Bullethead Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have a question. Maybe one of you history buffs can help me out. I was under the impression that sucession was allowed by the constitution until the civil war came about.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The pre-1861 prevailing legal opinion, from the Supreme Court and even Lincoln, was that secession was perfectly legal, although not mentioned in the Constitution. In fact, many states had joined the US with contracts containing an express escape clause if they didn't like it once they were in, and such things were considered valid. Therefore, the CSA was, according the the US legal theorists of the day, a perfectly legit and separate country. Unfortunately, theory and practice are 2 different things. What do politicians always do when faced with unpleasant legal realities? They toss out the law and do what they want to. Thus we had the bloodiest war in our history. To justify the prosecution thereof, the USA had to characterize it as the Civil War, rather than the War Between the States or, most accurately, the War of Northern Aggression. Like Stalin said, political power comes from the barrel of a gun. And the USA won, so it got to write the history books and impose new rules on how the USA's federal system would be structured. Thus we have so many folks today who don't think the CSA was legit, etc. Really a sad case of revisionist history, especially considering the overwhelming increase of federal power stemming from this period at the expense of state sovereignty, no matter what state you come from. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra: Oh, Lorak. Now we're in for it... Not being American, what I find humourous is that Rebellion against Great Britain was "right and good" and whose practitioners called themselves "Patriots," while Rebellion against Washington was treason. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The difference is that the 13 colonies no longer wanted to pay homage to England. The southern States were a part of the same country, they weren't colonies. Just the same as India. India was a colony which rebeled against England and won their own independence as well. The same can be said about any of the "exploratory age" colonies around the world belonging to France, Portugal, etc...If you notice, the global map changed quite a bit after WWI and WWII. Most of it was due to old British, French, (French-Indo China?) & Portuguese colonies becoming their own sovereign nations. The United States just didn't wait until the early 1900s to do so. When the southern states succeeded from the Union, then that is treason. As far as succession being legal according to the Constitution, that's the first I've heard of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 I always liked "The War for Southern Independence" myself There was also that famous supremacy clause which the Unionists seized on as legal justification for forcing the States to adhere to the Federal line. A modern-day secessionist summed it up best: "If the Federal Government wants a supremacy clause, why not re-write the Constitution to read: 'The Federal Government can do anything it wants!' Then it's real easy and not open to misinterpretation." EDIT: You forgot to mention The Philipines, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, Wake, Midway, Panama... Oops. Guess those weren't colonies. ------------------ When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car [This message has been edited by Formerly Babra (edited 06-07-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard III Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 Hey Bullethead, I live about 200 yds. from a GIANT monument on Boston Common to those who died in "The War of Southern Aggression." So take my comments bearing that in mind... Should never have gone off on this OT tangent.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 Richard III said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Should never have gone off on this OT tangent....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree. So let's get back to talking about boats. A potential problem with doing CM-Ironclads is that there just weren't many real naval battles from 1866 until 1904. Lissa, a few South American things, a Spanish rebellion, the bombardment of Alexandria, and that's about it. So pretty much all scenarios outside "The War of Conflicting Names" would have to be hypothetical or involve extremely obscure ships. Anybody got a problem with that? ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 No problem here. ------------------ When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 Well fellas, if you haven't figured it out yet. History is written by the victors, not the losers. So the United States can talk about all the ass-kickin' it has down in the last 224 years and that's the way it's always gonna be. The 13 Colonies won the War for Independence. The Union won the Civil War. Hell, the US even kicked Mexico's ass in the Mexican-American War. Let's not even mention the Spanish-American War where the great Teddy Roosevelt led the Rough Riders up San Juan Hill. As Gen. Patton once said, "Americans love a fight." ------------------ "The greatest risk...is not taking one." [This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 06-07-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorak Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 Will it include the submarines being developed at the time? Lorak ------------------ http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub Lorak's FTX for CM <--Proud member of the Combat Mission Webring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard III Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 Well, you can always count on OB&G to weigh