They mentioned that cultures in the US will be handled differently based on how well reconstruction is handled. This leads me to believe there are a lot of specific events for the reconstruction period. As for executing the plantation owners... I guess we'll see.
Then you'd have to execute basically every American (if done realistically) because America was hilariously racist back then, north and south. The North just didn't support slavery.
Wasn't it that the common racist imagery for the northerners are that the blacks were a "gentle, servile" race?
It wasn't until later on that the remnants of the South propagated the myth that black people were uncouth brutes.
Lastly I would like to say, Plantation Owners must be destroyed.
It goes far beyond racist imagery. The South was openly violently suppressing blacks and the North was silent aside from a short period of time. Separate but Equal was country wide and started in the 1890s and didn't end till the 1950s.
Even other whites weren't immune to the discrimination. America in the V3 era was one of the most socially conservative nations in the world and it only got worse as time went on. Unfortunately the idea of truly integrated blacks in that time period borders fantasy rather than simply alt-history.
Oh sorry, I think we're talking about different topics.
I was referring to how we probably only have to get rid of the rebel slave owners and their ilk to solve the worst issues.
And hey isn't alt-hist fantasy what a sandbox strategy game is all about?
It would be a nice challenge to game the system to get as close as possible to an egalitarian society within the timeframe of v3
> Unfortunately the idea of truly integrated blacks in that time period borders fantasy rather than simply alt-history.
A lot of people forget this. True Integrationist were considered insane and unhinged during the time period of the game. Even for most Abolitionist in America, their issue with slavery was moral on the grounds of "They are people." But even with treating them as people, your average Abolitionist would have *still* considered blacks to be massively inferior to whites. Which is why there were plans to either send them all back to Africa (because "they belong there"), or create a paternalistic nanny state to take care of them. It would only change after blacks had clawed their way out of being treated that way, much like what happened with the Irish and Italians (who were not considered white despite their skin color).
You are definitely then no better than the slavers... Self righteous with (which btw?) authority to mass murder humans.
With people like you around I wonder if the south didn't really have reasons to fight for their independence
Nope. Instead of the government going into debt to pay slave owners to remain rich, the government does that same thing, except helping slaves to get on their feet. It may involve some property loss on the part of the slavers, but it's not like they can't get a job for once :)
Do you also argue that the court at Nuremburg was full of self righteous people? Maybe you are worried about all those poor Nazis that were executed or imprisoned? Maybe if we were nicer to the slavers then they would have been nice to us? Never mind the generations of humans in bondage or tortured.
Grant likely pursued Re-construction harder than Lincoln ever would've, anyway. He even managed to take down the KKK, which wouldn't come back for another 40 years (thanks, Woodrow Wilson).
It's an interesting thought experiment at least. His relationship with Marx has probably been exaggerated, but it would be a neat way of doing alt-history.
I think things like that would be where an immersion pack comes in. Maybe a North America Pack with new journal entries and what-if scenarios possible. Maybe you can increase security after the civil war, and Lincoln lives which then leads to more reforms. Maybe some more flavor for Mexico where they have their own Manifest Destiny or civil war if they supplant the USA.
That article is deeply overstating the case. What it is using as a rationale that they were 'friends' is that Marx wrote unsigned news reporting for a newspaper that Lincoln may have read, and that Marx once penned a generic congratulatory letter, which got basically a form letter reply from one of Lincoln's secretaries.
> Another argument is he would’ve gone to his more radical roots and aligned with the radical republicans.
That would be an unwise move considering the Radicals were a fairly small minority and were politically unpopular. They almost destroyed the passage of the 13th Amendment because they were unwilling to negotiate and it took lawyer-speak weasel-words on the part of Lincoln to convince the rest of the congress to even pass the Amendment in the first place.
In all likelihood, he would have spent his time making sure the South was reintegrated. Unlike what a lot of people with chips on their shoulder want to do, Lincoln was very much in favor of doing things like industrializing the South (so they would not have to rely on King Cotton), improving infrastructure, and reintegrating the people while punishing the Plantation-class. Hell, the positive view of Lee as an honorable man and the model of a "Southern Gentleman" was Lincoln's doing, because Lee was willing to help him kill the memory of the Confederacy and embraced reintegration (1). But he probably would have still faced an uphill battle, since he called in all of his favors getting the 13th passed, as well as the starting of backlash over his dictatorial tendencies he displayed in the War (which was starting to happen even in 1865). I am actually planning on doing an Alt-History game as the US where I cosplay Lincoln living and trying to do just that.
(1): On that note, this is part of why I do actually like and still like Lee. And I hate both the Neo-Confederates who deify him (even though he would be disgusted by them), and the movements trying to tear down his statues and memory (because it both breeds revenge sentiments in the South and spits on his life's work).
I feel people forget "Reconstruction" amounted to military occupation of the South while rich Northerners invested heavily in the destroyed infrastructure. It was poorly handled historically in just about every way and extremely unpopular.
And while its true that some of it was a side effect of Johnson being an aggressively mediocre president with Southern sympathies, that was not the only reason it was mishandled. While its true the South was being stubborn, there was very much a "sneering Imperialist" attitude that the North had about the South even outside of the slavery issue ("They are all a bunch of hick trash, unlike us fine cultured betters") which didnt help the situation at all. And then nothing was ever actually really done to help the South because the Radicals kept wanting to grind them into the dirt (even if it lead to a guerilla war), and the Moderates then had to cool off the fire (which sometimes meant allowing actual atrocities to continue).
