Civil War

Aader

I am too old for this shit.
Joined
Aug 18, 2022
Messages
331
Points
78
Had an idea for a story. The protagonist is a isekaied genius, spent his life studying and tinkering with technology to the point he is convinced he could kick start an industrial revolution. As this thought occurs he dies, and ends up reborn in the American south in 1789, but slavery doesn't exist, and neither do guns, in fact why does everyone have swords, and there is a castle in the distance? Probably cool if the story doesn't have magic.
 

TotallyHuman

It's good to be home.
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Messages
3,996
Points
183
first part feels redundant and you don't kick of a technological revolution just by knowing how to make stuff.
There was this company called I think Sun microsystems and it had ideas years ahead of everyone. Didn't work out well for them
in fact why does everyone have swords,
because guns don't exist :blob_joy:
 

Vnator

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
420
Points
133
Hold on, the civil war was specifically caused by the South wanting to keep slavery. It's also what makes the war such a good vs evil type story. Without that, idk how you could get the same impact, but in curious.
 

Aader

I am too old for this shit.
Joined
Aug 18, 2022
Messages
331
Points
78
Hold on, the civil war was specifically caused by the South wanting to keep slavery. It's also what makes the war such a good vs evil type story. Without that, idk how you could get the same impact, but in curious.
If I were to write it, it'd be a delayed revolution.
 

Southdog

Caustic, handle with caution
Joined
Apr 24, 2021
Messages
201
Points
83
Had an idea for a story. The protagonist is a isekaied genius, spent his life studying and tinkering with technology to the point he is convinced he could kick start an industrial revolution. As this thought occurs he dies, and ends up reborn in the American south in 1789, but slavery doesn't exist, and neither do guns, in fact why does everyone have swords, and there is a castle in the distance? Probably cool if the story doesn't have magic.

>Wants to write an American Civil War story
>Removes every important element of the American Civil War

You can make a pretty good argument that the American Civil war was the first major industrialized, modern war. There were sniper rifles, repeating infantry weapons, major artillery bombardments, land mines, rockets, and trench raids. You can also make a lot of arguments about the causes of the Civil War: there is certainly more nuance than just "slavery bad, south evil, union good, north good."

An American Civil War story that doesn't deal with either of those things, isn't set in the same time period, and requires such a massive deviation from history is ludicrous. You might as well set the story in your own original setting.
 

Poleg

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
235
Points
103
Hold on, the civil war was specifically caused by the South wanting to keep slavery. It's also what makes the war such a good vs evil type story. Without that, idk how you could get the same impact, but in curious.
It wasn't fought for slavery though, only a small part of the population were abolitionists. Not even Lincoln was really remove all slavery (he only argued for limiting it) , he decided that in the middle of the war to cripple the economy of the south that relied in slavery in their plantages.

Calling it a civil war is also not really correct since the goal of a civil war is usually changing the countries leadership. This was a war of secession.
IIRC it was fought because the southern states felt that the north were violating their state rights and other political turmoil like Maine and I think kansas joined and shifted the votes in Congress.
In my opinion it would bei better to classify this war as a war between centralstation and decentralisation.
Who has more authority, the states or the union.
 

Vnator

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
420
Points
133
It wasn't fought for slavery though, only a small part of the population were abolitionists. Not even Lincoln was really remove all slavery (he only argued for limiting it) , he decided that in the middle of the war to cripple the economy of the south that relied in slavery in their plantages.

Calling it a civil war is also not really correct since the goal of a civil war is usually changing the countries leadership. This was a war of secession.
IIRC it was fought because the southern states felt that the north were violating their state rights and other political turmoil like Maine and I think kansas joined and shifted the votes in Congress.
In my opinion it would bei better to classify this war as a war between centralstation and decentralisation.
Who has more authority, the states or the union.
And what, pray tell, we're the rights they were fighting over?
 

Dearest_Violet

Active member
Joined
Dec 15, 2022
Messages
60
Points
33
Oh I'd love a historical isekai like that one really good japanese manga! Though I wouldn't change any aspect about the civil war besides the isekaied person himself.
 

