I don't think it works for this case. For this case, I believe they should be one word.
-
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.
I don't think it works for this case. For this case, I believe they should be one word.
Just to correct Toio's history - (re: his post on the bottom of pg. 57)
In the Civil War period, the army enlistments in the north did start at 90 days, but that was because they were recruiting volunteers and believed there would be one major battle and that would be it. The new enlistments were rapidly changed to 1 year, then 3, then "the duration". The changes were not retroactive, so some people did go home during the war or enlist as many as 3 times. (these would be the 90 day enlisters who re enlisted during the 1 or 3 year terms). There were NOT different enlistment periods for black soldiers - it's just that they were not accepted until the army had already gone to 3 year enlistments.
Also, the partial emancipation was because Lincoln did it under his war powers, which he believed (probably correctly) only applied to areas in a state of rebellion. Of 15 states where slavery was currently legal at that point, only parts of 12 or so were actually in rebellion at the time of the proclamation.
Also, there were NOT states in the confederacy without slaves.
But all that is a moot point as far as the mod is concerned as the war started in 1861, although it could have been much earlier. (There were concerted political efforts to avoid it as early as 1820, if not earlier.)
In terms of things that would show up as events, there's mostly just the 1808 outlawing of the importation of slaves, and the subsequent naval operations (including diverting slaves on illegal slave ships to Liberia) and a few other anti-slavery things that happened in the North. Including, possibly, the Amistad case. Also, some of the northern states had legal slavery earlier in their histories but had outlawed it by 1861. Many of these had little or no slaves anyway, but it might be worth an event.
In the Civil War period, the army enlistments in the north did start at 90 days, but that was because they were recruiting volunteers and believed there would be one major battle and that would be it. The new enlistments were rapidly changed to 1 year, then 3, then "the duration". The changes were not retroactive, so some people did go home during the war or enlist as many as 3 times. (these would be the 90 day enlisters who re enlisted during the 1 or 3 year terms). There were NOT different enlistment periods for black soldiers - it's just that they were not accepted until the army had already gone to 3 year enlistments.
Also, the partial emancipation was because Lincoln did it under his war powers, which he believed (probably correctly) only applied to areas in a state of rebellion. Of 15 states where slavery was currently legal at that point, only parts of 12 or so were actually in rebellion at the time of the proclamation.
Also, there were NOT states in the confederacy without slaves.
But all that is a moot point as far as the mod is concerned as the war started in 1861, although it could have been much earlier. (There were concerted political efforts to avoid it as early as 1820, if not earlier.)
In terms of things that would show up as events, there's mostly just the 1808 outlawing of the importation of slaves, and the subsequent naval operations (including diverting slaves on illegal slave ships to Liberia) and a few other anti-slavery things that happened in the North. Including, possibly, the Amistad case. Also, some of the northern states had legal slavery earlier in their histories but had outlawed it by 1861. Many of these had little or no slaves anyway, but it might be worth an event.
Last edited:
As you know the civil war was about state rights and not slavery. Lincoln had no support from Europe as they saw the North as the aggressor in the war and supported the south. The emancipation ( 2 years after the war started) was to justify the Norths aggressive stance to the war.
p.s I do not know how Europe could have a double standard , when 35 years earlier at the congress of Vienna (1820) the bigger nations removed all the republics from Europe and "enslaved" certain old republican states peoples under imperialistic rulers.
Oh well, Europe still do it today.My civil war teachings had that 8% of southern families had slaves , while 12% of northern families had slaves ( only slave states are counted). Granted there where more slaves by number in the south something like 70 % compared to the Norths 30 %
I didn't bring up the cause of the war on purpose - that's a matter of historical debate, always has been, and I didn't want to get into it. Even during the war, a lot of people thought it was about states' rights and a lot of people thought it was about slavery. Same for the reasons behind the Emancipation Proclamation. However, it should be noted that certain parts of the Northern electorate were firmly anti-slave and Lincoln's political party - the Republicans - had been formed in 1854 as a federation of several small parties, whose common cause was being anti-slavery, in response to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which would have allowed slavery into the central territories in violation of the Compromise of 1820. And in the 1858 Illinois senate campaign Lincoln had made a lot of speeches on the subject of slavery.
As far as the slaveowning, your numbers are deceptive, if only in the fact that about 19 of the 23 (I think it was 23) Northern states were non-slave states. Including California and Oregon, which had *never* had slaves. The number of slaveowning families might also reflect the fact that there were more, smaller landholdings in the slave states that were farther north; there may have been more slaveowners but each of them owned less slaves. In Maryland and Delaware it was not unusual for high-class city dwellers (such as in Baltimore) to own one or two as household servants, for example.
