Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

SaintHazard wrote:Down, boy. Listen to your signature.

Actually slavery was only one of a myriad of issues the CSA was addressing when it was formed. A lot of people looooove to tout the fact that the South still had slaves, but guess what? So did the North.

It doesn't help that the South was around 95% farmland and plantations, and its entire economy would have collapsed without farm workers, but lo and behold, they found a better way than slavery.

A few corrupt Southern beaurocrats does not a nationwide political agenda make.

I tried to be brief but I get worked up about this topic.

Anyway you slice it the war was about slavery and the Confederate nation was created to protect slavery. Any other reason for war you can come up with is rooted in slavery.

States Rights: To have slaves
Protect their economy: built on slave labor
To preserve their culture: Of land owning aristocracy with slaves

I'll admit the removal of slavery would have been/was absolutely devasting to the south in many many ways. But listing those effects (such as the economy collapsing) as a reason for war misses the point that almost everything in southern life at the time was rooted in slavery.

And a few Northern border states had some slaves for part of the war, which they gave up voluntarily. Unlike the south which took 2 million solidiers and 600K deaths to be convinced. And the notion they found a "better way" is laughable. They were forced to find something other than slavery and then their alternative was sharecropping and systematically oppressing the uneducated blacks for almost another 100 years.

I'm not saying you are racist if you feel like this institution is part of your history. It's fine if you feel that way. But don't try and rewrite history. Embrace it for what it is or find something else to indentify with.

Lol thats awsome!

SaintHazard wrote:Down, boy. Listen to your signature.

Actually slavery was only one of a myriad of issues the CSA was addressing when it was formed. A lot of people looooove to tout the fact that the South still had slaves, but guess what? So did the North.

while i agree slavery was NOT a motive for the civil war at the onset (it was later tacked on as a moral issue), that's the only fact you've gotten right.

http://www.slavenorth.com/


lol, first you call the civil war not a civil war and now you're comparing slavery in the north to the south at the time of the civil war? i guess you're *technically* right in that around a dozen slaves may have been present in the north around the time of the onset of the war but that doesn't make it any less of a ridiculous comparison. the southern economy was *BASED* on slavery just as the northern one was on cheap immigrant labor. dude, i'm not sure what kind of revisionist history homeschooling you got in the south (it's popular down here) but you should probably lay off the the historical commentary because it simply doesn't agree with either the facts or general consensus.

i personally don't have a problem with the army but i could see other players having one due to historical reasons just like i won't play a non-historical game involving a nazi or WWII german themed army. unfortunately, the south and it's look/feel/symbology has been co opted by radical racist groups and effectively become their's in the popular media. not everyone who carries a confederate flag in their back pocket is a racist but almost every racist in the south carries a confederate flag in theirs. if you paint your army like this, you WILL have to deal with people that assume your motives are something other than being a southern rock music or dukes of hazard fan.

warboss wrote: if you paint your army like this, you WILL have to deal with people that assume your motives are something other than being a southern rock music or dukes of hazard fan.

Here he would. I really doubt people in the UK would feel the same way. So as long the OP isn't planning on flying to the states just play with toy soldiers I think he is fine.

You both need to chill out a little, but props at the very least to ArtfcllyFlvrd for keeping a civil tongue.

I'm not even going to dignify warboss's post with a response until it's reworded to exclude the personal attacks.

It's completely untrue to say the the entirety of the South's political agenda boils down to slavery. What you're looking at is a political agenda that boils down to an economy sustained by agriculture, which does not require slavery to prosper. Were many Southern politicians very stupid in holding onto slavery the way they did? Absolutely, nobody is refuting that, but put yourself in their position. They're sitting on an economic system built upon the purchase of slaves and the revenue generated by cotton, tobacco, wheat, corn, and, to a lesser extent, fruit. They had very few options when it came to supplying the labor required to keep this economy afloat. The North had Irish immigrants flooding their labor pool, who would do for a dime what an English or German descendent would only do for a quarter. They had a huge labor pool to draw from. The South did not. Does that justify purchasing boatfuls of slaves? Absolutely not. But the problems were such, and in hindsight, while it cannot be condoned, justified, or, really, anything but vilified, it can at least be understood.

Along with the economic issues, however, came a number of other political issues that drove the war effort. For example, the yankee politicians in Washington saw fit to raise plantation owners' taxes to almost three times what the average landowner in the North paid.

There was a lot more than just slavery involved in the South's decision to go to war. Did it play a part? Yes, I never said it didn't. Was the South and everything it stood for entirely about slavery? No. You'd have to be wearing blinders to think so.

For all of those that want to poo poo and say the stars and bars are okay to fly and it's no big deal because I don't get some BS semantic point you brought up. Make no mistake that flag in today's context mean racism bottom line and if you want to play an army like that go ahead but I also have a right to say I think it sucks and I hope all of your models melt in a tragic accident. Good Day.

SaintHazard wrote:You both need to chill out a little, but props at the very least to ArtfcllyFlvrd for keeping a civil tongue.

I'm not even going to dignify warboss's post with a response until it's reworded to exclude the personal attacks.

It's completely untrue to say the the entirety of the South's political agenda boils down to slavery. What you're looking at is a political agenda that boils down to an economy sustained by agriculture, which does not require slavery to prosper. Were many Southern politicians very stupid in holding onto slavery the way they did? Absolutely, nobody is refuting that, but put yourself in their position. They're sitting on an economic system built upon the purchase of slaves and the revenue generated by cotton, tobacco, wheat, corn, and, to a lesser extent, fruit. They had very few options when it came to supplying the labor required to keep this economy afloat. The North had Irish immigrants flooding their labor pool, who would do for a dime what an English or German descendent would only do for a quarter. They had a huge labor pool to draw from. The South did not. Does that justify purchasing boatfuls of slaves? Absolutely not. But the problems were such, and in hindsight, while it cannot be condoned, justified, or, really, anything but vilified, it can at least be understood.

Along with the economic issues, however, came a number of other political issues that drove the war effort. For example, the yankee politicians in Washington saw fit to raise plantation owners' taxes to almost three times what the average landowner in the North paid.

There was a lot more than just slavery involved in the South's decision to go to war. Did it play a part? Yes, I never said it didn't. Was the South and everything it stood for entirely about slavery? No. You'd have to be wearing blinders to think so.

In your first paragraph you’re basically agreeing with what I wrote. They were concerned about their agriculture. Their agriculture was based in slavery, and they thought slavery was going away. So the root issue is slavery going away.

All of the political issues between North and South at the time had to do with cutting off the expansion of slavery into new territories, and the rights of slaves that had escaped to the North.

The cultural issues all revolved around the class structure of land owners and slaves.

I have never heard of a tax disparity between north and south. My guess is the origin of the disparity was to try and level the playing field between northern land owners who had to pay for labor and southern land owners who didn’t. Slavery again.

The only differences between the two groups of people is slavery. They had the same governmental system, the same political traditions, same language, religion, and non competing economies. There was no reason to go to war but slavery.

It wasn’t just an issue, it was the issue. All other issues combined would not have been enough to go to war and slavery alone was.

I’m not saying they were wrong for thinking slavery was getting snuffed out. It in many ways was. Where I differ from them is in thinking that that is a bad thing. And I’ve never met anyone today who thinks slavery is good. That is why it is so important for people who identify with the CSA to say the issue wasn’t slavery. I’m sorry but it was virtually the only issue.

Now your average Joe grunt in the CSA army may not have been fighting for slavery. He may have been fighting for his state, his land, his family, or just to pay the bills. But the whole reason the Confederate army existed for him to fight in was slavery.

Fair enough, but I still maintain that there are plenty of political points that both you and I are missing that made the South's political agenda very much like any you see today: complicated enough to make your average Joe sit down and listen to what each party has to say about his issue, and largely ignore the rest. And I think that that's what anyone who maintains that slavery was the South's entire agenda is doing, more or less.

And here's another point for you: can we really vilify going to war based on economic needs and then turn around and look at our country today, going to war based on economic needs?

Who's to say that a hundred and fifty years from now, some person on some internet messageboard won't say, "That USMC themed IG army is wrong, because it represents acquiring fossil fuels?"

I mean, really. Can we?

And based on that alone, is a CSA-themed IG army really wrong?

Maybe what the CSA, at the time, stood for was wrong. I'm not denying that.

But that shouldn't mean we should ignore it, pretend it never existed, and paint our plastic soldier men like bunnies and unicorns.

MDizzle wrote:Yuk a team of racists Booo to the stars and bars. Why would any of those flags be more appropriate? They all stand for the same bigotry and hatred. Maybe for you next army you will do a klan army wont that be fun.

I'll let the insult slide even though its at best trolling. On a personal note: I love people who wouldn't dare say such things to me in person.
A battleflag without the Southern Cross is just a regimental battle flag. Hence the point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SaintHazard wrote:

CrashUSAR wrote:I'm gonna drop into my history nerd mode here...

Calling it the Civil War is inaccurate. A civil war is fought between a nation itself. The "Civil War" was fought between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. Two different countries here.

This is a good point. What we in the States call "The Civil War" wasn't really much of a civil war at all, but a war fought between two independent countries (although the North did not see it that way). A civil war is what happens when a single country is fighting against itself.

Even so, "The Civil War" is the moniker most commonly applied by Americans when referring to that war in the mid-1800s between a bunch of our northern states and a bunch of our southern states.

CrashUSAR wrote:And for an objective marker, you could make a sign that reads "Washington."

Ha! Yes!

This is a great idea.

Incorrect. Its properly titled the War of Northern Aggression, but we'll let that slide.

@ MDizzle

I think you are being a little overly sensitive. The guy is not from the south, the guy doesn't have anything distateful, I think you are taking it a little too personal.

@ OP

I think a muted form of MDizzle's reaction would be the norm over here. At least north of the Mason Dixon Line.

Frazzled wrote:I'll let the insult slide even though its at best trolling. On a personal note: I love people who wouldn't dare say such things to me in person.
A battleflag without the Southern Cross is just a regimental battle flag. Hence the point.

I would argue for keeping the Southern Cross... in my opinion, a battleflag without the Southern Cross would be diluting the theme.

Frazzled wrote:Incorrect. Its properly titled the War of Northern Aggression, but we'll let that slide.

Fair enough.

Being from a neutral state, I will officially accept either title.

I think the thing to take away from this discussion is yes Mordian. Your army will be controversial mostly because you included the confederate flag in there. Though it's clear to me that you included the flag because you are a Dukes of Hazard fan. I can't imagine that you actually have an opinion on an almost two century old american political debate, which evidently is still quite heated.

I'm from the North BTW and I don't mind his army. Like I said before, I'm making a Confederate army myself for a historical game. It was a part of history after all. Do the French go crazy when someone makes a napoleonic army?

Klawz wrote:Silly british, not getting our wars.
We only had 6 wars without you y'know, we do know how to do it ourselves!

Anyway, I personally wouldn't use the confederate flag, as it both means things to certain people (one of my ansestors was shot in the back on the yankee side) and some right-wing loonies have misinterpreteted it as the Nativist Flag (TM).

Indeed. Approach like a German army list. Color patterns are fine. Civil war guys fine and much opportunities for conversion. Just leave off the Southern Cross. As noted there are a plethora of Corps and Division battleflags. Use them for ideas to make your own.

You still need a Daisy Duke for the General Lee though.

see this is the grand problem w/ america. people with very little knowledge, but very strong opinions are allowed to voice them on public forums and are not only protected by law to voice whatever stupid opinion they have, but are protected by law to such an extent that they think that they're opinion is right and socially acceptable and they are allowed to voice it whenever they damn well please.
so in short i say let this thread remain about little plastic army men

Disclaimer: this is not directed at anyone specificlly, but if your offended by my statement then by all means assume that i meant your posts

I think that's what's great about America. Wasn't that one of the cornerstones of our government at it's inception? Free speech for everyone.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:@ MDizzle

I think a muted form of MDizzle's reaction would be the norm over here. At least north of the Mason Dixon Line.

What gets me mad isn't that the army is themed this way (I'm tolerent as all hell) however its the person carrying the army. Britain support the South during the war by sending them money and guns, however (!), they did so for ullterior motives. The UK (still sore form their defeat in 1812) was eager to see the newly formed Union cast asunder. Therefore, in an effort to divide and destory our country, England supported the South and funded the emmense war over here.


In short, my American fellows, let us not ponit fingers at eachother, let us point fingers and the Brits!


lol, more on topic..... I like the paint scheme, however I'd have made the tanks more steam-punk, like the ironclads of the period.

The Odessey wrote:

lol, more on topic..... I like the paint scheme, however I'd have made the tanks more steam-punk, like the ironclads of the period.

Exactly!

Joetaco wrote:see this is the grand problem w/ america. people with very little knowledge, but very strong opinions are allowed to voice them on public forums and are not only protected by law to voice whatever stupid opinion they have, but are protected by law to such an extent that they think that they're opinion is right and socially acceptable and they are allowed to voice it whenever they damn well please.
so in short i say let this thread remain about little plastic army men

Disclaimer: this is not directed at anyone specificlly, but if your offended by my statement then by all means assume that i meant your posts

Only on the internet can one hold a pair of pink panties aloft and hope to still be taken seriously.