in with positive and helpful comments.... Anyway, I always liked NEW IRONSIDES. Cool name and cool ship both. This time period has a lot to offer with rapid evolution in ship types, etc... Perhaps the Age of Sail II folks can be persuaded to produce an ironclads game... The original Jane of "Janes Fighting Ships" produced one of the first wargames I know of featuring ships such as these. It used cardboard silhouettes of and a cue stick like thing with a pin embedded on a disk at the end. The idea was to poke the target with the cue stick and the pin would indicate where the shell hit. It would be interesting to uncover this game today due to the wealth of info it had on these obscure vessels… [This message has been edited by Richard III (edited 06-07-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: The difference is that the 13 colonies no longer wanted to pay homage to England. The southern States were a part of the same country, they weren't colonies. Just the same as India. India was a colony which rebeled against England and won their own independence as well. it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lol you do know that Pakistan split off from India don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables: Lol you do know that Pakistan split off from India don't you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, sorry wasn't aware of that. But that exactly wasn't their fault was it? Aren't Pakistinian ethnicity different than India? They're more Persian than Indian aren't they? Let's just face it, world political boundaries are a complicated and mixed-up deal anyway. ------------------ "The greatest risk...is not taking one." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 Ah, found it: Article VI, Clause 2: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Essentially, this clause negated all the other guarantees and protections to States' Rights that were carefully written into the earlier articles to the Constitution. Translated into layman's terms it means that any law passed by the Federal Government takes precedence over any State laws. Needless to say, this was a cause of concern to slaveholders. There are no specific provisions for secession in the Constitution. The earlier Articles of Confederation of the thirteen colonies specifically referred to a "Perpetual Union", however, at that time they were in fact thirteen independent nations with their own governments, currencies, &c. (Each of them signed their own treaty of peace with Great Britain.) Unfortunately for them, by entering into the Constitution they unwittingly signed away the independence so dearly won only a few years before. Lorak: Oh yeah, baby, the CSS Hunley is a must. ------------------ When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardinal Fang Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 In regard to the whole Merrimac/Virginia thing, I regret to inform those of us who believe the correct name is the Virginia that the latest in tunnels in the Hampton Roads Area (We have lots of water and lots of shipyards and around here we prefer to put the roads in tunnels under the water instead of building bridges over it) is called The Monitor/Merrimac Memorial tunnel. Yep there was some debate over the name. I was a little upset at first but since most folk tend to call it the 3M bridge it doesn't bother me as much. And Yes I live in the area where the first ironclads duked it out. Smileys provided by Smileys 'R' Us - For All Your Smiley Needs tm Cardinal Fang No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: Well fellas, if you haven't figured it out yet. History is written by the victors, not the losers. So the United States can talk about all the ass-kickin' it has down in the last 224 years and that's the way it's always gonna be. The 13 Colonies won the War for Independence. The Union won the Civil War. Hell, the US even kicked Mexico's ass in the Mexican-American War. Let's not even mention the Spanish-American War where the great Teddy Roosevelt led the Rough Riders up San Juan Hill. As Gen. Patton once said, "Americans love a fight." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well let’s not mention the British success during the ‘police action’ in Malaysia vs. the apparent success of USA’s police action in Vietnam. Or that the war with Mexico stemmed from the unreasonable attitude of the Mexican’s in wanting to keep there land as opposed to selling choice bits such as California to its rightful owners the USA. Lets not mention the annexation of the former sovereign nation of Hawaii. Because just like in Texas there were USA business interests in the plantations/farms/ranchs there, which were unfortunately coupled with a USN survey report's indicating there was an excellent harbour there. But why would a harbour in the middle of the pacific be useful? Why even look for one? Well it would be strategically useful in the continued ‘interest’ in the administration of the Philippians and the pacific as a whole. Cripes parallels with British military interest in holding on to its colonies, can you say Singapore? The Empire required Singapore as a pipeline so we could trade goods with China; it was the white mans burden after all, money that is. But no wait I'm wrong in impugning the motives of the USA. It was actually doing all this to spread freedom bumper stickers unlike those nasty British lol. Stick your Jingoism in your pipe mate. Had to rewrite the 1st draft it was one of the Infamous Bastables Spluttering Indignation rant’s and utterly incoherent. [This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 06-07-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: Aren't Pakistinian ethnicity different than India? They're more Persian than Indian aren't they? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No the Moguls were either Turkish or Muslim Mongolians, and they were only the ruling class. Many Indians converted to Islam, which is the basis of a 'Muslim' India. More Persian than Indian, lol both Moguls and Hindu Rajas battled the Islamic kingdoms of Persia until the latter were crushed by the Turkish Ottoman empire. It’s only confusing if you’re clueless mate. Beside there are over 300 government-recognised ethnicities in India alone, so wtf is an Indian? For that matter wtf is an American? [This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 06-07-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard III: Most people even in the Confederacy referred to the vessel as MERRIMACK even after it was rebuilt as a ram. Moreover, the ship remained property of the US government despite its capture. To credit the ship with the name "Virginia" would be to legitimize the Confederate government and its activities. If I were to steal your boat and paint some other name on it, would you suddenly insist on using the thieves' new name? Thus, I for one would argue that the only correct name for the vessel, both before and after conversion, is MERRIMACK.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True Richard, but you are forgetting one little detail... I HAVE CM AND YOU DON'T PLTHHHHH Madmatt ------------------ If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ! CMHQ-Annex, The Alternative side of Combat Mission Combat Mission HQ CMHQ-Annex Proud members of the Combat Mission WebRing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard III Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 D'OH!!! Stupid me. Tries to go toe to toe with Madmatt and loses..... I'll know better next time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted June 8, 2000 Author Share Posted June 8, 2000 Judging from the very high reply count, I at first thought that there were lots of new comments on the real topic--the possibilities of building a terrific Civil War ironclad game based on CM's engine. Unfortunately, my plan has been torpedoed by polemic, rants and Constitutional law debates. This is precisely what this thread doesn't need and what I don't want. If you're going to post to this thread, please stay on topic. Many thanks! John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard III Posted June 9, 2000 Share Posted June 9, 2000 John- I really don't think CM's engine itself is all that well tailored for ironclads -- but then if you were fortunate enough to see the leaked demo of Age of Sail II I think you might agree that that engine could very easily be made into a nifty ironclad game. The number of ideas for using CM's engine for all sorts of things does show how complete S&C's triumph really is -- no one wants to turn the clock back anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted June 9, 2000 Share Posted June 9, 2000 Well, India and Pakistan hate eachother because of religious differences, and, because of the Colonialist tactic of divide and conquer. You divide the factions in the conquered nation SO badly that they will never unite and overthrow the Imperialist goverment. If it wasn't for Ghandi, India would probably have been a British Colony for an extra 10 years, and after A LOT of bloodshed. THere are ALWAYS going to be differences between what things are called. What do you call the first large battle between the Federals and the Confederates? Bull Run or Manassas? Call the Merrimac the Virginia if you are from the South, and the Merrimac if you are from the North, and whatever you want if you are from neither. However, Merrimac is much more commonly known (due to the many already sited reasons!). Victors will always write history. However, the current victors might not always be the victors forever, so, given time history will change Well, CM can be modified into a Naval Strategy game, but, will be less interesting (unless more individual commands per unit are created). I would figure that the pre-eminant modeling of Naval warfare would be the First World War. You have Large Dreadnaughts combined with Destroyers. There are COUNTLESS historical skirmishes to re-enact (Jutland, Dodger Bank, Falklands, etc...). Much more than in WWII (plus, without the pesky air attacks!) offers, but, there can still be many GREAT battles (Battles of Narvik, Soloman Islands, Java Sea, Martapan, Leyte, etc..). Actually, the only really interesting (and fair) Ironclad engagements for the Civil War would probably be the battle between the Monitor and the Merrimac/Virginia and Farragut's attack on Mobile (?). Otherwize, most of the engagements would be federal blocades of Confederate Ports, not worthy of creating a game to represent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted June 9, 2000 Share Posted June 9, 2000 I have to disagree about limited scope, Tom. There were numerous engagements on the Mississippi, particularly during the Vicksburg campaign, and Gulf of Mexico (Cottonclads anyone?). I think it would be very cool indeed to handle even a single ship in a 3D environment, with properly modelled ballistics on the weapons. ------------------ When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorak Posted June 9, 2000 Share Posted June 9, 2000 I think a great ship game would be great too. But you have to take into account ranges. WWI would be at the extream. Civil war would be fun, but not sure how many scenarios you could build out of it. My choice would broadside sailing ships. Thier ranges were limited, and you could treat the ships as vehicles and maybe dis-embark your fighters off one ship onto the other for some close combat. Just an idea. Lorak ------------------ http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub Lorak's FTX for CM <--Proud member of the Combat Mission Webring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts