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

[JKComposer]

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?

I recommend reading up on the topic of "reconstruction". All the answers you seek have obvious and well known answers if you do some basic reading on the subject you're speaking of.

 

[Jimboy93]

I recommend reading up on the topic of "reconstruction". All the answers you seek have obvious and well known answers if you do some basic reading on the subject you're speaking of.

I would even do that if you weren't talking so arrogantly. You don't always have to be of the same opinion, I don't find you particularly likeable after the answer, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend that you're stupid or lazy.

 

[grommile]

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?

A constitutional amendment, passed by a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states, is by definition not a violation of the Constitution

 

[nuarbnellaffej]

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?

As it turns out, being purchased in a market, owned in perpetuity, worked without pay, having your children sold down the river at any moment, etc.. is actually much worse than being discriminated against or suffering segregation. Though those things suck in their own right, they are an improvement over what the southern states wished to preserve.

And keep in mind, the northern states may have been on a path to make such an evil institution as chattel slavery illegal, it was the south who started the war.

 

[Jimboy93]

A constitutional amendment, passed by a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states, is by definition not a violation of the Constitution

Did the Supreme Court decision have any bearing on the constitutional amendment?

"We think ... that they [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time [of America's founding] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them." — Dred Scott, 60 U.S. at 404–05

"Now, ... the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. ... Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the court that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the [36°N 36' latitude] line therein mentioned is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void...." — Dred Scott, 60 U.S. at 451–52.

 

[FizCap]

I think abolishing slavery always works in the favor of the player because it weakens the gentry class especially in the USA because they have the Missouri compromise which gives the gentry 50% political power I believe and as long as the gentry is in power you can not have any progress in your country, you can not pass tax reforms, education reforms, etc. The only real argument I could see with keeping slavery is if you are roleplaying.

 

[Ashantai]

This has drifted far from the game.

Take any discussion about antebellum America to the OT forum please.

OP, you've gotten answers in this thread, even if you're unwilling to acknowledge them.