Poleg

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
235
Points
103
And what, pray tell, we're the rights they were fighting over?
Please don't simplify, slavery was a really small part of the south, did it play a small role in the conflict? Yes, but If the goal of the conflict was for the south to keep slavery then the confederacy would not have formed, since states like Baltimore and other Union states almost passed a bill that would still allow the use of slavery. That bill was proposed before the civil war.
Abolitionist were a small minority, They we're around 0,5% of the population. That would be like claiming the Libertarians today (1% of the US Population) were the Main reason the US bombed irak.
It was more about high tarifs the union forced unto the southern states in an effort to become more Independent from europe.
The south was highly reliant in import of daily necessarities since it wasn't as industrialized as the north. The south generally imported from europe as it was cheaper then the northern products. That was also why the civil war almost happened 1838 (the nullification crisis I believe it is called.) These (Import and export) tarifs we're as high as 55% and this really fucks with your economy.

If I remember correctly this is also why the confederate constitution also banned high import tarifs.
A question, of the war was caused by slavery, then why came the emancipation 2 years Info the war and not at the start? Lincoln Just wanted to cripple his Oppositions economy and give his war a Moral cause.


Tldr: it was an economical war.
 

CubicleHermit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2022
Messages
140
Points
68
...and the main subject of those economics were slavery. Not necessarily ending it (it wasn't in Lincoln's power to try to do so) but ending the bubble around its expansion, and in arguments where it could not actually be truly limited to one region (see, for example, the Dred Scott decision and all the conflict around the fugitive slave act.)

Don't take my word for it; plenty of very well known scholars have explained it. Excerpt from one of James McPherson who is one of the leading historians: https://susannalee.org/courses/print/McPherson_2000-print.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._McPherson
 

melchi

What is a custom title?
Joined
May 2, 2021
Messages
1,807
Points
153
Had an idea for a story. The protagonist is a isekaied genius, spent his life studying and tinkering with technology to the point he is convinced he could kick start an industrial revolution. As this thought occurs he dies, and ends up reborn in the American south in 1789, but slavery doesn't exist, and neither do guns, in fact why does everyone have swords, and there is a castle in the distance? Probably cool if the story doesn't have magic.
In 1776 is when the colonies declared independence. 1789 is not that far away. In fact, the revolutionary war ended in 1783 Also, do cannons exist? Because if cannons didn't exist then how about the royal navy? Great Brittan came to power from a strong navy to no small part. In the revolutionary war cities were destroyed by ships of the line bombarding them with cannons.

Also, in england slavery wasn't outlawed until the 1830s. So, in the late 1800s if it is an alternative history slavery wasn't controversial yet. Also, if slavery doesn't exist what happens if someone doesn't pay their dept? At that time they got indentured servitude. If one goes way back, being in dept could be just thrown into a jail until the person who owes money pays it up.

Also, without guns the war of 1812 might go way different. Natives vastly outnumbered the Americans in that conflict.

Also, how many castles would be in a country that is only a few decades old when a castle takes 10 years or so to build?
 

Ssthat

Boo Tao Main
Joined
Mar 3, 2022
Messages
186
Points
58
Im not sure why you are so adamant about no magic despite the fact that you decided to delete one of the most influential parts of our countries history. Is this what they call "selective idiotism"?
 

Aader

I am too old for this shit.
Joined
Aug 18, 2022
Messages
331
Points
78
Im not sure why you are so adamant about no magic despite the fact that you decided to delete one of the most influential parts of our countries history. Is this what they call "selective idiotism"?
Yes, you reply is. I believe my exact quote was:
Probably cool if the story doesn't have magic
 

TheMonotonePuppet

A Writer With Enthusiasm & A Jester of Christmas!
Joined
Apr 24, 2023
Messages
2,456
Points
113
It wasn't fought for slavery though, only a small part of the population were abolitionists. Not even Lincoln was really remove all slavery (he only argued for limiting it) , he decided that in the middle of the war to cripple the economy of the south that relied in slavery in their plantages.

