I wish you guys good luck in keeping it polite.

Well, so far no one has disagreed with me. That kind of makes me happy that I laid out my argument well, but kind of frustrated as I like to argue!

I live in the South and have for years. I love finding someone that romanticizes the Confederacy and talking to them about it. In my 20's, I've had rednecks go, "oh yeah? Well, I'm going to go read a book and come back to talk to you." Mission accomplished. I've got some friends that I went to school with where I am the token Yankee. We debate stupid things like would it make a difference if Gen Johnston wasn't killed at Shiloh so early in the war?

(Link to a study of the worth of slavery in the US pre-civil war: http://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php)

Oh, I tried this link yesterday and it didn't work. Can you post the full link or maybe PM me? I'd like to read it.

The ")" at the end is messing up the link.

I'm in a few groups, some that I lead and other that I participate in. I see many well educated people tending toward ignoring or disputing basic facts in favor of their opinion. History in general, and often science, is usually the greatest casualty. Of course my favorite line is when those who misquote or rewrite history accuse others of it. I have a friend who has on more than one occasion said 'they hide facts in books'.

I wish you guys good luck in keeping it polite.

Well, so far no one has disagreed with me. That kind of makes me happy that I laid out my argument well, but kind of frustrated as I like to argue!

I'd be y'r huckleberry if we fundamentally disagreed on stuff.

I do think that a lot of the steam already got released with the locked thread, and those who held the contrary opinions may not have seen this thread. Or, with any luck, they did go and try to do some research to back up their counterpoints and found that they had been mistaken.

They might also feel that the opinions they would express might be frowned on by FFG, given that they are a Northern (kind of) company, and would earn them warning points. A common theme on the conservative side (because that's the divide we're talking about) is that liberal ideas are preferred in our society, and that there is liberal discrimination against conservative ideas, regardless of the merits of the latter.

(Link to a study of the worth of slavery in the US pre-civil war: http://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php)

Oh, I tried this link yesterday and it didn't work. Can you post the full link or maybe PM me? I'd like to read it.

Took me a bit of doing, but I fixed the link. Stupid auto markup.

I wish you guys good luck in keeping it polite.

Well, so far no one has disagreed with me. That kind of makes me happy that I laid out my argument well, but kind of frustrated as I like to argue!

I live in the South and have for years. I love finding someone that romanticizes the Confederacy and talking to them about it. In my 20's, I've had rednecks go, "oh yeah? Well, I'm going to go read a book and come back to talk to you." Mission accomplished. I've got some friends that I went to school with where I am the token Yankee. We debate stupid things like would it make a difference if Gen Johnston wasn't killed at Shiloh so early in the war?

If you really want to blow some minds, have them read "The Case for Reparations", an article that was published in The Atlantic over the summer. The article has very, _very_ little to do with slavery, and a whole lot to do with Jim Crow and housing policy.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

For extra fun (and thread derailment), here's the same writer talking about Spider Man.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/01/spider-man-in-love/384860/

They might also feel that the opinions they would express might be frowned on by FFG, given that they are a Northern (kind of) company, and would earn them warning points. A common theme on the conservative side (because that's the divide we're talking about) is that liberal ideas are preferred in our society, and that there is liberal discrimination against conservative ideas, regardless of the merits of the latter.

As a native Californian, and the grandchild of immigrants to California, I can't even spot "The North" on a map of the US. "The South"? Sure. That's a place that has made a peculiar distinction for itself. But mostly its "East", "South", "Midwest", "West Coast". When I was in Ohio, I was amused to discover that people there believed themselves to be the midpoint of the country, instead of basically the East.

Fantasy Flight is a Minnesota company, and in my mind, that makes it a Midwest company.

As a native Californian, and the grandchild of immigrants to California, I can't even spot "The North" on a map of the US. "The South"? Sure. That's a place that has made a peculiar distinction for itself. But mostly its "East", "South", "Midwest", "West Coast". When I was in Ohio, I was amused to discover that people there believed themselves to be the midpoint of the country, instead of basically the East.

