ACW History becoming one sided

[spiked_spiegel]

I agree with the tent. I bought a job lot of random pieces the other day locally including a teepee and left in all in the bag.  I came downstairs and noticed the redcoats were stationed in the tent and a horseless covered wagon.  I asked my son why are they in the tent and he said they left the fort and are going to the other fort and are sleeping on the way.  Then I thought why don't they just make regualr tents.
For the main topic Haoque has it spot on.  I don't think pm has an agenda of making things one sided.  If they had not updated both the s&h union and rebel figures with the realease of new "Federal soldier" sets then this wouldn't be an issue, it would simply be pm issuing new 1970-80s calvary figures.

[Amd]

Well i think is more of a cultural thing,

yesterday with some friends that work for Sony developing games for the playstation, were arguing about one of the nintendos top games, Smash Bros... they were mad saying playstation characters were as iconic as nintendo's... of course not... nintendo in popular culture way more symbolic that playstation characters even their consoles sell more...

culturally the union were more western iconic, they are present in mexican america war, civil war, indians wars... i remember playing indians vs cowboys and indians attacking the fort... Playmobil may not even needed the confederate soldiers... maybe was just a move to sell instead of indians,  and stop the slaughter of union soldiers with cannons against the indians...

but again, the cliches in movies, the products we used, even our conception of so many things is based in icons that become symbolic... like santa, like valentines, like movies... etc...

[Rhalius]

Pretty much yes, but if they are going to improve cultural aspects in the western theme it might be better if they start with the Indians.

[Donmobil]

One thing that most people seem to miss-understand is that the American Civil War  (ACW) did not start out about slavery.  The industrial north wanted more cotton and other goods and at a lower price.

The south could not lower their price and still run their plantations.  In the beginning the total head-count for the American Army was 16,000 Officers and men.  So they called for volunteers, i.e.: 4th Ohio Volenteer Regiment.

At first the North was losing and a solution was found-- free the slaves and cripple the south.  And it worked.

When the southern states pulled out of the US to form their own government to protect their rights as free states the Federal government backed the northern states.  The ACW was already going on when the proclamation of freeing the slaves came out.

The ACW was about states rights and the Stars 'n' Bars was chosen.  Oh, and do not forget that the ships that brought the slaves to the US flew the US flag.
--  Donmobil

[tahra]

Most northeners did not have a better view of the slaves. They didn't want them free, competing for jobs, and did not think they were equal. It was political, economical.

I think there were plans to send them off somewhere (actually, I think some were) - to Africa someplace?

[bonniebeth]

Well, at some point it did become about freeing slaves, mostly so they could get more slaves fighting on the side of the north, probably. But as donmobil says, the civil war was really about states' rights -- which things should be decided by the state governments and what could be controlled by the federal government. The south contended that we were a loose conglomeration of states who were basically independent, rather than a united country under one government.

[Rhalius]

Personly I don't see that conflict in black and white, winners write history after all.

Being Dutch, I never had much interest in the american civil war to be honest, so never looked into it much. I'd gues its a war with no clear good and bad side. Though I would say the same for the american revolutionairy war. Again, from an outsider's perspective.

I'd gues the same might be said vice versa though, about the Dutch revolutionairy war and the civil war that made Belgium its own nation.

[tahra]

I'd gues its a war with no clear good and bad side.

Of course not... Each side thinks they are the ones on the right, and for its own reasons. The people suffers. On both sides.

[bonniebeth]

Yep, I think that's usually the case in wars, both sides are sure they're right, or they wouldn't be fighting for it. Looking back on it, the history books paint whoever won as being right. The American revolution and the civil war were both about independence. In the former, the "rebels" won, so it's now called a revolution. In the latter, the rebels lost, so it's still looked on as a rebellion.

[el jefe]

I've never looked at the North being "right" because they won.  The southern states were fighting to maintain a way of life that kept an entire race of people in bondage.  Sorry south, you're the "bad" guys.  Sure African-Americans weren't treated that great anywhere in America, but if that was you, where would you want to live and  who would you fight for?
Wait, why are we talking about this???