Sorry dude. No dice.

SaintHazard wrote:Fair enough, but I still maintain that there are plenty of political points that both you and I are missing that made the South's political agenda very much like any you see today: complicated enough to make your average Joe sit down and listen to what each party has to say about his issue, and largely ignore the rest. And I think that that's what anyone who maintains that slavery was the South's entire agenda is doing, more or less.

And here's another point for you: can we really vilify going to war based on economic needs and then turn around and look at our country today, going to war based on economic needs?

Who's to say that a hundred and fifty years from now, some person on some internet messageboard won't say, "That USMC themed IG army is wrong, because it represents acquiring fossil fuels?"

I mean, really. Can we?

And based on that alone, is a CSA-themed IG army really wrong?

Maybe what the CSA, at the time, stood for was wrong. I'm not denying that.

But that shouldn't mean we should ignore it, pretend it never existed, and paint our plastic soldier men like bunnies and unicorns.

Whoa now, there are some assumptions in there I definitely don’t agree with.

1. I’m not 100% sure how I feel about economically driven wars. I say no, but I have a hard time thinking there was ever a purely economic war. If everything else between the two countries was fine, wouldn’t they participate peacefully with each other? In every instance I can think of (which is definitely not them all) there was some ideological difference that prevented cooperation and created the economic pressure.
2. I am 100% sure that’s not what we are doing right now. But we’ll have to move this to the off topic forum if you want to continue about that.


I do think slavery was pretty much the south’s entire agenda (or at least the root of it all). Now I don’t think they were holding on to it just for the heck of it. They stuck by it because of all the economic, cultural, and political impacts losing it would have. So it encompassed their whole way of life which made it worth fighting for. I think at this point we’re pretty much on the same page and just arguing potato/pototo.

And I definitely don’t think we should ignore it. I’m not saying we play FoW without Nazis or civil war games without confederates. But when you bring that into a game that has nothing to do with the era it makes it seem like you like it a little too much. That it’s on your mind enough and you care about it enough that you spent lots of time and money making things that have nothing to do with it resemble it. Now for our English friend the part that he cares about and that is on his mind are pop culture references and spaghetti westerns (Although most western movies take place 20-30 years after the war). If an American did the same I really would think the part on his mind that he cares about was white supremacy and keeping blacks down. Maybe I shouldn’t make that jump, but I think a lot of us (at least up here where those symbols are used virtually exclusively by racists) would.

As a proud Southerner, the proper term for the war that occurred between 1861-1865 is "The War of Northern Aggression".

The Confederate Battle Flag represents those proud and noble soldiers righting for state's rights. While the main issue was slavery, what prompted the war was the issue of who determines whether slavery would be allowed, an all powerful group of elitists in Washington, or the States themselves.

Most of those who fought did not own slaves. Indeed, free born Americans of African descent chose to fight for the South as well.


I say keep the army as is.

If there's anything I've learned studying the history of warfare, it's that there's no such thing as a war not based on economics.

Every war is about money or acquisition of some sort. If it's not about acquisition, it's about protecting your own assets.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not against this concept. I think that there are very few good reasons to go to war that are not based on acquisition of some sort or another, and going to war over economic necessity is the best among profit-driven reasons to go to war.

But like you said, that's a debate for another thread.

I think you're right that we're basically saying the same thing two different ways, with one major exception: you don't care for the Confederate flag as a symbol, whereas I'm alright with it.

Maybe that's a product of where we live. You live in the North where, like you said, the flag is used almost exclusively by the kind of people with whom you and I would never wish to be associated... whereas here (not quite the South, but we qualify) it's more a symbol of our history and culture, and an important part of what made us who we are today.

SaintHazard wrote:
Maybe that's a product of where we live. You live in the North where, like you said, the flag is used almost exclusively by the kind of people with whom you and I would never wish to be associated... whereas here (not quite the South, but we qualify) it's more a symbol of our history and culture, and an important part of what made us who we are today.

...And mostly still used by racists.

SaintHazard wrote:If there's anything I've learned studying the history of warfare, it's that there's no such thing as a war not based on economics.

Every war is about money or acquisition of some sort. If it's not about acquisition, it's about protecting your own assets.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not against this concept. I think that there are very few good reasons to go to war that are not based on acquisition of some sort or another, and going to war over economic necessity is the best among profit-driven reasons to go to war.

But like you said, that's a debate for another thread.

I think you're right that we're basically saying the same thing two different ways, with one major exception: you don't care for the Confederate flag as a symbol, whereas I'm alright with it.

