"ACW ... so interesting." Topic

"I wanted to explain -yet again- why I find so interesting the ACW. A quite modern Republic, with a great Constitution and not even a Century of existence torn apart by a political argument (and two very different ways of life). Was a State paramount in legislation inside his border limits? or do the Central U.S.A administration superseded those and could prevail over the State decisions?… in fact that was the original dispute brewing for years until it exploded. Of course the matter of slavery was a very important issue but it was "used politically later on" because the Constitution allowed it! Of course it was also the time of abolition everywhere around the world and the Confederacy "way of living" or economy if you prefer was doomed as it was…"

You have a war to wargame that starts at Bull Run / First Manassas with similarly clad (some Union Regiments wore grey and some Confederacy wore Blue) amateur Armies. And from then on until Appomattox you have practically all, Attacks, Defenses, Infantry entrenching, Sieges, Cavalry Raids, Cavalry Battles, Mini-Campaigns as Jackson's Valley one!, Outflanking moves by whole Armies… the change from Napoleonic Warfare to nearly WWI tactics and above all a list of colorful characters, General Lee, who was offered command -and refused loyal to Virginia- of the Union Armies at the beginning of the crisis -tell me which other war has that characteristic- General Grant who understood modern war and was all business, Sherman (a total war believer), Sheridan, Longstreet, Beauregard, JEB Stuart, Custer, Kilpatrick, Gregg, Buford, Meade, Picket, Hood, Johnston… I could go on and on. Even fanatics of naval warfare can have their day. Railways, Telegraph, Balloons, Ironclads, it is really a fascinating period…"

link

link

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Was a State paramount in legislation inside his border limits? or do the Central U.S.A administration superseded those and could prevail over the State decisions?…

No one was challenging "states' rights." The question was about slavery in the Federal territories (future states).

I am with don on this one. The only "state's right" the Confederates wanted to preserve was the right to keep certain of their fellow humans in bondage. They felt (probably correctly) that closing off new states to slavery was the first step in the path to the end of the peculiar institution.

So the choice in which side to play is to be morally right and legally wrong… or legally right and morally wrong.
I do like the ACW even though it is tactically barren.

Interesting thread. It is a great period for gaming for all the reasons above. More reasons are the fascinating Antebellum culture with Victorian influences. Religious fervor more so than in the 18th century. The unique American landscape which is refreshing compared to the same old Northern European landscape we often game in.

As far as the politics, I've been listening to Shelby Foote's Civil war on Audible. Great to paint to this by the way… Yes, the war was about slavery. But, don't forget that so many southerners went to fight simply because "You are down here" You meaning the Northerners.

One further thought to those saying this period is tactically boring or simple. Yes, there was little cavalry but don't forget that many cavalry actions are not given any attention. For example, at Gettysburg there was as many here know a major cavalry action on the Union right I believe that went on for a long time with many units present. Custer was there I think. Also, the idea of endless action, attack, counter attack. That fascinates me and offers great possibilities for gaming. Why earlier armies didn't do this is a good question. For example many 18th century/Napoleonic campaigns had 1 battle per year. I think motivation is a key factor. These people hated each other and were motivated by their ideologies in many cases. Another factor is the communication speed telegraphs and moving troops by rail.

Good points!.

Amicalement
Armand

Also the rural locations of most ACW campaigns made it possible to fight battles over days and weeks in multiple waves.

In Napoleonic campaigns, dense cities were harmed and the public opinion made a big difference in whether a nation continued a campaign. Also organization was more important than morale. When formations routed in Napleonic battles, it could take some time to reorganize them properly and get them in shape for another battle.

Whereas with ACW formations, morale was both more important and more fluid but it was fairly easy to rally a unit and get it ready for a second assault or for the next day's fighting

As they were retreating from the field of Cedar Creek, Gen. Early (who had voted against secession) turned to Gen. Breckinridge (who had been the Southern Democrats' presidential candidate in 1860), and asked, "What do you think of the rights of the South in the territories now?"

Glup!….

Amicalement
Armand

Breckinridge was not at Cedar Creek Don. He had been put in charge of Southwest Virginia the month before. I believe Gordon claimed that statement was made after Third Winchester but I am dubious. Neither Breckinridge nor Early were fire eaters before the ACW.