But, in very real -and current - social terms, 'The South' is not a geographical concept. It's shorthand for 'rural/traditional society'

In California, just like up here in Oregon, as soon as you get an hour (or less) out of the cities, you're in The South, even if you drove due north while doing so.

And that's not primarily a political thing. Fifty years ago, The South was pretty solid Democrat.

But, in very real -and current - social terms, 'The South' is not a geographical concept. It's shorthand for 'rural/traditional society'

Have you ever heard of the Mason-Dixon line? It all started when Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania were all colonies and had a border dispute. The crown had to intervene in 1760 and ordered two English surveyors to establish the borders between these three states. This border became known for the two surveyors Mr. Mason and Mr. Dixon.

Once Pennsylvania outlawed slavery (the most southern state at this point), it became the border to where slavery was legal between the northern and southern states. This simple border between slave and non-slave states became a cultural border as the oligarchs in the south fostered a state of difference between the two.

But, in very real -and current - social terms, 'The South' is not a geographical concept. It's shorthand for 'rural/traditional society'

Have you ever heard of the Mason-Dixon line?

Why, yes, I have heard of the Mason-Dixon line.

But, as you're the OP, please clarify if pedantry violates the norm of 'politeness' that you wished for this thread to uphold?

I would add that the border, or Pennsylvania's outlawing of slavery, did not create the cultural difference. That cultural difference was there from the very colonization in the 1600s, with English roundheads and Dutch Calvinists colonizing the north and cavaliers populating the southern colonies. Geographical separation was function, not factor, of that cultural difference.

I think geography might make the case for the notion that the types of rivers, climate, and (maybe) soil had something to do with the north becoming more commercial, urban, and (eventually) industrialized than the south, and the development of the global cotton industry made the south more reliant on slave labor than the north, but I wouldn't put that at the root cause of the patterns of identity that led to the hostility.

But, in very real -and current - social terms, 'The South' is not a geographical concept. It's shorthand for 'rural/traditional society'

Have you ever heard of the Mason-Dixon line?

Why, yes, I have heard of the Mason-Dixon line.

But, as you're the OP, please clarify if pedantry violates the norm of 'politeness' that you wished for this thread to uphold?

I would add that the border, or Pennsylvania's outlawing of slavery, did not create the cultural difference. That cultural difference was there from the very colonization in the 1600s, with English roundheads and Dutch Calvinists colonizing the north and cavaliers populating the southern colonies. Geographical separation was function, not factor, of that cultural difference.

I think geography might make the case for the notion that the types of rivers, climate, and (maybe) soil had something to do with the north becoming more commercial, urban, and (eventually) industrialized than the south, and the development of the global cotton industry made the south more reliant on slave labor than the north, but I wouldn't put that at the root cause of the patterns of identity that led to the hostility.

I'm always amused to reflect on the number of Massachusetts settlers who returned to England to help Cromwell.

Cromwell, you'll remember, canceled Christmas.

So, you know, America was founded by people who fought a war against Christmas.

As a native Californian, and the grandchild of immigrants to California, I can't even spot "The North" on a map of the US. "The South"? Sure. That's a place that has made a peculiar distinction for itself. But mostly its "East", "South", "Midwest", "West Coast". When I was in Ohio, I was amused to discover that people there believed themselves to be the midpoint of the country, instead of basically the East.

But, in very real -and current - social terms, 'The South' is not a geographical concept. It's shorthand for 'rural/traditional society'

In California, just like up here in Oregon, as soon as you get an hour (or less) out of the cities, you're in The South, even if you drove due north while doing so.

And that's not primarily a political thing. Fifty years ago, The South was pretty solid Democrat.

I'd say it is primarily political, it's just not primarily partisan. Or, at least, the partisan lines have shifted dramatically over the past 60 years. Nixon, Reagan, and Gingrich realized there were votes in them thar hills. So they campaigned against liberals in a way that hadn't really happened before.

And so the parties began to split along left/right lines, where before they had split along regional lines. And this is why bipartisanship basically disintegrated in the US.

