• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Dev Diary #43 - The American Civil War

16_9.jpg

Hello folks, welcome to another dev diary for Victoria 3! This week we're going to talk about the American Civil War, a dark period in the history of the United States.

Turmoil had been building under the surface of the United States for decades prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, with tension growing increasingly violent particularly in the 1850s. In 1861, several states voted to secede from the Union, and established the Confederate States of America. The Union and the Confederacy fought for four years, to 1865. After the surrender of the CSA, the Union reincorporated the states of the former Confederacy and initiated an era generally known as Reconstruction, a period of ambition, domestic unrest, and, ultimately, a failure to complete some of the most significant social reforms instigated in the wake of the CSA's defeat. The efforts and failures of Reconstruction resulted in Jim Crow laws and the promise of racial equality becoming a generations-long struggle that has carried on well past the end of the Victorian era.

Let's get something established first before we dive into the game: Slavery is central to the Civil War. The authors of secession did not dance around this point. The institution of slavery was singled out time and time again by the people seceding from the Union in their reasons for secession, during their debates over secession, and then throughout the Civil War itself. After the war, rhetoric shifted as the Lost Cause myth developed, but before and during the war slavery was declared as a central element in the rebellion time and time again.

This interpretation of history is built on solid foundations with ample evidence. Victoria 3 uses this approach as its basis for the American Civil War.

Antebellum America's unrest is centered around slavery.
DD43 01.png

The United States of America begins the game with a Journal Entry already underway. In the first years of the game, and historically, the 1830s were already rife with national debate over the issue of slavery, although violence was only just beginning to escalate. At this point on the national level, all the United States can try to do is balance the pressures of abolitionists and pro-slavery advocates, and either limit escalation or come down firmly on the side of one camp or another.

Even a policy of appeasement and reconciliation will not stop rising tensions entirely. Some events will ratchet up tensions regardless of whatever option is chosen; the main difference in choices is determining who will become more mad and who will be more mollified by ensuing government actions.

Iowa has become the front line in the fight over slavery, and will be struck with unrest regardless of the choice picked.
DD43 02.png

As tensions rise, violence will rise, and events will become more and more polarizing. Early events may talk about a single senator's words, or a single death in a city, but as the issue festers, things will just get worse and worse until something gives way. Newspaper debates will turn into arguments on the floor of the Senate, then those arguments will turn into canings, and people will stop campaigning with pamphlets and start campaigning with paramilitaries.

Attempts to ban slavery are more likely to create a reactionary movement in the United States.
DD43 03.png

The most straightforward way to end the debate over slavery may be to just end it, but this carries enormous risks - political movements may emerge in reaction to the potential passage of these laws. Of course, not banning slavery may also lead to a movement emerging explicitly agitating for the abolition of slavery, and that has its own set of challenges.

Triggering the Civil War early caused a slightly different set of states to secede. Florida simply didn't have enough pro-slavery supporters here to join the pre-war movement that formed the basis of the CSA.
DD43 04.png

This is where we've decided to engage with our own revolution mechanics in order to create a more dynamic American Civil War. If the Slavery Debate Journal Entry is active when a revolution over slavery erupts, the revolutionary government will turn into a secessionist government. Secession is determined by what states join the radicalized movements for preserving slavery or banning slavery, which means the strength of the secessionist government will vary depending on which IGs align themselves with the radicalized movement prior to the outbreak of revolution. If pro-slavery Interest Groups had been empowered again and again prior to their radicalization and revolution, then secessionists will control a large number of states, but if those same Interest Groups had been suppressed and their influence limited time and time again, then their government will be far smaller when war breaks out.

Of course there's a train-centered event.
DD43 05.png

The war itself has its own incidents that can complicate the pursuit of victory or give some unique opportunities. Raiders will jump back and forth across the border, causing chaos, while Unionist sympathizers in secessionist-held areas and secessionist sympathizers in Union-held areas will challenge the authority of local governments as long as the war still burns. If the secessionists are pro-slavery but the Union has not finished enacting abolition yet, the country will have a special change to radically hasten the change in law through a certain proclamation.

The war itself plays out the same way

If the secessionists win, then… the secessionists win, and a new country is established in North America. A Union victory, however, will lead to Reconstruction.