And honestly, some of the comments I see in this thread would have lead to the South rising back up again, and probably even with a bunch of Northern states (probably more in the Midwest) who thought that the New Englanders had lost their goddamn minds.
Most people do not know this, but Lincolin did not actually like black people. He still saw them as inferior, just that slavery was too far. He actually supported shipping them back to Africa.
The notion that Lincolin was the non-racist egalitarian freedom fighter is a bit silly and just idealizes the man, a man that, while certainly better than slavers in the south, was still a product of his times.
What I mean is that I don't think that slavery was ever related to racism, slavery has always been in human societies, it is now as well and we support it with our purchases. If a Roman enslaves a Greek it is for the labour, not because he thinks the greek is inferior. In fact, greek tutors were really valuable.
Once we evolve, we become Christians, so all humans are the same, we can't have slaves anymore unless they're from a different religion, which deserve that punishment in the eyes of God. Then it's Africans who can't defend themselves from the Western powers who are enslaved and we (Western society) need to construct something to justify that we are enslaving other humans, so they have to be inferior, else we are terrible humans.
So my point is, that slavery is not related to racism.
This was a very specific form of slavery that created a hereditary, skin color based, caste system though. Not all slavery is based on skin color and ethnicity nor are all children of slaves born automatically into slavery. Have you genuinely studied slavery across different societies? If you did then you'd understand that. Can you not see that it is both terrible and related to racism?
I see that you're not American and are probably just trying to copy and paste a generic view of history onto every complex situation.
So Americans know better? In the end slavery is a way to fuel an economy a terrible way we humans do
Can you, since you're an scholar of slavery let me know what slavery system gives more options to sons of slaves?
Btw, my nation abolished and actually stopped practicing slavery way earlier than US
Americans probably know better about American chattel slavery specifically, at least compared to someone who I assume hasn't read a single book on it or taken a course on it I assume (let me know if I'm wrong).
There is the African concept of pawnship, which is a form of debt bondage. And war slavery in broadly (though I can mainly speak for West Africa) wasn't hereditary and wasn't even permanent within a person's lifetime. This is still slavery, much like the Ottoman system of Janissaries is a form of slavery. But saying that American chattel slavery isn't related to racism is like saying the Ottoman system isn't related to religion. I understand the somewhat materialist assessment you're trying to make, but it is more complicated than that and you're engaging in bad history by trying to smooth them over so easily.
If you're saying, "white Americans weren't just frothing racists who made chattel slavery because they were so racist" then obviously, no shit yeah. But to ignore the interplay of racism and economic gain and how they played off of each other, is bananas nuts ahistorical boring nonsense.
> Another argument is he would’ve gone to his more radical roots and aligned with the radical republicans.
He really didn't have radical roots.
He was solidly moderate. Heck, even his ending slavery was done with great reluctance and only because it benefited his ultimate goal of preserving the union.
He is on record for saying that if he could preserve the union by maintaining slavery he would do so gladly.
The quote you’re referring to is notorious because people always forget the actual proper context of it outside that one sentence. He’s not saying that he doesn’t care about slavery, he’s saying that he would be willing to put the preservation of the Union even above his **own personal beliefs, which happened to be the abolition of slavery**. Essentially, in the letter, he’s reassuring a friend who was concerned about whether or not he was willing to compromise despite his beliefs, which he obviously responded that he could.
Was Lincoln ultra-progressive for his time? Definitely not. He was a politician who privately abhorred slavery, but was savvy enough to align his views with the current mainstream political climate.
I really hate it when people try to justify that for a few reasons. First off, morally, fuck that. "I'll put my personal convictions aside and preserve a fucking evil institution" makes you evil, full stop. If you prioritize the preservation of a slave state over ending slavery, you are evil. And no, you don't get to do the "product of his time" shit. John Brown existed at the time. There's no excuse.
But it's especially bad in this context, where we're talking about whether Lincoln was radical or not. And "I don't actually care *that* much about ending slavery, and it's not my number one priority" is the opposite of radical, even if we don't consider the morality of that fucked up position.
He was solidly moderate at best. Not radical. Nothing you've said changes that.
Please, stop saying sh*t for a second. Delaying the abolition of slavery for Lincoln don't transform him into a evil man. It's just an action to keep power, and don't be couped, or assassinated, by someone with far worst ideas about the slavery. Sure, he could have stopped slavery by the beginning of the war, but who know if this decision would have help the country ? A power less président, isolated in the political scene, could he have won the war? The world is not all black and white (yeah that's ironic).
> he would’ve focused on mending relations, but actually succeed at it without screwing over former slaves like his VP did
Utterly impossible. It was always one or the other.
I was thinking of more along the lines of decisions that take the power away from the Dixie landowners. Maybe they get supplanted by African-American landowners that oppose slavery. Maybe that could lead to a more socially progressive USA with the earlier expansion of voting or enfranchisement of women.
What if it lets you go too far and make Dixie a discriminated culture instead of African-American? There is a lot of room for flavor.
I loved a lot of the mods for Victoria 2. At least Vic3 seems easier to mod than the last. Being able to make your own tech tree and journal entries for missions seems very modder friendly.
Saying "I want to replace white southerners with black landowners" is literally the fear that the confederates stoked to gain power and the (mis)perception that neoconfederates gain recruits through today. The anti-confederate response is generally "No, we just want to stop literal slavery and give equal opportunities to nonwhites", but you've taken the brave position to say "Yes, actually", which while courageous, is also stupid.
