What's the Easiest Way to assemble History Geeks to advise on a Game?

[william the wie]

I have reached the conclusion that the south lost the Civil War primarily due to technological and logistical incompetence. However I tend to be a fan of economic history so I do need people to consult with who know more about the technological and logistical knowledge of that era. Thank you.

 

[expat_panama]

...the south lost the Civil War... ...economic history...

From what I see is that while there of course were many factors there's no getting around the fact that the Confedracy's economy was tiny compared to that of the Union. In fact, the south's entire domestic product was less than that of just the state of New York.

More often than not, in wars it's the bigger economy that wins.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have a lot such geeks here.

Your issue will be to continue discussion, suggestion, and evaluation without everyone ending up spitting at one another.

I would suggest you incorporate Manpower as a gaming factor. The 23 to 9 in favor of the North is also increased because of 3 to 4 of that Southern number were African Americans. The important fact there is that a portion of the Southern Manpower factor was involved in superimposing, directing, and controlling the black population, thus detracting those who otherwise who have fought for the CSA land and naval forces.

Expat's comments are valuable. The CW was really the first truly industrialized war, at least by the North.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Risk


.

 

[william the wie]

...the south lost the Civil War... ...economic history...

From what I see is that while there of course were many factors there's no getting around the fact that the Confedracy's economy was tiny compared to that of the Union. In fact, the south's entire domestic product was less than that of just the state of New York.

More often than not, in wars it's the bigger economy that wins.

Quite true. That's the biggest part of why I concentrate on two things:

That manned heavier than air flight by kite predates the Civil War by more than 1,000 years adding an engine and a light cannon to attack supply lines would attract foreign capital and customers.

That the north had three failure point zones they lacked the troops to defend: the Michigan-Illinois canal, The Detroit river and the St. Clair river to get bulk food to the north east. The south lacked any similar failure point that could have led to a very quick victory by the north.

Does that answer your objection sir?

 

[expat_panama]

...the north had three failure point zones they lacked the troops to defend: the Michigan-Illinois canal, The Detroit river and the St. Clair river to get bulk food to the north east. The south lacked any similar failure point...

By the mid 1800's Inland water freight had already become yesterday's tech, replaced by rail--

--where it sure looks like the north was way ahead and the south was sooo vulnerable.

 

[whitehall]

The South never intended to attempt the impossible and conquer the North. All they wanted to do was leave the Union.

 

[william the wie]

The South never intended to attempt the impossible and conquer the North. All they wanted to do was leave the Union.

Actually as the wartime and post-war politics showed the consensus opinion on both sides was that Britain was attempting to cripple America and was actively blocking any peaceful settlement. PEP is right about waterway blockages being survivable by the North but not by the Liberal government in London. For the most part the anti-slavery league was the main war-monger and the main base of Palmerston's government and its corn laws. British food prices going up would have led to a settlement one way or the other.

 

[william the wie]

Some background:

James Grant published a few post meltdown books, that, among other things, pointed out that previous bubbles had been big too. The bubbles he pointed out also coincided with Russia attempting to ensure an export route for its grain but being blocked by Britain and France.

So, Russia wanted to hurt the Britain/France condominium bad enough that they could export their grain without getting permission from London and Paris. Prussia wanted to prevent future French invasions. The North wanted fewer busts engineered by London. For example, British bankruptcy law as applied to the London office of Lehman's determined the timing of the meltdown and may have increased its severity. These kind of problems were more severe in the 1800s and 1900s.

Blocking the Michigan-Illinois or either of the two alternatives blocking zones would result in a spike in British food prices. Either a conservative government taking power in London or massive British intervention by the Liberal government in the Civil War would have taken place. In either case peace talks after the 1862 mid-term elections would likely have led to reunification.

 

[expat_panama]

All they wanted to do was leave the Union.

--if that were truly the case then what they needed was an orderly secession through a new constitutional convention. A constitutional amendment for secession was the only way out because the U.S. constitution was not an agreement between states but rather a contract of union between the people that began: "We the People of the United States...".

The Confederate faction didn't want that and opted instead for a sporadic chaos devoid of any strategic sense. Sure, it resembled a war between states but the substance was a mess of divided conflict-torn local jurisdictions: a civil war.

