarians and a few odd militia companies from other states end up in a campaign around DC? The Shenandoah valley? In scale, it might be more like the American Revolution in the South, with armies as small as a few thousand determining the fate of Abolitionist goals. Someone has probably already gamed this, but I've only heard of European Imagin-Nations not alternative ACW stuff. Is there a good book on the American militia companies of 1850s? There are some great uniforms from that period, even if they only made their showing at 1st Manassas! Suggestions, thoughts, resources appreciated! |
William Warner | 31 Mar 2019 9:11 p.m. PST |
Check out events in Kansas Territory, where pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces battled over the status of the future state. The period became known as "Bleeding Kansas." |
Grelber | 31 Mar 2019 10:29 p.m. PST |
You might also look into the Fugitive Slave Act. This allowed private, non-governmental groups to recover and return slaves to their owners. These were for profit organizations. More or less gangs who operated in the free states as well as the slave states trying to track down runaway slaves. The law apparently allowed them to use less than lethal force against people aiding and abetting fleeing slaves aka the Underground Railroad). Anti slavery groups in the north disliked them, and might arrange for the freedom of any whites turned in for helping runaways. The slaver hunters knew this, and might just beat up a guy, rather than go to the trouble of turning him in to the legal authorities. I do not know for certain that they ever came to blows, but there was certainly the possibility violence on the part of the slavers would lead to the militia company being turned out to pursue the slavers or avenge one of the local citizens. Grelber |
Old Contemptibles | 31 Mar 2019 11:11 p.m. PST |
I would suggest that 1820 would be a more probable North/South conflict. I think it would have been very difficult for the North to bring the reluctant states back into the fold. The Nullification Crisis of 1833 would have federal troops opposing South Carolina state troops. |
Glengarry5 | 01 Apr 2019 12:59 a.m. PST |
Well, if you want a non-imagination European power there's always the Great Pig War of 1859! link Or perhaps the Aroostoock War of 1838 when the state of Maine declared war on Canada. link |
MSU John | 01 Apr 2019 4:52 a.m. PST |
I think it would be farther south, probably involving US troops against SC, Ala, Miss state troops (or a combination of all of the original 7 Confederate states). Remember, Tennessee and Virginia only left the Union after the firing on Fort Sumter. You could throw in some northern militia to add some variety. Basically, I think it'd have to be before Buchanan, because I think he wouldn't have done anything. Use the 1850 compromise as a starting point. |
Pvt Snuffy | 01 Apr 2019 5:49 a.m. PST |
@ MSU John, Grelber Well, that's sort of what I'm thinking of, a weak president letting the states settle things on their own instead of intervening either way to "keep the peace thru violence". If you think about it, it's not impossible for some hot-heads to chase runaway slaves and / or have a "john brown incident" of either radical abolitionists or slavers lighting the match that has the militia mobilized. Think of a Lexington / Concord type of escalation to get things started, then various Mason-Dixon line states doing a partial mobilization to protect their borders and support their people. |
Pvt Snuffy | 01 Apr 2019 5:49 a.m. PST |
Anyone got some good references for the uniforms of the many militia companies in the 1840s and 1850s? |
Pvt Snuffy | 01 Apr 2019 5:58 a.m. PST |
I dunno about 1820 – the Missouri compromise sort of got things started, but by the 1850 compromise lines were being drawn in the sand and the radicals has specific issues to focus upon. |
Old Contemptibles | 01 Apr 2019 8:15 a.m. PST |
But if the South or North chose not to compromise. I think you would have a potential powder keg. |
Old Contemptibles | 01 Apr 2019 8:15 a.m. PST |
But if the South or North chose not to compromise. I think you have a potential powder keg. |
|