Reconstruction varies depending on how the Civil War went.
DD43 06.png

Reconstruction is a long and varied process. Depending on who fought, what laws were passed, and the general shape of the United States at war's end, different journal entries will spawn. Establishing the Freedmen's Bureau and pursuing the cause of equality only makes sense if you fought against slavery. Reconciling the South only makes sense if the South was the part of the country that rebelled. Conversely, it's possible to end up with multiple goals for Reconstruction that end up conflicting.

Escalating violence is still a threat, even after the Civil War comes and goes.
DD43 07.png

Reconstruction will be ugly. Historically, it wasn't a clean and smooth process, and in the game it's not a clean and smooth process. There was a struggle to balance the ambitions of Reconstruction against the resistance of a reactionary coalition that sought to restore their antebellum political power and impose a vision of racial supremacy upon society. Pursuing egalitarian measures will alienate these people and related groups, which may make governance more difficult and more expensive, while currying favor with them will undercut the foundations of Reconstruction and create another alienated population that will have to be contended with for the rest of the game. Every step is fraught with challenges to the government and to the welfare of the people; Reconstruction will be rough.

Frontier justice is a tricky thing.
DD43 08.png

Not all postwar turmoil will be right where the fighting happened. Knock-on effects of the Civil War will be felt across the nation, from the very center of government to the furthest tendrils of the frontier. It's up to you, the player, to decide how the country will face all these myriad challenges. What kind of America do you want to create?

How's that for something to stew on for a week? Next time, we're going to talk more about how you can fight battles, both in the American Civil War and with wars in general, with the one and only KaiserJohan!
 
  • 235Like
  • 88Love
  • 16
  • 14
  • 12
  • 3Haha
Reactions:

hazard151

Second Lieutenant
107 Badges
Jul 1, 2011
134
389
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Semper Fi
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • BATTLETECH
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Victoria 2
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Pride of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Magicka 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Surviving Mars
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 Deluxe Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Prison Architect
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 -  Back to Hell
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
So what would stop me from not building any arms manufactories (or any kind of infrastructure I guess) in the South and force them to rebel?

Or, rather, what didn't stop the North from doing so in the South IRL? Is it gonna be implemented in the game?

Actually, while much of the military infrastructure was in the south of the USA, and by that I mean barracks, depots, military schools and the like, AFAIK most of the manufacturing, including weapons and munitions, was in the North. Not to say there was none, but there was a definite disparity, and the CSA was much more dependent on imported supplies.

The reason for this is mostly economic. There were a number of relatively small weapons and munitions production places in the South, mostly to supply locals with weapons and munitions, but the North produced so much more and for sufficiently lower costs that it mostly worked out for them to just ship everything around, mostly by train.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:

great lakes

First Lieutenant
15 Badges
Mar 20, 2019
286
455
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
Actually, while much of the military infrastructure was in the south of the USA, and by that I mean barracks, depots, military schools and the like, AFAIK most of the manufacturing, including weapons and munitions, was in the North. Not to say there was none, but there was a definite disparity, and the CSA was much more dependent on imported supplies.

The reason for this is mostly economic. There were a number of relatively small weapons and munitions production places in the South, mostly to supply locals with weapons and munitions, but the North produced so much more and for sufficiently lower costs that it mostly worked out for them to just ship everything around, mostly by train.
also relevant is the incompetence/borderline treason of President Buchanan, who watched the crisis unfold and did nothing. Gen. Scott advised him to send troops to the south in anticipation of the war, and he refused to do so. it's thanks to this that the south had as strong a start to the war as they did.
 
  • 3
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:

T.S.Gracchus

Private
69 Badges
Mar 16, 2012
18
31
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Magicka 2
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
Regarding the comments about an abolitionist secession I really hope that isn't anything close to as likely as a slaver secession.

Slave states had historically punched far above their weight politically, they were overreprestned in the senate, most presidents were either southerners or "northers of southern sensibility" like Buchanan and Pierce, and the supreme court (nominated and confirmed by the previous two) was highly supportive of their concerns (see Dread Scott and other decisions). Despite this southern leaders were widely radicalized to the point that they had threatened secession multiple times and ultimately seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated (literally, Jeff Davis was sworn in while Buchanan was still in office!)