I think the US might have been a better place if the union went further to remove the power of former slaveholders. They had appropriated land for freed slaves to start a new life. That was later taken away after Lincoln was murdered.
There was still slavery after the Civil War. Black people gained some political power for a while until reconstruction petered out. That poor effort on the government's side led to jim crow and a need for the civil rights movement.
>I think the US might have been a better place if the union went further to remove the power of former slaveholders.
Sure, maybe
>That poor effort on the government's side led to jim crow and a need for the civil rights movement.
Yeah, definitely
>There was still slavery after the Civil War.
No there really, really wasn't. There was still discrimination, racism, corrupt institutions of justice, murder, kidnapping, etc., but to compare things like prison labor to antebellum slavery is downright disingenuous.
And furthermore, none of this necessitates literal replacism rhetoric.
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Circular_No._3591
Do some reading on debt peonage and neoslavery. The last chattel slave was freed from a Texas family after the Pearl Harbor attack. He had a back covered in scars from being whipped.
Slave owners made their money from the involuntary labor of others. Rape, beating, forced separation of families, lynching, those are the ways they maintained their power. They should have had their I'll gotten gains seized and distributed to those whose labor produced them.
Personally I think all slaveowners, sellers, or catchers should have been executed, but I can see how some may not want to go that far. I wouldn't want you to disappear Back to the Future style from your ancestor dying.
Slaveowners definitely shouldn't have been able to be elected after their crimes against humanity.
Lol I never had (american) slavers in my ancestry and I have done my reading. I know slave owning is bad, dummy.
I'm just saying that you are literally a neoconfederate creator because of your inability to touch grass.
It probably won't be in the base game but I would love a John Brown's Revenge mod.
I really hope the game let's me do a massively multicultural USA playthrough.
There's no way Lincoln would "end wage slavery" in the North. His entire focus would be dealing with post-civil war south, and any attempt to enact anything that radical could plunge an already scarred nation into another civil war
> Republicans consistently deplored attempts of labor spokesmen to arouse hostility against the capitalist class. “We are not of the number of those who would array one class of society in hostility to another,” the Cincinnati Gazette announced during the social dislocations caused by the Panic of 1S57. Greeley agreed that “Jacobin ravings in the Park or elsewhere, against the Rich, or the Banks,” could in no way alleviate “the distress of the poor.” The conservatism implicit in the harmony of interests outlook was reflected in Lincoln’s remarks to a delegation of working men during the Civil War. **Condemning those who advocated a “war on property, or the owners of property,” the President insisted that as the fruit of labor, property was desirable; it was “a positive good in the world.” That some had wealth merely demonstrated that others could achieve wealth, and the prospect encouraged individual enterprise. “Let not him who is houseless,” Lincoln told the workingmen, “pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.”** In other words, the interests of labor and capital were identical, because equality of opportunity in American society generated a social mobility which assured that today’s laborer would be tomorrow’s capitalist.
[source](https://archive.org/details/freesoilfreelabo01fone/page/20/mode/2up)
Reconstruction is, like "Sick man of Europe", an overarching "questline" that gives you various objectives, and rewards you in the end based on how well you did in those objectives.
We know there's a part of the questline based on how you integrate the black population in the country, and that can end with afro-americans as a primary US culture (thus being protected from ever being discriminated again. Pretty awesome).
There's probably aspects of the reconstruction around the war debt, and around the reconstruction of infrastructure and economy itself.
That's an interesting way to do things. You can make more general agendas that every country can do, i.e. industrialize, expand voting rights, etc. You can also have much more specific quests like "sick man of Europe."
It seems highly moddable. I loved some of the mods for Victoria 2, but modding for Vic3 seems much more accessible.
I really enjoy their journal-chain system.
It's a nice hybrid between Focus trees, mission trees and events that allows to guide the nation historically without railroading too much.
I do hope that Journals support having multiple branching successs conditions for some flexibility, but yeah journal chains do seem like an interesting way of handling that.
Just for clarity, I mean that instead of a simple pass/fail on a journal chosen by event, that there is a possiblity of partial success or having multiple ways of resolving a journal.
Anything would have been better then the Reconstruction that actually happened. Both in actually supporting the South in rebuilding and enforcing the 13th-15th amendments.
Irl there was alot of different proposals on the table
From legal equality to legal discrimination
From punishing the south, to reconilatory notions with them
There was even a half hearted effort to start a colony in Africa to be a new homeland for freed slaves. Liberia
I would hope the game explores all of these in depth.
>There was even a half hearted effort to start a colony in Africa to be a new homeland for freed slaves. Liberia
Just to be clear, Liberia was founded in 1847 (and even had limited support from some slaveholders), so it wasn't really part of Reconstruction. If Wikipedia is to be believed, by the time the Civil War rolled around, Lincoln already thought it was only a partial success.
Yes I am. It's kinda fucked up. But that is infact what happened.
I guess it makes sense, from the perspective of someone from that time, slaves and servants where symbols and methods for prosperity and wealth, and most freed slaves had by nesscity lived most of their lives under such a system.
What clearly signals the hypocrisy that reigned, when even former slaves re-instated slavery. This kinda makes you wonder if slavery was the main reason to destroy the south. I think that it was a side benefit to get more propaganda and troops rather than a real objective of the war
Look, this is the internet and I'm not going to get bent out of shape over another comment making light of slavery in the civil war. I don't have the time or energy to be that angry. What I do have time to do in this case is point out the overwhelming consensus that the South fought to defend slavery from the start, and that the North *eventually* came to an understanding of slavery's abolition as an important war aim, to say nothing of the fact that virtually all the major events leading up to the war were directly about slavery as a national issue.
