$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 61.29

4,382 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
27.6% of Goal | 29 Days Left

Support:

Jeb
United States
San Jose
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
In the wargames game thread regarding the civil war there consistently appears this small but vocal group that keep the 'lost cause' alive and well.

The thinking for the lost cause is that the South was not fighting to save a morally repugnant lifestyle ... i.e fighting to defend slavery ... and that they could/should have won the war except x, y, z.

In the year of Trump, I've gotten tired of hearing this pathetic and morally bankrupt thinking without being able to respond in a way that would threaten to railroad the thread to someplace the OP did not want to go.

So I invite those who hold these lost cause believes to leave the regular wargame threads alone and come out to this forum where we can have the conversation in its full glory.

So let me start with this comment:

The South was intent on defending the morally repugnant policy of slavery and the South clearly precipitated the Civil war by shooting at an unarmed supply ship at fort Sumter. The Souths only real chance of winning the war was to win a war of attrition which they could not win as long as the North maintained the will to fight the war to its untimate bitter end.
37 
 Thumb up
1.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jeb123 wrote:
In the wargames game thread regarding the civil war there consistently appears this small but vocal group that keep the 'lost cause' alive and well.

The thinking for the lost cause is that the South was not fighting to save a morally repugnant lifestyle ... i.e fighting to defend slavery ... and that they could/should have won the war except x, y, z.

In the year of Trump, I've gotten tired of hearing this pathetic and morally bankrupt thinking without being able to respond in a way that would threaten to railroad the thread to someplace the OP did not want to go.

So I invite those who hold these lost cause believes to leave the regular wargame threads alone and come out to this forum where we can have the conversation in its full glory.

So let me start with this comment:

The South was intent on defending the morally repugnant policy of slavery and the South clearly precipitated the Civil war by shooting at an unarmed supply ship at fort Sumter. The Souths only real chance of winning the war was to win a war of attrition which they could not win as long as the North maintained the will to fight the war to its untimate bitter end.


You should at least once pipe up there. With any luck the admin with move it here, and then the fun would start

My friend from High School who introduced me to wargaming in the early 70s had no illusions about it. Back then he referred to the Civil War as The Slaveholders Rebellion and opined that all the Southern political leaders should have been strung up


7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xander Fulton
United States
Lake Oswego
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Yup, it's an old and tired argument

Quote:
"Yet when each state left the Union, its leaders made clear that they were seceding because they were for slavery and against states’ rights. In its “Declaration of the Causes Which Impel the State of Texas to Secede From the Federal Union,” for example, the secession convention of Texas listed the states that had offended the delegates: “Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa.” Governments there had exercised states’ rights by passing laws that interfered with the federal government’s attempts to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act."
15 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Keiser

Waunakee
Wisconsin
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The South: Still fighting, because life lessons are hard to accept

7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
darthhugo wrote:
The South: Still fighting, because life lessons are hard to accept

Like 15 pints of old overcoat it will rise again.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oldies but Goodies ... Avalon Hill and
msg tools
mbmbmb
States' rights came later. At the time, SCOTUS was controlled by southerners and the national government was run on compromise between slave and free states. The southerners were idiots because the quickest path to the dissolution of slavery was for the south to fight and lose a civil war.

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
SPIGuy wrote:
States' rights came later. At the time, SCOTUS was controlled by southerners and the national government was run on compromise between slave and free states. The southerners were idiots because the quickest path to the dissolution of slavery was for the south to fight and lose a civil war.

That of course is the "tragedy" and the hypocrisy of their stance. It was not about the rights of Southern states (the federal government could do nothign about slavery in the south) it was about Slavery (or to be more precise slaves owners taking their slaves) in the emerging states.

They lost everything so that a few could own sales in the new states.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oldies but Goodies ... Avalon Hill and
msg tools
mbmbmb
Slavery was far from the only issuing dividing north and south, but southern legislators sure made it easy on President Lincoln and Republicans by framing the issue as a fight to retain slavery. Document after document shows this to be the case.

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mb
jeb123 wrote:
(much blather deleted)



I don't know....why can't you?

There were many and complex reasons for the Civil War. One was (eventually, it wasn't at first) to end slavery, another was states rights, another was states feeling they lacked proper representation.