In contrast while the north was widely anti-slavery it was not widely abolitionist in 1861. They didn't want slaves in their states or the territories but few if any states had majorities that wanted to impose an end of slavery on the south. Lincoln himself was at best an extremely moderate and pragmatic abolitionist, he opposed the expansion of slavery and might even have sought compensated emancipation if the war had not occurred but nothing in his speeches or writings suggest he would have tried to alter slavery in states where it existed against those states wills, it was only the war that made Lincoln into the emancipator.

None of this is to try to claim that there were not abolitionists or that they were not radical, but despite things basically going the south's way consistently until 1861, southern radicalism was much more potent. First and foremost the south started the war to protect and expand slavery. First and foremost the north fought a nationalist war to save the union, the abolishonists were that war's strongest, most vigorous supporters and abolishion became a secondary war aim. But for better or worse there is no equivalence to be made between the scale of the political power of slavers in the south and abolitionists in the north.
 
  • 7
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:

hazard151

Second Lieutenant
107 Badges
Jul 1, 2011
134
389
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Semper Fi
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • BATTLETECH
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Victoria 2
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Pride of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Magicka 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Surviving Mars
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 Deluxe Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Prison Architect
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 -  Back to Hell
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
So would you say that the Landholder IG in the South with a major preference for the existing slavery system has historically been a part of the government coalition, but with the rise of the Petite Bourgeoisie IG in the North as well as changes in the economy they anticipated their political power to fade while the PB had an interest in the abolishment of slavery as a long term goal, which would marginalize them completely?

And to prevent this, the Landholders radicalized and sought to secede?
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:

Revolution 11

Major
48 Badges
Apr 7, 2014
683
2.426
  • Darkest Hour
  • March of the Eagles
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Prison Architect
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Lead and Gold
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • War of the Roses
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities in Motion
So would you say that the Landholder IG in the South with a major preference for the existing slavery system has historically been a part of the government coalition, but with the rise of the Petite Bourgeoisie IG in the North as well as changes in the economy they anticipated their political power to fade while the PB had an interest in the abolishment of slavery as a long term goal, which would marginalize them completely?

And to prevent this, the Landholders radicalized and sought to secede?
The radicalization of the Landholders would be happening continuously as the slavery question (or the Journal entries) remains unanswered. It is not just an anticipation of the fading coalitional power of the South, but a growing antipathy towards the North as a "other", an entity that is fundamentally opposed to the very foundations of the South. This may or may not be fair to the North but that is how the South felt.

Meanwhile, the North itself felt that the South's extreme anti-democratic moves to maintain slavery was destabilizing the Union and by 1860 felt that a fair free society can not have slavery in it in the long term.

These are both evolving platforms of positions that are shaped by the other side's increasingly desperate moves to win an unwinnable argument. In Victoria 3 terms, the Radicalization of both the Landholder IG in the South and the Petit Bourgeoisie IG in the North should be happening concurrently (and heavily shaped by events/decisions) from day 1 in 1836 and increasing to a crisis point sometime in mid-19th century.
 
  • 2
Reactions:

Blastaz

Field Marshal
167 Badges
Nov 19, 2003
2.892
5.774
  • Europa Universalis: Rome Collectors Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Deus Vult
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
Regarding the comments about an abolitionist secession I really hope that isn't anything close to as likely as a slaver secession.

Slave states had historically punched far above their weight politically, they were overreprestned in the senate, most presidents were either southerners or "northers of southern sensibility" like Buchanan and Pierce, and the supreme court (nominated and confirmed by the previous two) was highly supportive of their concerns (see Dread Scott and other decisions). Despite this southern leaders were widely radicalized to the point that they had threatened secession multiple times and ultimately seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated (literally, Jeff Davis was sworn in while Buchanan was still in office!)

In contrast while the north was widely anti-slavery it was not widely abolitionist in 1861. They didn't want slaves in their states or the territories but few if any states had majorities that wanted to impose an end of slavery on the south. Lincoln himself was at best an extremely moderate and pragmatic abolitionist, he opposed the expansion of slavery and might even have sought compensated emancipation if the war had not occurred but nothing in his speeches or writings suggest he would have tried to alter slavery in states where it existed against those states wills, it was only the war that made Lincoln into the emancipator.