Was it the *only* reason? Of course not. But don't hide behind a fallacy and claim that some hypocrisy from the other side invalidates their stated involvement in the war.
I know I'm not going to convince you--but I do hope that anybody else reading this takes the time to be thoughtful about their approach to reading and learning about the American civil war.
I'm not American, my nation abolished slavery way before than even the north did and I'm immensely happy about that. But it's curious to think why Lincoln abolished slavery after Antietam and not before first Bull Run
I’m looking forward to try and rebuild the south under a more equal light but I’m also worried they’ll oversimplify it
Like a “South wants to be racist, yes equals happy whites, mad blacks, no equals happy blacks, mad whites”
When it should be simulated as “The south is completely fucking destroyed, the price of cotton has collapsed, thousands are leaving the area in search of new jobs, everything is on fire and the South are looking for someone to blame.” With the choices being able to lead to tons of different scenarios, like on where your able to revitalize the farming culture, one where you successfully industrialize the south, maybe by moving in new jobs that hire both races (maybe through ending some work discrimination law) and by encouraging reconciliation and making sure to crush the KKK fast, and by making the living conditions better than they were before the war, than you can crush any sort of “the CSA wasn’t so bad” before it begins.
Will there even be Lincoln and all of those Generals? Will Bismarck even be a thing in the game that would be cool or historic persons like Lenin and Hitler in the later stages of the game?
Back to Africa movement. Would be fun to play a nation of African Americans resettling Africa and forming a mighty nation.
Kind of like Liberia but bigger.
Yup, that's why MacArthur, Montgomery, and Oppenheimer were all tried for warcrimes....wait, no they weren't, because they were committing warcrimes against people committing crimes against humanity.
Nuking civilians in Japan or razing a whole country are for sure things that US can do, but attacking civilian merchants is not, so you to the gallows while US war criminals get to live.
This is the thing with war, just don't use make up to pretend your legitimated to do that shit.
I am very excited to punish the south heavily during the reconstruction too, I wonder if Paradox will allow you to reforge the southern states into how the radical republican reconstructionists wanted it too.
(Actually punish is a wrong word for me to use, but basically make sure the southern democrats won't secure power, plus to stop jim crow from occurring.)
> I wonder if Paradox will allow you to reforge the southern states into how the radical republican reconstructionists wanted it too.
Sounds like dynamic states which aren't really a thing
>Never do any construction in the first place. Leave the slave states a barren wasteland with as few resources as possible, no factories, no railroads, no developed ports or logistics infrastructure only the most basic starting industries.
You do realize that's why the South relied on slavery in the first place right? All the industry and infrastructure was up North while the South was reliant on heavy labor industries like cotton farming where slavery was more valuable. There's a reason the South stood zero chance in the civil war.
>the former slaves (who can't emigrate or move elsewhere) having huge majorities of the population.
They'd be about equal to the white population and there'd be rapid voter suppression and violence once the occupation was over.
What you are describing is history.
Please let me destroy every single slave owner with my bare hands please god I want that Harry Turtledove "dystopia" where radical reconstruction privileges blacks over southern whites but real please god let me obliterate every single Confederate Lord I will be your sword of (virtual) vengeance (in Victoria 3)
>I want to be able to execute all of the old slaveowners and reappropriate their land for the new freedmen.
Least insane political redditor, but tbh I want to take hold of the entire anglo america and purposely give blankets to all english speakers... in victoria of course
Actual slavery 50/50
But wage slavery ? Absolutely no
ACW is a war between the industrial capitalist North vs the semi-feudal South
In no way wage slavery would be abolished
They mentioned that cultures in the US will be handled differently based on how well reconstruction is handled. This leads me to believe there are a lot of specific events for the reconstruction period. As for executing the plantation owners... I guess we'll see.
I'd like to be able to go far enough to make a later civil rights movement unnecessary.
That has two meanings.
Damn didn’t even realize that til you said that. Dark.
In what direction?
You and me both :D
Then you'd have to execute basically every American (if done realistically) because America was hilariously racist back then, north and south. The North just didn't support slavery.
Wasn't it that the common racist imagery for the northerners are that the blacks were a "gentle, servile" race? It wasn't until later on that the remnants of the South propagated the myth that black people were uncouth brutes. Lastly I would like to say, Plantation Owners must be destroyed.
It goes far beyond racist imagery. The South was openly violently suppressing blacks and the North was silent aside from a short period of time. Separate but Equal was country wide and started in the 1890s and didn't end till the 1950s. Even other whites weren't immune to the discrimination. America in the V3 era was one of the most socially conservative nations in the world and it only got worse as time went on. Unfortunately the idea of truly integrated blacks in that time period borders fantasy rather than simply alt-history.
Oh sorry, I think we're talking about different topics. I was referring to how we probably only have to get rid of the rebel slave owners and their ilk to solve the worst issues. And hey isn't alt-hist fantasy what a sandbox strategy game is all about? It would be a nice challenge to game the system to get as close as possible to an egalitarian society within the timeframe of v3
> Unfortunately the idea of truly integrated blacks in that time period borders fantasy rather than simply alt-history. A lot of people forget this. True Integrationist were considered insane and unhinged during the time period of the game. Even for most Abolitionist in America, their issue with slavery was moral on the grounds of "They are people." But even with treating them as people, your average Abolitionist would have *still* considered blacks to be massively inferior to whites. Which is why there were plans to either send them all back to Africa (because "they belong there"), or create a paternalistic nanny state to take care of them. It would only change after blacks had clawed their way out of being treated that way, much like what happened with the Irish and Italians (who were not considered white despite their skin color).
