As a player, why should you actually risk civil war with the Americans?

[Jimboy93]

If I remember the numbers correctly, there are about 3 million slaves in the US at the beginning of the game. In contrast to the white population, relatively few people I would say. Do not get me wrong. Of course everyone should be free. I'm just asking from a player's perspective. I don't care if 3 million people are kept as slaves if many people from Europe immigrate to the USA.

Why should I risk a civil war that could devastate the whole country because of these people? Do I have any advantage in throwing the whole country into civil war because of this?

PS: This raises the general question why Lincoln almost drove the USA into the abyss because of 3 million slaves? Was the war really about the black population or was it more propaganda and in truth it was about something completely different that is not shown in the game at all.

 

[ClavintheGreat]

Bruh…

 

[FleetingRain]

My brother in Christ, you didn't bother veiling this one at all.

 

[Jimboy93]

My brother in Christ, you didn't bother veiling this one at all.

Are you seriously suggesting that I'm actually a supporter of the slave owners because I can tell the difference between real people and numbers?

From a game mechanics point of view, there must be some reason why I'm taking this risk, aside from morality? I'm not at a disadvantage in the game if I don't do anything about the slave owners. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Evethor]

Line goes up faster without slavery.
There, you have your reason.

 

[DukeLeto42]

Are you seriously suggesting that I'm actually a supporter of the slave owners because I can tell the difference between real people and numbers?

This would go over a lot better if you didn't actually ask this:

PS: This raises the general question why Lincoln almost drove the USA into the abyss because of 3 million slaves? Was the war really about the black population or was it more propaganda and in truth it was about something completely different that is not shown in the game at all.

Because this generalizes your question of why to risk the American Civil War from a game mechanics query to the historical question of why bother worrying about slaves at all. You've explicitly asked "why did historical actors bother worrying about the small number?" to which the correct answer is "slavery is an abomination, and yes that was well-recognized in 1860. Full stop."

From a game mechanics point of view, there must be some reason why I'm taking this risk, aside from morality? I'm not at a disadvantage in the game if I don't do anything about the slave owners. Correct me if I'm wrong.

But sure, I'll take the bait. The simple answer is that you can't push to the most multicultural society with slaves. That means persistent Radicals from discrimination and fewer migrant waves as well.

 

[StrifeXIII]

I have asked this before but in a different way. Not so much about whether I pass “Slavery Abolished” or not because I do so in every USA run. But that I can easily pass it while avoiding the civil war. So in a similar light, why should I as the player take on the civil war? when I can abolish slavery peacefully and very quickly.

As of now I see the US Civil War as a side quest boss fight with no reward at the end, except maybe the thrill of watching my generals fight… To then have to fix the damage done by the war when I can easily circumvent the war and abolish slavery. I have been able to do so in every patch thus far. I wish there was a big reward worthy of taking on the war and its population/economic aftermath.

 

[Jimboy93]

Because this generalizes your question of why to risk the American Civil War from a game mechanics query to the historical question of why bother worrying about slaves at all. You've explicitly asked "why did historical actors bother worrying about the small number?" to which the correct answer is "slavery is an abomination, and yes that was well-recognized in 1860. Full stop."

I never said that, it's just your interpretation. The question was why risk a war for 3 million people that has almost brought the whole country into the abyss. This does not mean that these people are completely irrelevant.

Was there no other way to solve the problem? Was slavery the main cause at all or was it just the trigger of a conflict that had other reasons. I don't see anything wrong with asking these questions. Because if it really was about taking action against racism, why was there a strict separation of Afro-Americans and Americans of European descent throughout the country until 1964?

 

[TacticalRetreat]

The anwer is: do whatever you like. Isn't that the point of the whole game? Free the slaves, or don't. Kill off the indians, or don't. Morality doesn't enter into it.

The advantage I guess is more taxpayers, instead of free labour which is also kinda neat? IDK what's best to do honestly.

 

[DukeLeto42]

I never said that, it's just your interpretation. The question was why risk a war for 3 million people that has almost brought the whole country into the abyss. This does not mean that these people are completely irrelevant.

Was there no other way to solve the problem? Was slavery the main cause at all or was it just the trigger of a conflict that had other reasons. I don't see anything wrong with asking these questions. Because if it really was about taking action against racism, why was there a strict separation of Afro-Americans and Americans of European descent throughout the country until 1964?

Great, I'll answer the question: it was about slavery. Yes, the historiography on the Civil War concludes it was about slavery. Yes, the primary sources of those who tried to secede from the US and threw the US into civil war state it was about slavery. It was about slavery.

You are pretending this is a subject for debate when it fundamentally is not.

 

[Jimboy93]

The anwer is: do whatever you like. Isn't that the point of the whole game? Free the slaves, or don't. Kill off the indians, or don't. Morality doesn't enter into it.

The advantage I guess is more taxpayers, instead of free labour which is also kinda neat? IDK what's best to do honestly.

I don't know. I'd like it better if there were really downsides to ignoring the slavery question. Something that really makes you wonder if war might not be the lesser evil.

 

[Jimboy93]

Great, I'll answer the question: it was about slavery. Yes, the historiography on the Civil War concludes it was about slavery. Yes, the primary sources of those who tried to secede from the US and threw the US into civil war state it was about slavery. It was about slavery.

You are pretending this is a subject for debate when it fundamentally is not.

Why should it be forbidden to discuss the topic? If it's that clear to you, that's ok, but it will still be allowed to ask questions about historical events without assuming the worst from someone.