None of this is to try to claim that there were not abolitionists or that they were not radical, but despite things basically going the south's way consistently until 1861, southern radicalism was much more potent. First and foremost the south started the war to protect and expand slavery. First and foremost the north fought a nationalist war to save the union, the abolishonists were that war's strongest, most vigorous supporters and abolishion became a secondary war aim. But for better or worse there is no equivalence to be made between the scale of the political power of slavers in the south and abolitionists in the north.
Yes it’s difficult to conceive of how radicalised abolitionism gets large enough to convince multiple states to secede at the same time and create a civil war. An increase in political violence? Sure. More skirmishes in the territories to ensure they are free states, more John Brown attempts to raise slave revolts, maybe some assassinations or bombings. Maybe even lobbying Europe to make foreign governments put pressure on individual states debt John Peabody style. But States caring enough to break away en masse, difficult to think what the trigger would be akin to a northern president getting elected without running in the south.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:

mudcrabmerchant

Deputy of the People
65 Badges
Nov 12, 2010
3.348
3.558
  • Rome Gold
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Pride of Nations
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV
IMO the Civil War makes sense primarily as a cultural secession movement of Dixie pops, with slavery being the hot-button issue which drives up radicalization to the point of war. Specifically, Dixie pops should have a very strong desire for laws and territorial expansion which permanently entrench slavery, and go increasingly radical as those desires go fulfilled. If that's modeled, you can just use normal cultural secession mechanics, no need for linking it up with the revolution system.

Also, there should be significant chance of the South peacefully seceding. Many if not most non-Yankee, non-Southerners (note: this included anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the country) were perfectly happy to let the South go, right up until Fort Sumter was attacked. That triggered a rally-round-the-flag instinct, almost immediately removing all middle ground between violent unification and violent secession. But if the South can somehow restrain its hotbloods from attacking federal facilities, even Lincoln might be forced into a negotiated separation - what else can he do, if half the country wants to secede, and half of what's left wants to let them go? War should happen in most cases (restraint in the face of perceived insult is not exactly a Southern virtue), but it shouldn't be uncommon - anywhere from 10-25% would be plausible.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:

zipaks

Private
96 Badges
Jun 13, 2012
20
23
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Victoria 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Dungeonland
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Impire
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • King Arthur II
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
hello nice DD there!

I searched on the slavery DD and found no answer.

in the case of Brazil, we had different laws. Freedom of womb, wich meant new slaves would have to be imported, those who were born from slaves were free individuals.

And the law banning slave trade, effectively creating a black market for slaves.

Now what I want to know is if Brazil (or any SA country) will get any special treatment because of this.
And as I've noticed you are highly interested in making a slave market in the future, when you get to that point, will you take those laws for account? Could we expect to have black markets for any products in a future DLC?

Also I'd like to add how important that is since it became a struggle between Brazil and UK, with some historians even going as further as to point out it was one of the causes for the proclamation of the republic of Brazil.
 
  • 2
Reactions:

Markusw7

Slave to the Magyar
105 Badges
May 29, 2004
2.896
1.835
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Majesty 2
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • The Showdown Effect
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Magicka
  • War of the Roses
  • 200k Club
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis: Rome Collectors Edition
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Deus Vult
  • Diplomacy
  • Dungeonland
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
And what if you add the USA blockade of CSA ports into the mixture?
AFAIR naval blockade always was a casus belli IRL.
I can't imagine UK in XIX century allowing anyone to block its internal trade with impunity.
It's still not an exploit, you can't just join a market because you want to. The market leader must also want you in the market. If in real life GB had made trade deals with the rebellious CSA that would be recognising the independence of the CSA and absolutely could set them on a collision course with the U.S. if the USA doesn't want to risk war with the u.k. in that case they are free to not blockade the CSA
 
  • 2
Reactions:

Markusw7

Slave to the Magyar
105 Badges
May 29, 2004
2.896
1.835
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Majesty 2
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • The Showdown Effect
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Magicka
  • War of the Roses
  • 200k Club
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis: Rome Collectors Edition
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Deus Vult
  • Diplomacy
  • Dungeonland
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
So what would stop me from not building any arms manufactories (or any kind of infrastructure I guess) in the South and force them to rebel?