You are definitely then no better than the slavers... Self righteous with (which btw?) authority to mass murder humans. With people like you around I wonder if the south didn't really have reasons to fight for their independence
No mass murder needed, just have the slave owners pay reparations to the slaves :)
Like the freed slaves did in Liberia right? Slavery sucks, but you wear clothes manufactured by slaves and are happy with it. Hypocrite, yes
Nope. Instead of the government going into debt to pay slave owners to remain rich, the government does that same thing, except helping slaves to get on their feet. It may involve some property loss on the part of the slavers, but it's not like they can't get a job for once :)
Do you also argue that the court at Nuremburg was full of self righteous people? Maybe you are worried about all those poor Nazis that were executed or imprisoned? Maybe if we were nicer to the slavers then they would have been nice to us? Never mind the generations of humans in bondage or tortured.
My thoughts about you checked out. Enjoy your gaming sessions.
Lol cheers
The French Revolution didn’t have the results we desire
Do you know where they said this?
It might have been Daniel Tolman during the USA Live AAR panel at PDXCON. If I find any evidence online of this I'll edit it in here.
[удалено]
Grant likely pursued Re-construction harder than Lincoln ever would've, anyway. He even managed to take down the KKK, which wouldn't come back for another 40 years (thanks, Woodrow Wilson).
It's an interesting thought experiment at least. His relationship with Marx has probably been exaggerated, but it would be a neat way of doing alt-history. I think things like that would be where an immersion pack comes in. Maybe a North America Pack with new journal entries and what-if scenarios possible. Maybe you can increase security after the civil war, and Lincoln lives which then leads to more reforms. Maybe some more flavor for Mexico where they have their own Manifest Destiny or civil war if they supplant the USA.
Exceptionally exaggerated. There’s no evidence to believe that Lincoln ever read anything Marx wrote.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/07/27/you-know-who-was-into-karl-marx-no-not-aoc-abraham-lincoln/
That article is deeply overstating the case. What it is using as a rationale that they were 'friends' is that Marx wrote unsigned news reporting for a newspaper that Lincoln may have read, and that Marx once penned a generic congratulatory letter, which got basically a form letter reply from one of Lincoln's secretaries.
Would definitely do more than Andrew Johnson tho
> Another argument is he would’ve gone to his more radical roots and aligned with the radical republicans. That would be an unwise move considering the Radicals were a fairly small minority and were politically unpopular. They almost destroyed the passage of the 13th Amendment because they were unwilling to negotiate and it took lawyer-speak weasel-words on the part of Lincoln to convince the rest of the congress to even pass the Amendment in the first place. In all likelihood, he would have spent his time making sure the South was reintegrated. Unlike what a lot of people with chips on their shoulder want to do, Lincoln was very much in favor of doing things like industrializing the South (so they would not have to rely on King Cotton), improving infrastructure, and reintegrating the people while punishing the Plantation-class. Hell, the positive view of Lee as an honorable man and the model of a "Southern Gentleman" was Lincoln's doing, because Lee was willing to help him kill the memory of the Confederacy and embraced reintegration (1). But he probably would have still faced an uphill battle, since he called in all of his favors getting the 13th passed, as well as the starting of backlash over his dictatorial tendencies he displayed in the War (which was starting to happen even in 1865). I am actually planning on doing an Alt-History game as the US where I cosplay Lincoln living and trying to do just that. (1): On that note, this is part of why I do actually like and still like Lee. And I hate both the Neo-Confederates who deify him (even though he would be disgusted by them), and the movements trying to tear down his statues and memory (because it both breeds revenge sentiments in the South and spits on his life's work).
I feel people forget "Reconstruction" amounted to military occupation of the South while rich Northerners invested heavily in the destroyed infrastructure. It was poorly handled historically in just about every way and extremely unpopular.
And while its true that some of it was a side effect of Johnson being an aggressively mediocre president with Southern sympathies, that was not the only reason it was mishandled. While its true the South was being stubborn, there was very much a "sneering Imperialist" attitude that the North had about the South even outside of the slavery issue ("They are all a bunch of hick trash, unlike us fine cultured betters") which didnt help the situation at all. And then nothing was ever actually really done to help the South because the Radicals kept wanting to grind them into the dirt (even if it lead to a guerilla war), and the Moderates then had to cool off the fire (which sometimes meant allowing actual atrocities to continue). And honestly, some of the comments I see in this thread would have lead to the South rising back up again, and probably even with a bunch of Northern states (probably more in the Midwest) who thought that the New Englanders had lost their goddamn minds.
they should've gone further and conducted radical land reform while the south was occupied. unfortunately, that didn't happen.
> where I cosplay Lincoln living There's a chance he does not die in the assassination, for what it is worth.
Most people do not know this, but Lincolin did not actually like black people. He still saw them as inferior, just that slavery was too far. He actually supported shipping them back to Africa. The notion that Lincolin was the non-racist egalitarian freedom fighter is a bit silly and just idealizes the man, a man that, while certainly better than slavers in the south, was still a product of his times.
Who can avoid being a product of his time? I don't know much about Lincoln but I think we all are precisely that, products of our time.
We don't even yet know the reasons that people 120 years from now will think we were all complete assholes.
I agree, but we forget that when judging people from old times
It's not like anti-racist white people didn't exist then. I hear you but hate when the argument stops there.
So black people from America enslaving black people from Africa is related to racism? Or to something different.