 

[william the wie]

The very large problem with the Civil War was that neither side had a leader with the minimal competence to invoke the rampant Anglophobia of that era. After Buchanan's blunder in Utah and other less famous disasters that would have sold very well indeed. The conservatives in Britain had been schooled by the Duke of Wellington in the War of 1812 and got a refresher course in the Crimean War to avoid wars with large countries because of the logistical problems.

With Morgan and the Rothschilds financing the north out of their London offices that claim would have stuck. The domestic bond drives, primarily by Jay Gould, had higher to much higher fees and commissions than the international bonds. From what little I've read on the subject the domestic bond underwriting was a money losing propaganda stunt.

 

[yiostheoy]

I have reached the conclusion that the south lost the Civil War primarily due to technological and logistical incompetence. However I tend to be a fan of economic history so I do need people to consult with who know more about the technological and logistical knowledge of that era. Thank you.

Lee and Beauregard and Stonewall and Stuart did about as well as they could. Until Grant came along the North did not have anybody who was a fighting general, unlike the South which had several.

The South lost because of 2 miracles.

One was called Gettysburg.

The other was called Vicksburg.

They both happened on the very same day.

 

[yiostheoy]

The South never intended to attempt the impossible and conquer the North. All they wanted to do was leave the Union.

All that the South needed to do was trap Abe in DC.

That's why Lee swang west then north then east, running into Buford at Gettysburg.

Buford rained on Lee's parade. He held up the Rebels until Union generals Reynolds and Meade could get there.

Then there was a heck of a fight.

Dumbazz Lee sent his Johnny Rebs directly into the face of the fire and got them butchered valiantly.

Game was over then. After that Grant was able to take over in the East and chase Lee all over Virginia until he finally cornered Lee like a rat.

The war was strictly strategic -- find the enemy & fix him in place & destroy him or his will to fight.

 

[william the wie]

Thank you all and I may be needing your more detailed help soon I went with up-counsel rather than legal zoom to get the ball rolling. no bids so far.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The south had no chance in terms of economy, manpower, navy, or technical expertise. A large economy meant the North had a large base of entrepreneurs who saw fortunes in the war industry and the North had nearly unlimited industrial output comparatively. Similar to the disparity between the US and Japan going into WW2. Japan had no chance in a conflict that lasted more than 6 months and Yamamoto told his superiors that. Six months later Midway happened.

Also, the North blockaded the South which hurt their sale of one of their major commodities, cotton. Europe was very much dependent on Southern cotton at the time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Great Britain or France or more importantly both, if they had intervened and recognized the South, their navies would have ended the war on the side of the South.

 

[expat_panama]

Great Britain or France or more importantly both, if they had intervened and recognized the South...

That becomes too much of an 'if' once the politics is considered.

By the mid 1800's the UK had long since become ruled by popular sentiment thru the House of Commons which meant that they sided w/ the free north against the slave south. Any UK elite political factions that favored the south were suspect, to the point that after the war Parliment overwhelmingly favored paying the U.S. reparations for 'interfering' when they sold arms to the Confederacy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no "if", expat. GB and Fr very well could have recognized the South. IF that happened, the CW would have ended in a month.

 

[Manonthestreet]

The South never intended to attempt the impossible and conquer the North. All they wanted to do was leave the Union.

All that the South needed to do was trap Abe in DC.

That's why Lee swang west then north then east, running into Buford at Gettysburg.

Buford rained on Lee's parade. He held up the Rebels until Union generals Reynolds and Meade could get there.

Then there was a heck of a fight.

Dumbazz Lee sent his Johnny Rebs directly into the face of the fire and got them butchered valiantly.

Game was over then. After that Grant was able to take over in the East and chase Lee all over Virginia until he finally cornered Lee like a rat.

The war was strictly strategic -- find the enemy & fix him in place & destroy him or his will to fight.

They missed that chance at First Bull Run....had a larger army and enemy in flight

 

[JakeStarkey]

They missed that chance at First Bull Run....had a larger army and enemy in flight

CSA did not have the command, control, and communication to force its army to lurch the thirty miles necessary. Yes, the war could have ended right there.