Or, rather, what didn't stop the North from doing so in the South IRL? Is it gonna be implemented in the game?
Revolting nations get a bonus to conscription or something like that (mention in a previous dev diary) so they wouldn't be defenseless and not having direct access to small arms etc is not a crippling as it was in ViC2
 
  • 2
Reactions:

bendkok

Private
71 Badges
May 27, 2021
19
46
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Age of Wonders
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Lead and Gold
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Crusader Kings II
Did I read that correctly? Can the North secede if slavery isn't banned? What will the differences in flavour be in that case?

Also, can the Slavery Debate Journal Entry be resolved without triggering a civil war?
 

Skales

Banned
2 Badges
Dec 11, 2015
1.726
7.898
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
Yes it’s difficult to conceive of how radicalised abolitionism gets large enough to convince multiple states to secede at the same time and create a civil war. An increase in political violence? Sure. More skirmishes in the territories to ensure they are free states, more John Brown attempts to raise slave revolts, maybe some assassinations or bombings. Maybe even lobbying Europe to make foreign governments put pressure on individual states debt John Peabody style. But States caring enough to break away en masse, difficult to think what the trigger would be akin to a northern president getting elected without running in the south.

It's not even that. The entire point of Abolitionism is to abolish slavery elsewhere, the Northern states are already free. Why fight for secession? It'd make more sense for them to fight to seize control over the entire US.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:

Jamaican Castle

Lt. General
12 Badges
Jan 27, 2019
1.361
5.197
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Federations
And to prevent this, the Landholders radicalized and sought to secede?
We don't know exactly how elections work, but it seems like Lincoln (or his stand-in, depending on how your history goes) being elected would signal a big shift away from the Landowners and towards other interest groups. It would make sense for IGs that take big electoral hits to become more radicalized as they seek ways to get what they want outside of mainstream politics.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:

QuinnMallory

Captain
8 Badges
Feb 19, 2019
353
777
  • Majesty 2
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Battle for Bosporus
My brief research on the word "paramilitary" indicates that it did not enter use until 1935, as a way of describing the Nazi SA/SS, and similar organizations affiliated with other European political parties. For authenticity/immersion, it might be better to change the first event shown in the post to use "ruffians" or "militias", as those words were used to describe the relevant groups at the time.
 
  • 5
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:

Chief of Staff

The Duke of Rockford
85 Badges
Jun 27, 2010
2.191
1.053
37
www.virtualparadise.org
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Heir to the Throne
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Rome Gold
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Cities in Motion
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Pride of Nations
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
This might be realistically a long shot, given the politics and the trajectory it was on in the antebellum United States at the beginning of the game's time-frame, but there might be a third option to consider here: abolition of slavery with compensation.

One interesting twist is that abolishing slavery with compensation may divide the slave-holding aristocracy across the southern United States by making some of them less likely to support the secession, though they may or may not be in a majority in each of the state (or district/territory) or even in the entire region overall. Essentially, a divide-and-conquer strategy if you will. Of course, there is no telling whether that this strategy is viable as it was obviously never put into practical effects. I believe there were proposals made for it but they were never acted on. At any rate, Britain did this in 1833 when they abolished slavery itself in their empire (except for the East Indies (India and Ceylon)) by compensating the slave owners [Note: slave trade itself had already been abolished in 1807, not only in Britain but also the United States].

But that is a great thing about alternate history... you can always have some interesting scenarios. I mean, anything can happen between 1836 (presumably, the year the game will start in, same as in Victoria II) and 1860. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the American Civil War will break out exactly in year 1860, as an abolitionist candidate can and may well be elected as the President before or even after that year in the game. It could be 1848 or 1870. Civil War could happen anywhere in the game's timeframe, though most likely before the end of the nineteenth century. Of course, secession without civil war is also a possibility but I imagine the probability for that is quite low, though the fact that lame-duck President James Buchanan failed to act against the secession after Abraham Lincoln's election makes that scenario plausible.