I would quibble a bit about "the south" meaning conservative*, per se. While the two are certainly overlapping concepts, I think there's a real distinction between Mormon Idaho and Southern Baptist Arkansas that needs to be looked at.

*"rural/traditional society", in your formulation.

I'd say it is primarily political, it's just not primarily partisan. Or, at least, the partisan lines have shifted dramatically over the past 60 years. Nixon, Reagan, and Gingrich realized there were votes in them thar hills. So they campaigned against liberals in a way that hadn't really happened before.

And so the parties began to split along left/right lines, where before they had split along regional lines. And this is why bipartisanship basically disintegrated in the US.

I would quibble a bit about "the south" meaning conservative*, per se. While the two are certainly overlapping concepts, I think there's a real distinction between Mormon Idaho and Southern Baptist Arkansas that needs to be looked at.

*"rural/traditional society", in your formulation.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think you're putting the cart before the horse.

I used to think in similar terms, but then I got a taste of real politics. I don't think that political leaders really lead so much as stand in front of the crowd and tell that crowd what it already wants to hear. As such, I adopt a more sociological interpretation of events, rather than a political-science one.

By sociological I mean that people naturally discriminate between their own group and other groups. Those groups can be defined in multiple ways, but they tend to be pretty sticky. Sure, there's plenty of distinction between Mormons and Southern Baptists, but Southern Baptists will vote for a mormon over a more mainline Christian if that mainline Christian seems to be of the other dominant identity group. Currently, that dominant identity group distinction is one of conservatives and liberals.

The political partisanship, I argue, follows the identity groups. I agree that its disintegrating the United States, but I don't think politics is the authentic origin of it.

ANYWAY, the Civil War and its pre-history. I like how you put that war-on-Christmas part. I also think it's interesting to note how the north used to be more puritan religious compared to the South. Max Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism has a great interpretation of how that puritan religious spirit eventually created the secular society of urban commerce and industrialism.

Regarding slavery - I'm not trying to suggest that slavery, and the South's belief that the North wanted to take away its slaves, was not the proximate cause of the war. I do believe it was. However, I think there's a much wider story to be told.

This thread needs more Ironclads in it

CSS Tennessee, after she'd been taken over by the Union Navy and recommissioned as the USS Tennessee.

I think that smokestack seems way to tall, highly vulnerable to gunfire. (Virginia lost hers both days in Hampton Roads, and it was much shorter.)

I have nothing to add regarding the historical facts, about which I know bugger all, but my thoughts on the morality of the issue are still up in the air.

In my opinion any group of people with a long established right to the land they occupy should have the right to elect their own government. That means Scotland had the right to its independence referendum, it means Catalonia should have the same right, and it makes the South had every right to secede from the union (that is if you accept they had the rift to exist at all, and shouldn't have been compelled to abandon the land back to the natives, but that's an entirely different discussion) IF an actual, democratic majority of the population wanted to do so.

Where this becomes murky is the issue of who had the vote. Obviously slaves didn't, neither did women (as far as I know?), just all white men, is that right? Given so many disenfranchised people, could the government's decision be said to truly be the will of the people, and hence legitimate, at all?

Even if it could, should slavery be allowed even in a foreign country, or is it a moral duty to invade foreign countries and abolish it? I'm inclined to feel it is, which would take away any moral uncertainty from the issue, but I have to wonder what other people think now, and what the Unionists thought at the time. We're their foreign countries about that also had slavery? If so, did the North advocate war with them to have it abolished?

I think the South also lost a moral point when they began firing the cannons.

But more to your right of self-determination point, I think that gets very murky when you consider that 'peoples' tend to have very amorphous borders. Not just in where they live, but who they are. I'm of mixed heritage, and so are many Englishmen/Scots, Spaniards/Catalonians, Serbs/Croats/Bosnians, blacks/whites/hispanics, or other ethno-linguistic groups.

It's a little different when there are already political boundaries and governing structures, but sometimes these are created precisely in order to create divisions and tensions, such as the Soviet policy on its southern borders.