Since your question had in it the seeds of what you feel is the "right" answer I suspect you won't really give this credence, but I had to try.



Ferret
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jeb123 wrote:
The South was intent on defending the morally repugnant policy of slavery and the South clearly precipitated the Civil war by shooting at an unarmed supply ship at fort Sumter.


Why would they do this ? The north was itching for a fight, strategically it makes no sense to start a war as the south was not prepared for it at that time.

I think the south firing on the north is a bit of revisionist history.

Also, was the north fighting to end slavery, cause that's news to me

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
jeb123 wrote:
(much blather deleted)



I don't know....why can't you?

There were many and complex reasons for the Civil War. One was (eventually, it wasn't at first) to end slavery, another was states rights, another was states feeling they lacked proper representation.

Since your question had in it the seeds of what you feel is the "right" answer I suspect you won't really give this credence, but I had to try.



Ferret


You seem to ignore the evidence given in document after document that this was the main reason for the southern states to secede. Like in the link you chose to ignore.

Actually it is not that he "feels" its right, but it is right.

And since your "try" managed to leave out any details or even attempt at a cogent rebuttal, we just get to snicker at another glimpse in what you must believe is "logical thinking"
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
jeb123 wrote:
(much blather deleted)



I don't know....why can't you?

There were many and complex reasons for the Civil War. One was (eventually, it wasn't at first) to end slavery, another was states rights, another was states feeling they lacked proper representation.

Since your question had in it the seeds of what you feel is the "right" answer I suspect you won't really give this credence, but I had to try.



Ferret
And what legalization exactly was being forced onto the Southern States?

The whole point is that Slavery in the Southern States was not under threat, yet it is the started reason they wet to war, to preserve it. The whole "stats issue" red herring has no basis ion what the Northern states were doing, southern states rights were not being ignored.
1 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Okay, I'll bite. I'm not going to defend evil institution of slavery but to claim that the sole motivation of South entering the Civil War was to perpetuate a repugnant lifestyle is a little short sighted historically. There are always going to be several motivations that enter into any conflict of this magnitude.

We can have empathy for the people of the South and still disagree with their conclusions. A few things come to mind as to their motivations.

1. They were invaded after peaceful cessation.
2. Duty to ones state.
3. While many in the South found slavery appalling, the working class of the North were worse off than slaves in almost every category including wages, caloric intake, time off, medical care, and housing. It wasn't always beatings. The argument was that the Northern elite were slave owners without the moral compass to care for those in their keep. Granted northerners could pick up and leave but that would often mean death on the frontier, so freedom for them was not as free as we in modern lifestyles might think.


While these motivations aren't enough for me to think they are in the right. One could at least see where they were coming from.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
Okay, I'll bite. I'm not going to defend evil institution of slavery but to claim that the sole motivation of South entering the Civil War was to perpetuate a repugnant lifestyle is a little short sighted historically. There are always going to be several motivations that enter into any conflict of this magnitude.

We can have empathy for the people of the South and still disagree with their conclusions. A few things come to mind as to their motivations.

1. They were invaded after peaceful cessation.
2. Duty to ones state.
3. While many in the South found slavery appalling, the working class of the North were worse off than slaves in almost every category including wages, caloric intake, time off, medical care, and housing. It wasn't always beatings. The argument was that the Northern elite were slave owners without the moral compass to care for those in their keep. Granted northerners could pick up and leave but that would often mean death on the frontier, so freedom for them was not as free as we in modern lifestyles might think.


While these motivations aren't enough for me to think they are in the right. One could at least see where they were coming from.
Ahh yes "my country right or Wrong".

9 
 Thumb up
5.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
ironcates wrote:
Okay, I'll bite. I'm not going to defend evil institution of slavery but to claim that the sole motivation of South entering the Civil War was to perpetuate a repugnant lifestyle is a little short sighted historically. There are always going to be several motivations that enter into any conflict of this magnitude.

We can have empathy for the people of the South and still disagree with their conclusions. A few things come to mind as to their motivations.

