Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Fix to American Civil War?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Victoria 2 17560 After Action Reports (AAR)
cdg0219 said:
There are much greater issues that need to be worked out with the ACW than this. Also, with the war usually starting in the late 1840s, how can you be sure what states would and wouldn't secede? You would need to change many other events to make it reasonable, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

By the actions they have taken in the past.

Triggering secession in the pre-1860's should force a couple New England states [Northern States] to secede along with the Confederation, If your main goal is getting rid of state rights. It is within the players interest to push the date further until main issue is slavery thus the southern states secede. Paradox has this backwards! The player should be bidding for time to appease certain states and not triggering Secession as soon as possible! I am a ahistorical player, but if your enforcing events, at least give us an option and a reason.

[I just contradicted myself. They do give us a "reason" if the American Civil war was solely based on slavery. I think the American Civil War events should be modeled in a way that the player has to prove that the issue is solely slavery.]

Londinium said:
The CSA shouldn't have cores on Northern states, Alaska or UK provinces. The whole point of the CSA is that it's a southern slave focused nation. The only provinces it should have cores on outside of the South are the border states and South West.
Click to expand...

If Civil War is triggered earlier pre-1860, the Confederacy should have cores in the Northern states since the New England states were the leading examples of state rights.
 
Last edited:
Can I Just Point out that the Southern States did not Seceed over slavery and in fact put limits on slavery in its constitution
 
Projekt 919 said:
Can I Just Point out that the Southern States did not Seceed over slavery and in fact put limits on slavery in its constitution
Click to expand...

The claims of the Confederacy are known, hopefully this fact is becoming more prevalent. A couple of states defended slavery because it was within state rights. Still it was taboo to regard slaves as equals, best example would be Patrick Cleaburne [Major General] not being promoted[or excommunicated] for suggesting that Africans should be armed and serve as equals.

Abraham Lincoln was just another flipfloping politician who originally drafted Emancipation Proclamation because his hand was forced by Tsar two years within the war.
 
Last edited:
Question said:
The CSA should be able to choose an event to reunite the union under their banner. But i think they need more military units at start first, because they just get zerged down in the first battle and lose the whole war right there and then.
Click to expand...

It's only because they loose all technology (and hence factory capability) at acw start, it'll probably be fixed. (I hope so cuz that's the only real unplayable bug I encountered)

On the core issu I think an american player that want to go CSA should be able to influence it's population so that any state with enough dixie should be "core-able"
 
LeftoverNoodles said:
Only if they had figured out a way to Arm the slaves. The South had better generals that the North, and was able to mobilized, higher quality troops faster. They did not have the manpower to hold off the Union once it mobilized.
Click to expand...

If the Union mobilized early within the war they would have risked foreign intervention. Thanks to Lincoln's politics[flip-floping] which saved the Union face, America deterred foreign intervention. The CSA had a decent chance.
 
Last edited:
Projekt 919 said:
Can I Just Point out that the Southern States did not Seceed over slavery and in fact put limits on slavery in its constitution
Click to expand...

Confederate Constitution said:
Article I, Section 9
(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America
Click to expand...

Confederate Constitution said:
Article IV, Section 2

(1) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Click to expand...

Those the ones you were thinking of? :)
 
Brother Bean said:
Those the ones you were thinking of? :)
Click to expand...
I admit to having not read the Confederate Constitution except for what Brother Bean just posted but from what I see the parts that he posted do back up the state's rights idea. The Confederate states had laws (esp Article IV, Section 2) and the Confederate Constitution was stating that it would not infringe upon those rights. Which means that as far as I know and believe it was not just slavery or just state's rights but a combination of those factors (which in addition included economics as slavery was used to support the South's economy) that caused the ACM. Almost everything is more complicated that it first seems, as much as I wish everything was black and white it isn't (although some things are).
 
I say it was a huge divide between southern and northern people, things like tariffs, state rights etc. But it was slavery which was the straw that broke the camel's back. But let's get back on toppic guise :D.