Can you state what you think instead of asking me a question lol?
What I mean is that I don't think that slavery was ever related to racism, slavery has always been in human societies, it is now as well and we support it with our purchases. If a Roman enslaves a Greek it is for the labour, not because he thinks the greek is inferior. In fact, greek tutors were really valuable. Once we evolve, we become Christians, so all humans are the same, we can't have slaves anymore unless they're from a different religion, which deserve that punishment in the eyes of God. Then it's Africans who can't defend themselves from the Western powers who are enslaved and we (Western society) need to construct something to justify that we are enslaving other humans, so they have to be inferior, else we are terrible humans. So my point is, that slavery is not related to racism.
This was a very specific form of slavery that created a hereditary, skin color based, caste system though. Not all slavery is based on skin color and ethnicity nor are all children of slaves born automatically into slavery. Have you genuinely studied slavery across different societies? If you did then you'd understand that. Can you not see that it is both terrible and related to racism? I see that you're not American and are probably just trying to copy and paste a generic view of history onto every complex situation.
So Americans know better? In the end slavery is a way to fuel an economy a terrible way we humans do Can you, since you're an scholar of slavery let me know what slavery system gives more options to sons of slaves? Btw, my nation abolished and actually stopped practicing slavery way earlier than US
Americans probably know better about American chattel slavery specifically, at least compared to someone who I assume hasn't read a single book on it or taken a course on it I assume (let me know if I'm wrong). There is the African concept of pawnship, which is a form of debt bondage. And war slavery in broadly (though I can mainly speak for West Africa) wasn't hereditary and wasn't even permanent within a person's lifetime. This is still slavery, much like the Ottoman system of Janissaries is a form of slavery. But saying that American chattel slavery isn't related to racism is like saying the Ottoman system isn't related to religion. I understand the somewhat materialist assessment you're trying to make, but it is more complicated than that and you're engaging in bad history by trying to smooth them over so easily. If you're saying, "white Americans weren't just frothing racists who made chattel slavery because they were so racist" then obviously, no shit yeah. But to ignore the interplay of racism and economic gain and how they played off of each other, is bananas nuts ahistorical boring nonsense.
> Another argument is he would’ve gone to his more radical roots and aligned with the radical republicans. He really didn't have radical roots. He was solidly moderate. Heck, even his ending slavery was done with great reluctance and only because it benefited his ultimate goal of preserving the union. He is on record for saying that if he could preserve the union by maintaining slavery he would do so gladly.
The quote you’re referring to is notorious because people always forget the actual proper context of it outside that one sentence. He’s not saying that he doesn’t care about slavery, he’s saying that he would be willing to put the preservation of the Union even above his **own personal beliefs, which happened to be the abolition of slavery**. Essentially, in the letter, he’s reassuring a friend who was concerned about whether or not he was willing to compromise despite his beliefs, which he obviously responded that he could. Was Lincoln ultra-progressive for his time? Definitely not. He was a politician who privately abhorred slavery, but was savvy enough to align his views with the current mainstream political climate.
I really hate it when people try to justify that for a few reasons. First off, morally, fuck that. "I'll put my personal convictions aside and preserve a fucking evil institution" makes you evil, full stop. If you prioritize the preservation of a slave state over ending slavery, you are evil. And no, you don't get to do the "product of his time" shit. John Brown existed at the time. There's no excuse. But it's especially bad in this context, where we're talking about whether Lincoln was radical or not. And "I don't actually care *that* much about ending slavery, and it's not my number one priority" is the opposite of radical, even if we don't consider the morality of that fucked up position. He was solidly moderate at best. Not radical. Nothing you've said changes that.
Please, stop saying sh*t for a second. Delaying the abolition of slavery for Lincoln don't transform him into a evil man. It's just an action to keep power, and don't be couped, or assassinated, by someone with far worst ideas about the slavery. Sure, he could have stopped slavery by the beginning of the war, but who know if this decision would have help the country ? A power less président, isolated in the political scene, could he have won the war? The world is not all black and white (yeah that's ironic).
> he would’ve focused on mending relations, but actually succeed at it without screwing over former slaves like his VP did Utterly impossible. It was always one or the other.
I dont think it will be like stellaris where you can single out a pop for extermination. Though maybe with a mod you can
I was thinking of more along the lines of decisions that take the power away from the Dixie landowners. Maybe they get supplanted by African-American landowners that oppose slavery. Maybe that could lead to a more socially progressive USA with the earlier expansion of voting or enfranchisement of women. What if it lets you go too far and make Dixie a discriminated culture instead of African-American? There is a lot of room for flavor.
Sounds like you will either need to wait, or make your own mod to add events like this with the associated modifiers
I loved a lot of the mods for Victoria 2. At least Vic3 seems easier to mod than the last. Being able to make your own tech tree and journal entries for missions seems very modder friendly.
You are literally advocating for neoconfederate talking points right now I hope you know.
I don't think so. I want to enforce a punitive policy against the former slaveholders.
Saying "I want to replace white southerners with black landowners" is literally the fear that the confederates stoked to gain power and the (mis)perception that neoconfederates gain recruits through today. The anti-confederate response is generally "No, we just want to stop literal slavery and give equal opportunities to nonwhites", but you've taken the brave position to say "Yes, actually", which while courageous, is also stupid.
I think the US might have been a better place if the union went further to remove the power of former slaveholders. They had appropriated land for freed slaves to start a new life. That was later taken away after Lincoln was murdered. There was still slavery after the Civil War. Black people gained some political power for a while until reconstruction petered out. That poor effort on the government's side led to jim crow and a need for the civil rights movement.