I'd say it is primarily political, it's just not primarily partisan. Or, at least, the partisan lines have shifted dramatically over the past 60 years. Nixon, Reagan, and Gingrich realized there were votes in them thar hills. So they campaigned against liberals in a way that hadn't really happened before.

And so the parties began to split along left/right lines, where before they had split along regional lines. And this is why bipartisanship basically disintegrated in the US.

I would quibble a bit about "the south" meaning conservative*, per se. While the two are certainly overlapping concepts, I think there's a real distinction between Mormon Idaho and Southern Baptist Arkansas that needs to be looked at.

*"rural/traditional society", in your formulation.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think you're putting the cart before the horse.

I used to think in similar terms, but then I got a taste of real politics. I don't think that political leaders really lead so much as stand in front of the crowd and tell that crowd what it already wants to hear. As such, I adopt a more sociological interpretation of events, rather than a political-science one.

By sociological I mean that people naturally discriminate between their own group and other groups. Those groups can be defined in multiple ways, but they tend to be pretty sticky. Sure, there's plenty of distinction between Mormons and Southern Baptists, but Southern Baptists will vote for a mormon over a more mainline Christian if that mainline Christian seems to be of the other dominant identity group. Currently, that dominant identity group distinction is one of conservatives and liberals.

The political partisanship, I argue, follows the identity groups. I agree that its disintegrating the United States, but I don't think politics is the authentic origin of it.

ANYWAY, the Civil War and its pre-history. I like how you put that war-on-Christmas part. I also think it's interesting to note how the north used to be more puritan religious compared to the South. Max Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism has a great interpretation of how that puritan religious spirit eventually created the secular society of urban commerce and industrialism.

Regarding slavery - I'm not trying to suggest that slavery, and the South's belief that the North wanted to take away its slaves, was not the proximate cause of the war. I do believe it was. However, I think there's a much wider story to be told.

I think it goes both ways. People choose leaders based on their tribal identities, but those leaders also signal back to their tribes what the "correct" opinions are on issues at the margins. As an example:

When Barack Obama signaled that he was ok with gay marriage, it shifted opinions among Democrats by measurable amounts. People who were wavering started having the apathetic opinion. the apathetic had the pro-marriage opinion. The pro-marriage people got even more enthusiastic. ( http://goo.gl/bqWgE2 ). We also see the reverse happening- people who are generally anti-marriage Democrats find themselves feeling like the party is abandoning them. As people feel like the party is abandoning them, they become ripe for recruitment from the other party.

The other way this can work is the weird politicization of Net Neutrality. This has moved from being a technocratic competition between various business interests to being one where Republicans have begun to line up behind Comcast, and Democrats have lined up behind Google. In a large sense, this is because the FCC has made moves to be pro-Neutrality, and the FCC is currently headed by Democrats, and therefore the Republicans don't like it. But the FCC was leaning against Neutrality, until a grassroots consumer effort flooded the FCC with comments about why Neutrality was a good thing. The FCC was blown away by the commentary (the previously most-commented-on thing was Janet Jackson's nipple), and began to take another look at the issue. I don't think the pro-Neutrality effort was partisan per se. But it sure has ended up in a large partisan split.

That's why presidents tend to not like to take positions on issues at the margins- it tends to cause polarization where it might not have previously existed.

Yes, the Left/Right split is the dominant tribal split in America in 2015. I do think this is something that certain leaders have latched onto, and by using it, have made it deeper. I think the fact that the Left/Right split also neatly works within the existing voting structure of the US makes this a rather dangerous thing. I'm hoping to somehow fix this problem without seeing the US fall into _another_ civil war. :\

I have nothing to add regarding the historical facts, about which I know bugger all, but my thoughts on the morality of the issue are still up in the air.

In my opinion any group of people with a long established right to the land they occupy should have the right to elect their own government. That means Scotland had the right to its independence referendum, it means Catalonia should have the same right, and it makes the South had every right to secede from the union (that is if you accept they had the rift to exist at all, and shouldn't have been compelled to abandon the land back to the natives, but that's an entirely different discussion) IF an actual, democratic majority of the population wanted to do so.