Anyways, at the time of the outbreak of the war, there were (I think) 34 states, only 15 of which had slaves, and 11 of those that completely joined the confederacy. (There were two more that had "loyal" AND "rebel" governments, and were thus represented on the later Confederate flags.)
The matter of European involvement might have something to do with historic tensions between the United States on one side and Britain and France on the other. At the time, the two were getting along (having fought together in the Crimean War) and the U.S. had either fought against, or almost gone to war with, the two of them (seperately) a total of at least 4 times in less than 85 years. In fact, the Civil War could easily have escalated into a world war - remember that Germany and Italy were in the midst of their unification wars at this time, and Russia practically allied itself with the United States. (Fearing being iced in at the beginning of a second war against Britain and France, they sought and received permission to winter the Russian fleets in American harbors, mostly New York and San Francisco... I forget if it was the winter of 61-62 or 62-63.)
As far as the slaveowning, your numbers are deceptive, if only in the fact that about 19 of the 23 (I think it was 23) Northern states were non-slave states. Including California and Oregon, which had *never* had slaves. The number of slaveowning families might also reflect the fact that there were more, smaller landholdings in the slave states that were farther north; there may have been more slaveowners but each of them owned less slaves. In Maryland and Delaware it was not unusual for high-class city dwellers (such as in Baltimore) to own one or two as household servants, for example.
Anyways, at the time of the outbreak of the war, there were (I think) 34 states, only 15 of which had slaves, and 11 of those that completely joined the confederacy. (There were two more that had "loyal" AND "rebel" governments, and were thus represented on the later Confederate flags.)
The matter of European involvement might have something to do with historic tensions between the United States on one side and Britain and France on the other. At the time, the two were getting along (having fought together in the Crimean War) and the U.S. had either fought against, or almost gone to war with, the two of them (seperately) a total of at least 4 times in less than 85 years. In fact, the Civil War could easily have escalated into a world war - remember that Germany and Italy were in the midst of their unification wars at this time, and Russia practically allied itself with the United States. (Fearing being iced in at the beginning of a second war against Britain and France, they sought and received permission to winter the Russian fleets in American harbors, mostly New York and San Francisco... I forget if it was the winter of 61-62 or 62-63.)
Last edited:
In France, we can see some documentaries about the Civil War on TV currently and French community discussed about it too (on our special board, not Paradox one). And this is not the place to discuss it neither.
True - it just grates at me to see people asserting "facts" that are deceptive or misleading. Such as:
Though - as I mentioned in my first post - there could be some use toward the mod, in terms of certain lead-up events (the internal American political tensions caused by slavery and anti-slavery go back at least as far as 1808) and the fact that the war, if it were not for certain political compromises, the war could have occured much earlier. (Though I personally can't see earlier than 1820, that date might make for an interesting endgame.)
...which only refers to one sixth of the northern states.
Though - as I mentioned in my first post - there could be some use toward the mod, in terms of certain lead-up events (the internal American political tensions caused by slavery and anti-slavery go back at least as far as 1808) and the fact that the war, if it were not for certain political compromises, the war could have occured much earlier. (Though I personally can't see earlier than 1820, that date might make for an interesting endgame.)
Perhaps there could be events for whether or not to ban slave imports (when the Constitution is passed in 1787) and another one in 1808 when the constitutional ban expires (ref. Wikipedia: Slavery in the United States).
And I would reply to Sheridan, but I'll leave it to the history forums. And I am a little curious as to what people in Europe were taught about the war.
And I would reply to Sheridan, but I'll leave it to the history forums. And I am a little curious as to what people in Europe were taught about the war.
The lead-up to the Compromise of 1820 might be interesting to play with also (I know, the scenario ends in 1819), as well as (my dates are a bit sketchy - my history teachers more worried about the how and why than the when) any other events that fit in the period - perhaps the Amistad incident? Or the banning of slavery by some of the northern states? (I know there were a couple states that banned slavery between 1781-1861, and I think I specifically heard about New Jersey doing so.)
Also, I know the US Navy and the British Royal Navy did some anti-slave trade missions off the coast of West Africa, and that slaves from apprehended ships were diverted to Liberia... if it's in the period, maybe something could be done with that, if only as a flavor event.
Also, I know the US Navy and the British Royal Navy did some anti-slave trade missions off the coast of West Africa, and that slaves from apprehended ships were diverted to Liberia... if it's in the period, maybe something could be done with that, if only as a flavor event.