Let's assume that you want to have a factual discussion with me. What do you say to the following statement?

"From the perspective of the South, however, the conflict was not only about the slave issue, but also about the rights of the individual states vis-à-vis the federal government. Advocates of secession put forward the thesis that the individual states had not given up their sovereignty by joining the Union and could therefore leave the USA again at any time. In addition, the Union should not prescribe a specific social system for any individual state. A state therefore has the right to nullify a federal law in its territory that is contrary to its interests"

 

[grommile]

Let's assume that you want to have a factual discussion with me. What do you say to the following statement?

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

 

[Life is Comedy]

Why should it be forbidden to discuss the topic? If it's that clear to you, that's ok, but it will still be allowed to ask questions about historical events without assuming the worst from someone.

Let's assume that you want to have a factual discussion with me. What do you say to the following statement?

"From the perspective of the South, however, the conflict was not only about the slave issue, but also about the rights of the individual states vis-à-vis the federal government. Advocates of secession put forward the thesis that the individual states had not given up their sovereignty by joining the Union and could therefore leave the USA again at any time. In addition, the Union should not prescribe a specific social system for any individual state. A state therefore has the right to nullify a federal law in its territory that is contrary to its interests"

First, If ITS a quote, give whoo you are quoting.

Second, you are still mixing in game mechanics and Real Life History. Pick One or the Other .

Third, that the civil war Is a complex matter Is Well known. That It Had consequences besides the slavery abolition Is Not... Surprising. People are complex After all.

 

[Jimboy93]

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

So that means that even though the right to slavery was expressly permitted in the 1789 Constitution, it wasn't a violation of the law to forbid other states to keep slaves? According to the 1789 Constitution, states were free to decide whether or not to allow slavery.

 

[Zarlagash]

What are you on about with this? This is hardly about the game anymore and I am starting to believe the others were right and it never were

 

[nuarbnellaffej]

Advocates of secession put forward the thesis that the individual states had not given up their sovereignty by joining the Union and could therefore leave the USA again at any time.

Yes and General Sherman put that thesis soundly to rest, they could not leave the Union, no matter how badly they wanted to own human beings as their personal property.

What are you on about with this? This is hardly about the game anymore and I am starting to believe the others were right and it never were

This is a perfectly succinct case of JAQing. (Just Asking Questions)

 

[Nephandus]

Alright.... since things are getting a little bit out of hand here and emotions are running high, I have two things for you all:

1. a reminder
2. a reading list

As for the reminder: Keep things civil and respectful here. And yes, there will be no further admonishments, only actions after this point.

As for the reading list: if you really want to discuss causes and effects of the American Civil War, I strongly suggest you get proper information on the topic first.

Therefore the proper information the the census of the USA during that time:

April 2015 - History - U.S. Census Bureau

The archived home page from the Census Bureau's History Web Site for April 2015.

www.census.gov

And on the real causes of the Civil War:
Short version: https://www.pbs.org/opb/historydete...planation is that,was central to the conflict.

Long Version:

American Civil War | History, Summary, Dates, Causes, Map, Timeline, Battles, Significance, & Facts

American Civil War, also called War Between the States, four-year war (1861–65) between the United States and 11 Southern states that seceded from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America. The secession of the Southern states (in chronological order, South Carolina...

www.britannica.com

 

[nuarbnellaffej]

Another thing to keep in mind, is that the large scale practice of slavery holds civilization back. Scores of unemancipated ‘free’ laborers may be great for enriching a small class of wealthy plantation owners but the society as a whole suffers. Why invest in an unproven, capital intensive industrial basin when you can keep going business as usual.

That’s one of the reasons why the south was so desperate to run the blockade and import any weaponry they could whilst the Union was stamping kit out en masse.

 

[The Russian Empire]

PS: This raises the general question why Lincoln almost drove the USA into the abyss because of 3 million slaves? Was the war really about the black population or was it more propaganda and in truth it was about something completely different that is not shown in the game at all.

I don't mean to belittle your understanding of American history, but the question you've presented is often associated with the "Lost Cause" narrative. This perspective inaccurately downplays the role of slavery in the Civil War and instead portrays it as a noble struggle between the centralizing North and the democratic South, the latter supposedly following the legacy of Jefferson, Madison, and the Democratic-Republicans. This misleading and insidious ideology has gained traction in recent years, attracting the support of pseudointellectual academics like Thomas DiLorenzo and others who rely on legerdemain tactics to obfuscate the real reasons for the war, which was first and foremost Southern paranoia about Lincoln's election and their desire to protect slavery at all costs.

For instance, South Carolina's "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" explicitly mentioned the North's opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act and their support for the abolitionist movement as key reasons for secession. This state played a significant role in the Nullification Crisis decades earlier (which nearly resulted in war) and was of course the first state to secede.

Let's briefly examine the attack on Fort Sumter, which initiated the Civil War. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution states, in part, "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." As a student of political science, I believe the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter was an act of aggression by the South, which clearly and maliciously violated the Constitution. The presence of a tiny federal garrison at Fort Sumter posed no imminent threat, making the Confederate attack unconstitutional. While this is my legal interpretation, it's important to note that the Supreme Court ruled in 1869 that states could not unilaterally secede, and thus, the Confederacy had never actually left the Union.

While I don't want to detract from your discussion about Vicky 3, as a lover of liberty and a descendant of those who fought to end the "peculiar domestic institution" (as Southern icon John C. Calhoun infamously described slavery), I felt it necessary to try and offer a brief clarification on this matter.