Where this becomes murky is the issue of who had the vote. Obviously slaves didn't, neither did women (as far as I know?), just all white men, is that right? Given so many disenfranchised people, could the government's decision be said to truly be the will of the people, and hence legitimate, at all?

Even if it could, should slavery be allowed even in a foreign country, or is it a moral duty to invade foreign countries and abolish it? I'm inclined to feel it is, which would take away any moral uncertainty from the issue, but I have to wonder what other people think now, and what the Unionists thought at the time. We're their foreign countries about that also had slavery? If so, did the North advocate war with them to have it abolished?

Oh yes! I totally agree- plebiscites to determine if previously-determined intra-national boundaries ought to become international boundaries are a fine thing. I promise: once Catalonia joins NATO, I'll concede that they have their own distinct language.

What the South did was a bit different. They did not attempt to negotiate a separation, fail, and then try force of arms. Instead, they controlled the institutions of US government for a very long time- lost control of one of those institutions, panicked, and declared war. In their own words, the grievance wasn't really anything that had happened (save that the North hated the idea of- and resisted- being made into Slave Catchers for the South). Rather, the South was upset by the mere _election_ of a slave-opposing President. They seceded and started fighting before that President was even actually made President!

Whatever ways one might say that political disunions might be permissible, this wasn't it. The fact that they wanted to flee the Union in pursuit of their right to own Humans makes me rather happy that they went to war- and lost.

sounds like a couple of people have completed a fall history course at their local community college. opinions expressed are pedantic at best and are verbatim referencing entry level history texts.

sounds like a couple of people have completed a fall history course at their local community college. opinions expressed are pedantic at best and are verbatim referencing entry level history texts.

You don't say?

Can you cite the sources for your accusations of plagiarism?

Also, what does your grad-school textbook, or personal research, tell us differently?

Go look up the definition of pedantic before you think it's plagerism.

Everything you espoused any schlub can learn in a freshman history class. No revelations there

Go look up the definition of pedantic before you think it's plagerism.

Everything you espoused any schlub can learn in a freshman history class. No revelations there

Oh, I get it. You're just a troll!

Never mind then.

how eloquent a retort. I can see that community college education is going to good use...and that you got busted. Just dont pawn off your text book's opinions as your own. Especially when they are so obtuse

and no im not trolling you ostentatious choad. every fact you stated as your own can be found in any history primer.. try reading stubbs or fober then maybe, possibly, some kernal of originality might take hold in that infantile brain of yours.

seriously, who comes on a forum like this to espouse popular historical fact as their own?

how very loquacious of you. I see dozens of snots like you run through my class each semester. the problem with your type is that you confuse youth with wisdom. heres the deal young buck. those theories youre learning(yes theyre theories. if you bothered to stay with history longer than the four years in college...ok 7 in your case...youll see that history is cyclical) are the seminal nuggets with which to base later extrapolation upon. however, you and your type take this little shred of knowledge and shout from the roof tops for anyone to hear hoping that some little coed or other dullard will worship at the foot of your vast knowledge. newsflash no one is impressed. even if these ideas were your own (which come on dude you going to start a thread on the most studeied and dissected topic in american history) youd be putting off more people than youd attract. i guess thats why you chose a gaming forum to regurgitate your lecture notes. well not everyone on here hasnt been to college yet. not everyone on ehre is currently in college....now, you bore me so im moving on. oh that reminds me. now that your break is over ill take a a number ten with a large coke and fries

One of the better quotes I have heard regarding the civil war was as follows:

If you know very little about the civil war, you think that it was all about slavery.

As you study it more, you start to agree that it might in fact be about something else.

Then, when you have really studied the civil war, you realize "Nope, pretty much just slavery."

http://www.jjmccullough.com/CSA.htm - One good way to see that is to look at this line by line comparison of the USA and CSA constitutions.

Hmmm...then why pray tell were southerners fighting when 95% of confederate soldiers were not slave owners?