Maybe that's a product of where we live. You live in the North where, like you said, the flag is used almost exclusively by the kind of people with whom you and I would never wish to be associated... whereas here (not quite the South, but we qualify) it's more a symbol of our history and culture, and an important part of what made us who we are today.

And so ends possibly the first meaningful internet argument ever. Everyone go find your loved ones, I think the world is ending.

Frazzled wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:
Maybe that's a product of where we live. You live in the North where, like you said, the flag is used almost exclusively by the kind of people with whom you and I would never wish to be associated... whereas here (not quite the South, but we qualify) it's more a symbol of our history and culture, and an important part of what made us who we are today.

...And mostly still used by racists.

I can't speak for Texas, but in Kentucky, that's not the case (from my experience).

I know several people who have a Confederate flag either hanging outside their house or on their car somewhere, and more than a few who have them printed on their wallets. Not a single one of these people is in any way racist.

I think the Nazi motifs are much more popular with racists in my state than Confederate motifs.

But again, I can't speak for Texas, or the rest of the South. So by and large, you could be correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:And so ends possibly the first meaningful internet argument ever. Everyone go find your loved ones, I think the world is ending.

This could have ended poorly, but a few pretty cool people were involved, and it ended well.

Hugs for everyone!

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
But when you bring that into a game that has nothing to do with the era it makes it seem like you like it a little too much. That it’s on your mind enough and you care about it enough that you spent lots of time and money making things that have nothing to do with it resemble it.

Hey, I don't think I can agree with that. 40k (especially IG) is full of memes that have nothing to do with the era, as previously pointed out.

Tallarn - Middle eastern
Voystroyans (Chenkov) - USSR style fascism and brutality to your own people. (and more recent historically than the civil war)
Catachans - Vietnam War (see above)
Space Wolves - Vikings
Mordians - First thing that comes to mind is Mohmar Kadafi (probably misspelling his name)

Just to name a few. With that logic, I could claim that because you (hypothetically) have the beautifully painted Voystroyan conscript army with a lovingly scratchbuilt Chenkov that you have a thing for fascism and idolize Stalin. Maybe for some kicks, I could snidely ask you if you've named your army the Five Year Plan. Really the Imperium in general reeks of fascism, so we're all just terrible people acting out our megalomania by playing this game to begin with anyway. My point is that if you try to vilify something hard enough, you'll find a way.

I think that when people get into these debate it is important to remember history is written by the winners. All history is subject to that rule, even the bible suffers from it. I personally think that its a cool idea and a cool army and within the game that is that. So what if people have misgivings about an icon, surely humanity is past this.

Also, daedalus, great post. If I might add DKoK are based around WW1 Germans and, one could argue this, Steel Legion are loosely base on WW2 Germans (think blitzkrieg)

Edit for extra content.

General Hobbs wrote:

As a proud Southerner, the proper term for the war that occurred between 1861-1865 is "The War of Northern Aggression".

your side only gets to name the wars you win.



it's the civil war.

Signed,

Proud Dakkite from the Land of Lincoln

warboss wrote: your side only gets to name the wars you win.

But if they stuck to that rule they wouldn't get to name any

wizard12 wrote:I think that when people get into these debate it is important to remember history is written by the winners. All history is subject to that rule, even the bible suffers from it. I personally think that its a cool idea and a cool army and within the game that is that. So what if people have misgivings about an icon surely humanity is past this.

Tragically, humanity is seldom past things like this. Evidence for that appears every time a Space Nazi PM thread is created.

So I've sat here for about 5 minutes, trying to figure out why the notion of Space Nazis bothers me more than Space Confederates. Honestly I can't figure out any sort of reason, but that doesn't seem really justified. Is it wrong that I can accept one but not the other? I'm seriously bothered by this.

Because Nazism is more recent and more fresh in your memory. Not that you were there, but you know what I mean. I imagine it would really bother you if someone created the Space Taliban.

Space Taliban is worse than Space Nazis, Space Nazis are worse than Space Confederates, and so on.

It's the same reason Space Crusaders don't bother anyone but the Knights Templar, Knights Hospitaller, and Teutonic Knights were some extremely brutal people. But that happened a milennium ago. So it doesn't bother us when GW creates the Black Templars, hangs all manner of religious iconography on their armor, and has them shout prayers to their god as they rush into close combat.

Hell, GW created a faction called the Inquisition, but that doesn't bother anyone! But you can open any history book and read about the atrocities committed by the Spanish Inquisition.

I could go on, but I don't think I need to.