1. They were invaded after peaceful cessation.
2. Duty to ones state.
3. While many in the South found slavery appalling, the working class of the North were worse off than slaves in almost every category including wages, caloric intake, time off, medical care, and housing. It wasn't always beatings. The argument was that the Northern elite were slave owners without the moral compass to care for those in their keep. Granted northerners could pick up and leave but that would often mean death on the frontier, so freedom for them was not as free as we in modern lifestyles might think.


While these motivations aren't enough for me to think they are in the right. One could at least see where they were coming from.
Ahh yes "my country right or Wrong".

True, I agree that one should not go along with your country when committing evil but I see that motivation as a real one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oldies but Goodies ... Avalon Hill and
msg tools
mbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
jeb123 wrote:
The South was intent on defending the morally repugnant policy of slavery and the South clearly precipitated the Civil war by shooting at an unarmed supply ship at fort Sumter.


Why would they do this ? The north was itching for a fight, strategically it makes no sense to start a war as the south was not prepared for it at that time.

I think the south firing on the north is a bit of revisionist history.

Also, was the north fighting to end slavery, cause that's news to me


The north wasn't fighting to end slavery at first. Lincoln famously said that if he could save the union without freeing any slaves, he would do so. There was also the political calculus of keeping border slave states neutral or pro-union. It was only as the war spread and became so all-consuming that Republicans brought the slavery issue to the fore.

Nonetheless, southern states made it clear that their secession was principally motivated by the slave issue. Not by the issue of northern industrialization. Not by protectionism vs. free trade. Not even by the collapse of the Missouri Compromise and the likely spread of free states on the western frontier. It was principally about northern states refusing to return escaped slaves and the national government's ambivalence - and the Republican Party's hostility - toward the issue.

Why was Sumpter attacked? It was a federal fortress in southern territory, and the Lincoln administration refused to surrender it. Southerners overplayed their hand. They believed that all of the martial glory and ability was on their side of the new border. Like Napoleon dismissing England as "a nation of shopkeepers," they thought they'd easily win whatever war the northerners cooked up. They were wrong, just like Napoleon.

30 
 Thumb up
5.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
Shaman
mbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
Okay, I'll bite. I'm not going to defend evil institution of slavery but to claim that the sole motivation of South entering the Civil War was to perpetuate a repugnant lifestyle is a little short sighted historically. There are always going to be several motivations that enter into any conflict of this magnitude.

We can have empathy for the people of the South and still disagree with their conclusions. A few things come to mind as to their motivations.

1. They were invaded after peaceful cessation.
2. Duty to ones state.
3. While many in the South found slavery appalling, the working class of the North were worse off than slaves in almost every category including wages, caloric intake, time off, medical care, and housing. It wasn't always beatings. The argument was that the Northern elite were slave owners without the moral compass to care for those in their keep. Granted northerners could pick up and leave but that would often mean death on the frontier, so freedom for them was not as free as we in modern lifestyles might think.


While these motivations aren't enough for me to think they are in the right. One could at least see where they were coming from.


I'm so happy we got some good ol neoconfederacy up in here.

1) Untrue: They just didn't leave. They didn't leave because they didn't recognize the cessation.
2) Tied in to old destructive chivalry, to which I always defer to Twain... he thought it was the destruction of the south and set it back a hundred years.
3) As they said at the time. Good to know that 150 year old propaganda still works, if you want it enough.

The antebellum south was in many ways a deeply degraded, backwards place (I love the anecdote from the davis inauguration where the Black footmen dressed up as pallbearers and called it a funeral -- and got away with it because the the 'aristocratic' class were all "lol stupid darkies!")... Preston Brooks and Lawrence Keitt show it very well.

Here's a quote from an ex-slave for you, 'crates, hope you get the point."

(from BA Botkin's treasury of civil war folklore)
Quote:
IN answering this letter, please state if there would be any safety for my Milly and Jane, who are now grown-up, and both good-looking girls. You know how it was with poor Matilda and Catherine. I would rather stay here and starve -- and die, if it came to that-- than have my girls brought to shame by the violence and wickedness of their young masters. You will also please state if there has been any schools opened for the colored children in your neighborhood. The great desire of my life now is to give my children an education, and have them form virtuous habits.

Say howdy to George Carter, and thank him for taking the pistol away when you were shooting at me.