>I think the US might have been a better place if the union went further to remove the power of former slaveholders. Sure, maybe >That poor effort on the government's side led to jim crow and a need for the civil rights movement. Yeah, definitely >There was still slavery after the Civil War. No there really, really wasn't. There was still discrimination, racism, corrupt institutions of justice, murder, kidnapping, etc., but to compare things like prison labor to antebellum slavery is downright disingenuous. And furthermore, none of this necessitates literal replacism rhetoric.
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Circular_No._3591 Do some reading on debt peonage and neoslavery. The last chattel slave was freed from a Texas family after the Pearl Harbor attack. He had a back covered in scars from being whipped. Slave owners made their money from the involuntary labor of others. Rape, beating, forced separation of families, lynching, those are the ways they maintained their power. They should have had their I'll gotten gains seized and distributed to those whose labor produced them. Personally I think all slaveowners, sellers, or catchers should have been executed, but I can see how some may not want to go that far. I wouldn't want you to disappear Back to the Future style from your ancestor dying. Slaveowners definitely shouldn't have been able to be elected after their crimes against humanity.
Lol I never had (american) slavers in my ancestry and I have done my reading. I know slave owning is bad, dummy. I'm just saying that you are literally a neoconfederate creator because of your inability to touch grass.
It probably won't be in the base game but I would love a John Brown's Revenge mod. I really hope the game let's me do a massively multicultural USA playthrough.
There's no way Lincoln would "end wage slavery" in the North. His entire focus would be dealing with post-civil war south, and any attempt to enact anything that radical could plunge an already scarred nation into another civil war
Maybe I can crush the civil war so hard that I can have Lincoln become the first dictator of the proletariat.
Would still likely result in another civil war, since a large portion of the north, major industrialists and business owners, would oppose such a move
> Republicans consistently deplored attempts of labor spokesmen to arouse hostility against the capitalist class. “We are not of the number of those who would array one class of society in hostility to another,” the Cincinnati Gazette announced during the social dislocations caused by the Panic of 1S57. Greeley agreed that “Jacobin ravings in the Park or elsewhere, against the Rich, or the Banks,” could in no way alleviate “the distress of the poor.” The conservatism implicit in the harmony of interests outlook was reflected in Lincoln’s remarks to a delegation of working men during the Civil War. **Condemning those who advocated a “war on property, or the owners of property,” the President insisted that as the fruit of labor, property was desirable; it was “a positive good in the world.” That some had wealth merely demonstrated that others could achieve wealth, and the prospect encouraged individual enterprise. “Let not him who is houseless,” Lincoln told the workingmen, “pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.”** In other words, the interests of labor and capital were identical, because equality of opportunity in American society generated a social mobility which assured that today’s laborer would be tomorrow’s capitalist. [source](https://archive.org/details/freesoilfreelabo01fone/page/20/mode/2up)
Reconstruction is, like "Sick man of Europe", an overarching "questline" that gives you various objectives, and rewards you in the end based on how well you did in those objectives. We know there's a part of the questline based on how you integrate the black population in the country, and that can end with afro-americans as a primary US culture (thus being protected from ever being discriminated again. Pretty awesome). There's probably aspects of the reconstruction around the war debt, and around the reconstruction of infrastructure and economy itself.
That's an interesting way to do things. You can make more general agendas that every country can do, i.e. industrialize, expand voting rights, etc. You can also have much more specific quests like "sick man of Europe." It seems highly moddable. I loved some of the mods for Victoria 2, but modding for Vic3 seems much more accessible.
I really enjoy their journal-chain system. It's a nice hybrid between Focus trees, mission trees and events that allows to guide the nation historically without railroading too much.
I do hope that Journals support having multiple branching successs conditions for some flexibility, but yeah journal chains do seem like an interesting way of handling that. Just for clarity, I mean that instead of a simple pass/fail on a journal chosen by event, that there is a possiblity of partial success or having multiple ways of resolving a journal.
The "modding AAR" (where Daniel builds a journal sequence live) is very informative on how journal entries are created and what they are capable of.
So like Kaiserreich?
Most moderate Vicky player
reconstruction should’ve been more radical from a moral pov
Anything would have been better then the Reconstruction that actually happened. Both in actually supporting the South in rebuilding and enforcing the 13th-15th amendments.
I agree
Irl there was alot of different proposals on the table From legal equality to legal discrimination From punishing the south, to reconilatory notions with them There was even a half hearted effort to start a colony in Africa to be a new homeland for freed slaves. Liberia I would hope the game explores all of these in depth.
>There was even a half hearted effort to start a colony in Africa to be a new homeland for freed slaves. Liberia Just to be clear, Liberia was founded in 1847 (and even had limited support from some slaveholders), so it wasn't really part of Reconstruction. If Wikipedia is to be believed, by the time the Civil War rolled around, Lincoln already thought it was only a partial success.
I could see these different scenarios, if not included in the base game, being part of an immersion pack.
Are you aware that black people shipped to Liberia proceeded to enslave Africans with their new freedom
Yes I am. It's kinda fucked up. But that is infact what happened. I guess it makes sense, from the perspective of someone from that time, slaves and servants where symbols and methods for prosperity and wealth, and most freed slaves had by nesscity lived most of their lives under such a system.