Calling it a civil war is also not really correct since the goal of a civil war is usually changing the countries leadership. This was a war of secession.
IIRC it was fought because the southern states felt that the north were violating their state rights and other political turmoil like Maine and I think kansas joined and shifted the votes in Congress.
In my opinion it would bei better to classify this war as a war between centralstation and decentralisation.
Who has more authority, the states or the union.
This was deeply painful to read. Deeply painful. Obviously you have neither taken Advanced Placement US History, Advanced Placement World History, collegiate US History, or really read any of the many different tomes at the library on the Civil War and that time period. The entirety of this was flat-out wrong.
Lincoln argued for limiting it during the Presidency campaign, but it did not match his personal beliefs. He was a complex person, with much internal conflict on his views of slavery. He has said he would do away with it if he could. In the middle of the war, by now public opinion had turned on its head (specifically, the North's army, where due to working with black regiments composed of runaway slaves they had freed, among other instances which increased anti-slavery sentiment), where the North had switched to fighting for the sake of ridding slavery in the South.
A civil war is an internal conflict between citizens of the same country. That's it. Don't try to complicate it. It was the Union against Confederates, both of whom were/are citizens of the same country. It was a civil war. A war of secession is, by definition, a civil war.
And the whole thing about "the North violating their state rights" was one of the greatest victories of the South: getting that drivel into high-school textbooks. You won't see that, unless you are really deep down South (and even then, it's not normal), in your college textbooks because it's completely false. You literally only have to read the secessionist statements every one of the states leaving made, and it's clear as day: they did it to keep their slaves and to do it to the level of control the culture felt they needed to exact. They definitely mention states' rights. Everything starts with a kernel of truth. In fact, for the SC secessionist statement, that is the first half of the document, where they set up context. Do you know what evidence they offered for violating their rights? The laws that institutionalized slavery. If you want to read the whole thing and actually analyze it without being biased, here's the link: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
And the whole debacle in Kansas came from slavery too.
Educate yourself. Please.
 

Poleg

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
235
Points
103
This was deeply painful to read. Deeply painful. Obviously you have neither taken Advanced Placement US History, Advanced Placement World History, collegiate US History, or really read any of the many different tomes at the library on the Civil War and that time period. The entirety of this was flat-out wrong.
Lincoln argued for limiting it during the Presidency campaign, but it did not match his personal beliefs. He was a complex person, with much internal conflict on his views of slavery. He has said he would do away with it if he could. In the middle of the war, by now public opinion had turned on its head (specifically, the North's army, where due to working with black regiments composed of runaway slaves they had freed, among other instances which increased anti-slavery sentiment), where the North had switched to fighting for the sake of ridding slavery in the South.
A civil war is an internal conflict between citizens of the same country. That's it. Don't try to complicate it. It was the Union against Confederates, both of whom were/are citizens of the same country. It was a civil war. A war of secession is, by definition, a civil war.
And the whole thing about "the North violating their state rights" was one of the greatest victories of the South: getting that drivel into high-school textbooks. You won't see that, unless you are really deep down South (and even then, it's not normal), in your college textbooks because it's completely false. You literally only have to read the secessionist statements every one of the states leaving made, and it's clear as day: they did it to keep their slaves and to do it to the level of control the culture felt they needed to exact. They definitely mention states' rights. Everything starts with a kernel of truth. In fact, for the SC secessionist statement, that is the first half of the document, where they set up context. Do you know what evidence they offered for violating their rights? The laws that institutionalized slavery. If you want to read the whole thing and actually analyze it without being biased, here's the link: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
And the whole debacle in Kansas came from slavery too.
Educate yourself. Please.
A definition of civil war where I come from is the fight between two parties who wish to control the state (in my country the american civil war is thus called war of secession), while I am able to agree that I could have asked about the American definition and this might have led to misunderstandings and or mistakes on my part.
I have an outsiders perspective and from my bad english it is to infer that I am not visiting an american College studying some country on the other side of the planet.
While I am willing to show graditute for correcting any mistakes or misinterpretations I made, I have to ask to refrain from sich rudeness for I do not personally insult you and If you not abstain from that then I shall suspend our discussion by ignoring you.

While I agree that slavery was part of this war I am not convinced that slavery was the only cause of civil war. (If it is so then we might have a language barrier. I mean the reasons a war happens like political differences, economical reasons, geopolitical reasons etc. It may or may not be that slavery was the drop that flooded the river, I do not argue that it wasn't what started the war.)
I can admit that the slavery had a bigger part then I initially assumed, but for the main causes I would name the growing political and moral differences (like slavery, it is a part of that).
From what I remember, the malcontent of states like south Carolina was growing since around ≈ 1830. (May or may not it be justified is another question) I do not believe the dissatisfaction from tarifs and higher cost of living from a government miles away should be ignored as a possible cause.
Lincoln complex character is certainly a reason why uncertainty about the civil war exists as he (where I live) is more known as prone to depression and (possible) mercury poisening and "the Guy who wrote the emancipation".
 