Is there a way to make it not fire before 1950? Like those techs you can't research 'till a specific date. And florida could be made a state by an event, so as to have a better looking CSA for all those southrons fans :D
 
I don't think that it is per se wrong to say that the southern states seceded because they feared that the rights of their states were under threat of infringement by the federal government, but the specific right that de facto was being threatened was of course the right to keep and own slaves. Claiming that the confederate constitution "put limits on slavery" is in any event wrong, unless you mean its outlawing of the by then already extinct and prohibited Atlantic slave-trade. Fine, they didn't resurrect that, but apart from that I don't see many constitutional limits on slavery in the constitution of the CSA. There's a whole bunch of other stuff in there, but a constitutional limit on slavery -- as supposedly exists according to the post I was responding to -- I cannot find.
 
Brother Bean said:
I don't think that it is per se wrong to say that the southern states seceded because they feared that the rights of their states were under threat of infringement by the federal government, but the specific right that de facto was being threatened was of course the right to keep and own slaves. Claiming that the confederate constitution "put limits on slavery" is in any event wrong, unless you mean its outlawing of the by then already extinct and prohibited Atlantic slave-trade. Fine, they didn't resurrect that, but apart from that I don't see many constitutional limits on slavery in the constitution of the CSA. There's a whole bunch of other stuff in there, but a constitutional limit on slavery -- as supposedly exists according to the post I was responding to -- I cannot find.
Click to expand...

Agreed, maybe what he ment to say was that some of the leaders in the south (to varying degrees) were opposed to slavery (e.x. Robert E. Lee)?
 
AsmodeanKane said:
Agreed, maybe what he ment to say was that some of the leaders in the south (to varying degrees) were opposed to slavery (e.x. Robert E. Lee)?
Click to expand...

Most military personal where indifferent since the US military at the time modeled France and where up to date with political issues[from what I read]. The reason slavery became dominant was due to the populace looking up to the aristocracy[rich plantation owners] who controlled Southern politics to some extent.
 
Last edited:
rmdsc said:
Well, I guess you're technically right - the South seceded over potential threats to slavery. What's interesting though is that eventually there were Confederate plans (widely opposed) to win the war by abolishing slavery.
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate ;)? Somehow this doesn't make much sense. I mean what would they have done afterwards?
 
Oh my goodness lets stop talking ancient politics...

And never argue about the south with people who have confederate flags as avatars.
 
Brother Bean; said:
Those the ones you were thinking of? :)
Click to expand...

I was thinking more about the ban on the importation of slaves, The quote regarding slaves being moved from one location to another I'm regards to thier freedom was a direct implementation of the dred Scott decision, the other (essentialy a 'house gag rule') wuold probably have been repealed by the 1880's or 1890's because by then advances in mechanized agriculture would have made slavery unnecesary. I'm not saying slavery was a non-issue, it was a source of tension between southerners and northerners, but was one of many causes some of them being.........

1. Financial Reasons: the south and north were at each others throats constantly, debates on tariffs were huge because high tariffs helped the north and hurt the south, and since the south had only 30 percent of congress it always got outvoted. In addition the majority of southern national tax money was not invested in the south but in the north.

2. Political reasons: the south realized that by the time of lincolns election they no longer had control of thier own destiny, in the political system of the united states had to follow a path dictated by a region of the country whose viewpoint was completely different from thier own.

3. Cultural reasons: this one is pretty obvious, the souths culture is staggeringly different than that of the north, wheter the southerner is white black or purple they have very little in common with a Yankee

4.historical reasons: pretty simple, the south saw the united states as a voluntary union of seperate and equal states who could leave the union when it was no longer in thier best intrest to stay which for the above reasons it no longer was

try typing that from a phone.......
 
Take the history discussions to the History forums, please. This thread is about game effects (of V2) of the ACW. If it doesn't go back on-topic I will close it.
 
safferli said:
Take the history discussions to the History forums, please. This thread is about game effects (of V2) of the ACW. If it doesn't go back on-topic I will close it.
Click to expand...

They've already worked out many of the issues you guys are discussing in V:R. VIP is on version 0.4 now and the CSA has a good chance at surviving the Civil War. Is there a need to re-invent the wheel? Couldn't most of these problems be fixed by using the events in the V:R VIP folder and editing them so they work with Victoria II?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back