From your old servant,
Jourdan Anderson
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
mbmbmbmbmb
I was raised as a proud Southerner, and in as much as I do still think of myself as an American I am still that-- a proud Southerner. Yet I've had to do some heavy soul-searching based on the question: what am I proud of exactly?

The Civil War (or whatever else you care to name it) gets dressed up in a lot of flowery stuff about States' Rights and opposing the power of the federal gov't etc. The bitter truth when one looks at the documents of the time and the numbers etc is that the war really was about slavery. Neither side wanted to admit that officially at first but some did even then and time stripped away the illusions of the rest. The only good thing IMO to come out of that war was that it effectively ended slavery.

Growing up in the South, I saw Southern American history as having two major watersheds: the war and the Civil Rights movement including integration/desegregation. I remember as a teenager that the attitude towards racism I saw throughout the culture of the places I lived was akin to the attitude of Germans old enough to remember another war. The adults had lived through the Civil Rights movement. They were deeply ashamed of that past and reacted to any display of racism along the lines of, "Never again. We've seen what that crap does and we're just not having it."

Southern black people ARE part of Southern culture. What's good about Southern culture? MLK Jr, George Washington Carver and so on are a damned big part of it. You also have the literature, and yes there were good white people too: in spite of their faults, Washington, Jefferson, etc were for the most part Southerners. --and so on.

This denial that the OP seems to be pushing of the evil in the South's history is the same kind of crap that feeds into Trumpism. Admitting your ancestors did some horrible stuff does not lessen you as a person. Quite the contrary-- if you strive to do and be better.
22 
 Thumb up
1.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tyler Gobe
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
Not the avatar you're looking for
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:

3. While many in the South found slavery appalling, the working class of the North were worse off than slaves in almost every category including wages, caloric intake, time off, medical care, and housing. It wasn't always beatings. The argument was that the Northern elite were slave owners without the moral compass to care for those in their keep. Granted northerners could pick up and leave but that would often mean death on the frontier, so freedom for them was not as free as we in modern lifestyles might think.
I wonder what the slaves would think of that......
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Huh? I'm a Neoconfederate now for explaining various motivations I explicitly said I didn't agree with. That's weird.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
Okay, I'll bite. I'm not going to defend evil institution of slavery but to claim that the sole motivation of South entering the Civil War was to perpetuate a repugnant lifestyle is a little short sighted historically. There are always going to be several motivations that enter into any conflict of this magnitude.

We can have empathy for the people of the South and still disagree with their conclusions. A few things come to mind as to their motivations.

1. They were invaded after peaceful cessation.
2. Duty to ones state.
3. While many in the South found slavery appalling, the working class of the North were worse off than slaves in almost every category including wages, caloric intake, time off, medical care, and housing. It wasn't always beatings. The argument was that the Northern elite were slave owners without the moral compass to care for those in their keep. Granted northerners could pick up and leave but that would often mean death on the frontier, so freedom for them was not as free as we in modern lifestyles might think.


While these motivations aren't enough for me to think they are in the right. One could at least see where they were coming from.


Gee, and the reasons for that secession

From Texas

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

We could believe the Texans for their motivation, or we can believe you.

You have anything besides your own beliefs to back you up.

What you are doing right now is making the OPs case for him

How thoughtful of you
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb

Anyone who doesn't think slavery was one of the main causes for the Civil War is willfully ignorant.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tyler Gobe
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
Not the avatar you're looking for
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
Huh? I'm a Neoconfederate now for explaining various motivations I explicitly said I didn't agree with. That's weird.
You didn't "explain motivations". What you put is pure revisionism. The south was unhappy that a Republican got elected, as that was a threat to the institution of slavery at the time. They seceded from the nation and fired on federal troops. To claim the Union started the war is asinine (as another user did), as it is to imply that slavery was not the KEY reason for their secession. It was not the only issue, true, but it was the issue at the very core of it.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:

Anyone who doesn't think slavery was one of the main causes for the Civil War is willfully ignorant.
Anyone that thinks it's the ONLY reason is willfully ignorant, too. I grant it's the main cause.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:

Anyone who doesn't think slavery was one of the main causes for the Civil War is willfully ignorant.
Anyone that thinks it's the ONLY reason is willfully ignorant, too. I grant it's the main cause.


I agree, there were lots of causes.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [10] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.