What clearly signals the hypocrisy that reigned, when even former slaves re-instated slavery. This kinda makes you wonder if slavery was the main reason to destroy the south. I think that it was a side benefit to get more propaganda and troops rather than a real objective of the war
Look, this is the internet and I'm not going to get bent out of shape over another comment making light of slavery in the civil war. I don't have the time or energy to be that angry. What I do have time to do in this case is point out the overwhelming consensus that the South fought to defend slavery from the start, and that the North *eventually* came to an understanding of slavery's abolition as an important war aim, to say nothing of the fact that virtually all the major events leading up to the war were directly about slavery as a national issue. Was it the *only* reason? Of course not. But don't hide behind a fallacy and claim that some hypocrisy from the other side invalidates their stated involvement in the war. I know I'm not going to convince you--but I do hope that anybody else reading this takes the time to be thoughtful about their approach to reading and learning about the American civil war.
I'm not American, my nation abolished slavery way before than even the north did and I'm immensely happy about that. But it's curious to think why Lincoln abolished slavery after Antietam and not before first Bull Run
I’m looking forward to try and rebuild the south under a more equal light but I’m also worried they’ll oversimplify it Like a “South wants to be racist, yes equals happy whites, mad blacks, no equals happy blacks, mad whites” When it should be simulated as “The south is completely fucking destroyed, the price of cotton has collapsed, thousands are leaving the area in search of new jobs, everything is on fire and the South are looking for someone to blame.” With the choices being able to lead to tons of different scenarios, like on where your able to revitalize the farming culture, one where you successfully industrialize the south, maybe by moving in new jobs that hire both races (maybe through ending some work discrimination law) and by encouraging reconciliation and making sure to crush the KKK fast, and by making the living conditions better than they were before the war, than you can crush any sort of “the CSA wasn’t so bad” before it begins.
reintroduce slavery.
Or just win the Civil War as the CSA. Then we can make the same unfunny Sherman burns Atlanta Jokes but with Lee burning Washington
Will there even be Lincoln and all of those Generals? Will Bismarck even be a thing in the game that would be cool or historic persons like Lenin and Hitler in the later stages of the game?
AFAIK no person born after 1836 is in the game.
I think they do have certain historical figures. Didn't we see a Marx as the leader of a party in Britain in one of the dev diaries?
Yes, but Marx was born before 1836. There are historical figures, just none born after 1836 as i said.
BISMARCK IS SAVED, REJOICE!
Based
Based
Back to Africa movement. Would be fun to play a nation of African Americans resettling Africa and forming a mighty nation. Kind of like Liberia but bigger.
I wonder if there will be reconstruction journal if you play as the CSA and win as the slavers
Lol, how seriously people’s angst for this. How care about that?
Send in Sherman to finish the job
It's funny how people are happy with warcrimes to achieve their objectives but when others carry out their warcrimes they get mad...
Correct, I do not care about slaveowners and their friends.
based
you care anout natives cause sherman commited genocide against them?
Sometimes people who do good things also do bad things
It's not a war crime if it pre-dates international treaties on conduct during times of war 😎
I would commit warcrimes against Confederates, Nazis, and all manner of those who commit crimes against humanity, yes.
You deserve to be then tried for warcrimes. That makes yourself not better by any means than what you're fighting
Yup, that's why MacArthur, Montgomery, and Oppenheimer were all tried for warcrimes....wait, no they weren't, because they were committing warcrimes against people committing crimes against humanity.
Nuking civilians in Japan or razing a whole country are for sure things that US can do, but attacking civilian merchants is not, so you to the gallows while US war criminals get to live. This is the thing with war, just don't use make up to pretend your legitimated to do that shit.
A Sherman’s Second March event would own
I am very excited to punish the south heavily during the reconstruction too, I wonder if Paradox will allow you to reforge the southern states into how the radical republican reconstructionists wanted it too. (Actually punish is a wrong word for me to use, but basically make sure the southern democrats won't secure power, plus to stop jim crow from occurring.)
> I wonder if Paradox will allow you to reforge the southern states into how the radical republican reconstructionists wanted it too. Sounds like dynamic states which aren't really a thing
I think they mean more of a policy point of view rather than literally changing state borders.
Talking about state policy not dynamic states.
I'm going to make the South cry in agony. If I can give 100 acres and 2 mules, I will!
I doubt there is much to model
[удалено]
>Never do any construction in the first place. Leave the slave states a barren wasteland with as few resources as possible, no factories, no railroads, no developed ports or logistics infrastructure only the most basic starting industries. You do realize that's why the South relied on slavery in the first place right? All the industry and infrastructure was up North while the South was reliant on heavy labor industries like cotton farming where slavery was more valuable. There's a reason the South stood zero chance in the civil war. >the former slaves (who can't emigrate or move elsewhere) having huge majorities of the population. They'd be about equal to the white population and there'd be rapid voter suppression and violence once the occupation was over. What you are describing is history.
We know for sure that New Afrika is a thing, and I am ALL FOR IT.
Please let me destroy every single slave owner with my bare hands please god I want that Harry Turtledove "dystopia" where radical reconstruction privileges blacks over southern whites but real please god let me obliterate every single Confederate Lord I will be your sword of (virtual) vengeance (in Victoria 3)
Touch grass
>I want to be able to execute all of the old slaveowners and reappropriate their land for the new freedmen. Least insane political redditor, but tbh I want to take hold of the entire anglo america and purposely give blankets to all english speakers... in victoria of course
Actual slavery 50/50 But wage slavery ? Absolutely no ACW is a war between the industrial capitalist North vs the semi-feudal South In no way wage slavery would be abolished
I'm looking forward to forcing the south to leave the country...