TheMonotonePuppet

A Writer With Enthusiasm & A Jester of Christmas!
Joined
Apr 24, 2023
Messages
2,456
Points
113
A definition of civil war where I come from is the fight between two parties who wish to control the state (in my country the american civil war is thus called war of secession), while I am able to agree that I could have asked about the American definition and this might have led to misunderstandings and or mistakes on my part.
I have an outsiders perspective and from my bad english it is to infer that I am not visiting an american College studying some country on the other side of the planet.
While I am willing to show graditute for correcting any mistakes or misinterpretations I made, I have to ask to refrain from sich rudeness for I do not personally insult you and If you not abstain from that then I shall suspend our discussion by ignoring you.

While I agree that slavery was part of this war I am not convinced that slavery was the only cause of civil war. (If it is so then we might have a language barrier. I mean the reasons a war happens like political differences, economical reasons, geopolitical reasons etc. It may or may not be that slavery was the drop that flooded the river, I do not argue that it wasn't what started the war.)
I can admit that the slavery had a bigger part then I initially assumed, but for the main causes I would name the growing political and moral differences (like slavery, it is a part of that).
From what I remember, the malcontent of states like south Carolina was growing since around ≈ 1830. (May or may not it be justified is another question) I do not believe the dissatisfaction from tarifs and higher cost of living from a government miles away should be ignored as a possible cause.
Lincoln complex character is certainly a reason why uncertainty about the civil war exists as he (where I live) is more known as prone to depression and (possible) mercury poisening and "the Guy who wrote the emancipation".
Ah. My apologies. My argument was harsher than it could have been.
And I do see where you are coming from. It is not the only cause of the Civil War in America, as you have said. It is important to note that it was by far the most important element, given that it was so important to Southern economics and was an incredibly useful (albeit abominable) institution due to the geography of the region and what crops could be grown in it. While the other reasons besides slavery should never be ignored, if you look closely into things like tariff dissatisfaction and that higher cost of living, you'll start to see that ultimately, this was the southern states' moralization. After all, the slaveowners needed to justify beyond just slavery (which was still a very effective justification because of the culture built around the institution) because it couldn't stand on its own. They added some nice-sounding reasons to help.
And in terms of the harshness of my argument, I was definitely wrong to be so harsh. I think a combination of it being 2am at night and being emotionally distraught for personal reasons that I did not filter out my word choices as well as I could have.
Hope you have a great day!
Sincerely,
Kay.
 

CubicleHermit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2022
Messages
140
Points
68
A definition of civil war where I come from is the fight between two parties who wish to control the state (in my country the american civil war is thus called war of secession), while I am able to agree that I could have asked about the American definition and this might have led to misunderstandings and or mistakes on my part.
It's hardly just the American definition ( e.g. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/civil_war https://www.britannica.com/topic/civil-war ) - I'm not sure what dialect of English would demand it be more specific, although I can see where cognates in other languages might well be.

"War of Secession" or for that matter, "Revolution" are both terms that could be used, but both describe a specific perspective that is generally reserved for the victors.

The CSA was never a de jure or uncontested nation, even if it attempted to act as one fairly successfully for its first few years.

To think of it another way: had the American revolution/war of independence failed, the UK would undoubtedly not have a positive frame for it and it would most likely be called a colonial uprising or something. Fortunately for the US, it did win, and our naming has become the commonly-accepted one.
 

Ai-chan

Queen of Yuri Devourer of Traps
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Messages
1,413
Points
153
Had an idea for a story. The protagonist is a isekaied genius, spent his life studying and tinkering with technology to the point he is convinced he could kick start an industrial revolution. As this thought occurs he dies, and ends up reborn in the American south in 1789, but slavery doesn't exist, and neither do guns, in fact why does everyone have swords, and there is a castle in the distance? Probably cool if the story doesn't have magic.
This is not a writing prompt. Please read the pinned thread.
 
Top