There are several downsides to the approach of abolishing slavery with compensation that will make it a very challenging option to attempt:
  1. Taxpayers may not be thrilled about paying for compensation, especially those in the Northern states. In a way, it might be seen as a bail-out of the southern aristocracy, the idea that might prove to be politically unpopular among the free workers in what is otherwise relatively free of aristocracy. However, keep in mind that most of the revenues generated by the United States government in 1830s (and later in real history) came from tariffs; there were back then no federal income taxes. It is well possible that an act of Congress abolishing the slavery with compensation may impose a special tax to pay for it but that may potentially be politically explosive.
  2. The southern states had a built-in advantages because of the so-called Three-Fifths Clause in the Constitution that allowed them to be over-represented in the United States House of Representatives by enumerating the slaves even though they cannot vote for the purposes of determining how many seats each state would get in the House every ten years. This built-in advantages may potentially make the peaceful abolition almost impossible. Still, never say never. Anything is possible. It would take a great skilled politician to accomplish this, likely by divide-and-conquer as I mentioned above but it will come with great risks, for sure. (Note 1)
  3. Unlike Britain that was organized as unitary state (meaning the central government have all powers), the United States is constitutionally a federation in that powers are divided or shared between the central government and the states. This meant that, together with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, Britain would have had a far easier time to pursue this option in abolishing the slavery as it did in 1833 under the system it operated. (though, that is not to say Britain didn't have slaveholders lobby, either) The United States, on the other hand, would likely encounter much more difficulty in pursuing this approach given the federalism. Still, again, it would be an interesting challenge to consider. Of course, abolishing slavery without war in Victoria III is no fun, I am sure, for many players. ;) :p

Note 1: One thing that is unclear is how the legislature will be mechanically represented in game... I doubt it will have two houses simulated to the degrees that would allow it to simulate the built-in advantages that the southern states had in the lower house.


In any case, it would be interesting see many different possible scenarios and outcomes that may play out in relation to the slavery question in the United States.
 
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:

Bananabus

Sergeant
69 Badges
Mar 18, 2014
80
118
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Dungeonland
With the reconstruction being the unique journal event that happens if the union wins, will different unique journal entries (for both countries)happen if the secessionist country wins? For instance the Confederacy trying to integrate the native americans who supported them into society or the anti slavery seccesion state trying to gain legitimacy as the "real" America
 

Donal_Huda

Private
113 Badges
Mar 16, 2020
12
25
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Age of Wonders II
  • Age of Wonders
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Surviving Mars
  • BATTLETECH
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
I just want to say, that as a historian from the US I really appreciate the stance y'all have taken on slavery and the US Civil War. It gets mixed up a lot these days and I just want to commend y'all for doing it right. Thanks, and I can't wait to play the game!!
 
  • 7
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:

great lakes

First Lieutenant
15 Badges
Mar 20, 2019
286
455
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
I just want to say, that as a historian from the US I really appreciate the stance y'all have taken on slavery and the US Civil War. It gets mixed up a lot these days and I just want to commend y'all for doing it right. Thanks, and I can't wait to play the game!!
I'm in agreement, but "mixed up" suggests that people are innocently mistaken, and while a lot of that does go on, the confusion started as deliberate propaganda, and is used as such to this day. while i am not a professional historian, this abuse of history is the sort of thing that makes me livid. (not you, Donal, you're cool.)
 
  • 10
  • 4
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:

PtY

Major
89 Badges
Dec 10, 2016
578
1.308
  • March of the Eagles
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Victoria 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
This might be realistically a long shot, given the politics and the trajectory it was on in the antebellum United States at the beginning of the game's time-frame, but there might be a third option to consider here: abolition of slavery with compensation.

One interesting twist is that abolishing slavery with compensation may divide the slave-holding aristocracy across the southern United States by making some of them less likely to support the secession, though they may or may not be in a majority in each of the state (or district/territory) or even in the entire region overall. Essentially, a divide-and-conquer strategy if you will. Of course, there is no telling whether that this strategy is viable as it was obviously never put into practical effects. I believe there were proposals made for it but they were never acted on. At any rate, Britain did this in 1833 when they abolished slavery itself in their empire (except for the East Indies (India and Ceylon)) by compensating the slave owners [Note: slave trade itself had already been abolished in 1807, not only in Britain but also the United States].

But that is a great thing about alternate history... you can always have some interesting scenarios. I mean, anything can happen between 1836 (presumably, the year the game will start in, same as in Victoria II) and 1860. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the American Civil War will break out exactly in year 1860, as an abolitionist candidate can and may well be elected as the President before or even after that year in the game. It could be 1848 or 1870. Civil War could happen anywhere in the game's timeframe, though most likely before the end of the nineteenth century. Of course, secession without civil war is also a possibility but I imagine the probability for that is quite low, though the fact that lame-duck President James Buchanan failed to act against the secession after Abraham Lincoln's election makes that scenario plausible.

There are several downsides to the approach of abolishing slavery with compensation that will make it a very challenging option to attempt:
  1. Taxpayers may not be thrilled about paying for compensation, especially those in the Northern states. In a way, it might be seen as a bail-out of the southern aristocracy, the idea that might prove to be politically unpopular among the free workers in what is otherwise relatively free of aristocracy. However, keep in mind that most of the revenues generated by the United States government in 1830s (and later in real history) came from tariffs; there were back then no federal income taxes. It is well possible that an act of Congress abolishing the slavery with compensation may impose a special tax to pay for it but that may potentially be politically explosive.
  2. The southern states had a built-in advantages because of the so-called Three-Fifths Clause in the Constitution that allowed them to be over-represented in the United States House of Representatives by enumerating the slaves even though they cannot vote for the purposes of determining how many seats each state would get in the House every ten years. This built-in advantages may potentially make the peaceful abolition almost impossible. Still, never say never. Anything is possible. It would take a great skilled politician to accomplish this, likely by divide-and-conquer as I mentioned above but it will come with great risks, for sure. (Note 1)
  3. Unlike Britain that was organized as unitary state (meaning the central government have all powers), the United States is constitutionally a federation in that powers are divided or shared between the central government and the states. This meant that, together with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, Britain would have had a far easier time to pursue this option in abolishing the slavery as it did in 1833 under the system it operated. (though, that is not to say Britain didn't have slaveholders lobby, either) The United States, on the other hand, would likely encounter much more difficulty in pursuing this approach given the federalism. Still, again, it would be an interesting challenge to consider. Of course, abolishing slavery without war in Victoria III is no fun, I am sure, for many players. ;) :p

Note 1: One thing that is unclear is how the legislature will be mechanically represented in game... I doubt it will have two houses simulated to the degrees that would allow it to simulate the built-in advantages that the southern states had in the lower house.


In any case, it would be interesting see many different possible scenarios and outcomes that may play out in relation to the slavery question in the United States.
Peaceful abolition was extremely unlikely to occur in the United States. The reason White southerners and especially White slave owners fought so hard over slavery was their interest in the power and prestige that came with it. Money was important for the planters, but it doesn't explain the entirety of slavery's importance to them, and it certainly doesn't explain the willingness of poor Whites to form political alliances with planters. (White southerners' wages were actually depressed by slavery, particularly in cities where enslaved Blacks were sometimes rented out as day laborers for wages below the market rate.)

In simplest terms, the Civil War happened because White southerners feared an erosion of their political power more than they valued membership in the United States. The antebellum fights over slavery almost always centered on its expansion rather than on shoring up its economic and legal viability. The political and actual fighting over the status of slavery in the Great Plains came despite slave labor being unprofitable in cereal crop agriculture. The pro- and anti-slavery camps weren't fighting over land and money; they were fighting over future votes and future seats in Congress.

This motivation is also evident in White southerners' interest in annexing Cuba: it was perennial and intense prior to the Civil War, and evaporated almost immediately after the war. Southern Whites were interested primarily in political power and only secondarily in economic profit, so much so that when the Dominican Republic petitioned the Grant administration to annex it, Congress voted against the annexation because the population of the new territory would have been majority non-White. In other words, expansion into the Caribbean was only desirable when it would have reinforced America's racial caste system, not when it would have undermined it.


The Republican Party's 1860 platform didn't even call for the abolition of slavery; it only called for slavery to be maintained where it was already legal and preemptively outlawed in territories that weren't yet states. Since slavery would have been ludicrously unprofitable in the arid lands of the American Southwest and the western Great Plains, neither of which were suitable for growing cash crops, slavery as an economic system would have been nearly unaffected.

The Republican Party's victory with support exclusively from states where slavery was illegal, though, clearly spelled the beginning of the end for slavery as a political and cultural force in America. White southerners (correctly) saw no viable route to increasing the proportion of the national vote willing to support pro-slavery platforms. Even though they could have profited off of slavery for decades longer, they decided to cast the die and secede because they had decisively lost the (often violent) culture war over the moral and social acceptability of human bondage.
 
Last edited:
  • 6
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.