How will slavery be handled?

[Willard]

You realize we are discussing the mid 19th century and not the 1990s, right? How would arguing the South had the right to keep slaves be automatically repugnant to a Southener (or many Northeners) in the 1850s

IEX/Tim---

Thanks for the corrections. I didnt really explain what I meant.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the common person---neither North nor South, was going to fight for or to keep slaves.

The idea of the Grand Army of the Republic marching south to free the enslaved is a myth only constructed after the war by Reconstructionist Republicans. At the time, Northern soldiers marched South to fight---yes there were a few who felt they were on a crusade---most of them were going not to free the slaves but were going to fight Johnny Reb cause he was fighting to leave the Union.

Slavery didnt become the moral basis for the war until after September 1862 and the battle of Antietam. It was only then that Lincoln sensing the need for a drastic political victory---because he had no military victories at that time---that he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. And this was a political victory because it gave the North the moral high ground to the rest of the world. The biggest fear of the Union was English intervention on the side of the South. Lincoln new that the only thing really preventing that was two things---the slavery issue, because England had abolished slavery and the need for the South to launch a successful campaign in the North (which is what Lee attempted to do in 1862 and 1863). Because at that point, Lincoln had no major victories, and the second condition was up for grabs, he eliminated the first issue by the Proclamation. After the Proclamation, there was no moral basis for intervention by the British on the Southern side---with or without a successful Lee invasion of the North. Hence from the fall of 1862, the South would have to go it alone---almost making it a fait accompli that Lee would have to invade again in 1863 and seek a decisive military victory against the North.

On the flip side of the coin, the vast majority of Southerners DID NOT own slaves. The majority of slave owners were the ones who owned the large tobacco and cotton plantations...and by extension were the rich landowners with the most to lose by a change in the slavery issue. Ole Johnny Reb was fighting cause the North was trying to come to their home and tell them what to do. In the eyes of the common Confederate soldier, they were doing nothing more that defending their homes and families...and to them their was a moral basis to their actions in the American revolution. Whether, we today, agree without that is another issue altogether.

My previous comment was obviously too much of 1990s slant. The above is what I was thinking but failed to convey.

 

[unmerged(14689)]

Great posts, both of them, Willard! People trying to show both sides of a conflict are rare on this forum!

 

[IEX Totalview]

Originally posted by Willard
My previous comment was obviously too much of 1990s slant. The above is what I was thinking but failed to convey.

Fair enough. I generally agree with your clarification, and it is an excellent post.

 

[Tim O]

THe war was frought with misconceptions. The great majority of southerns feared that a Republican administration would abolish slavery, and while most poor whites didn't own slaves they feared and loathed the thouht of Negro equality and willing to fight to keep this from happening. Yet before the war all but the most radicall republicans recognized they could not coinstitutionally do away with slavery in the states, only in the District of Columbia.

On the flip side the great majority of Nortern soldiers were fighting for the Union not abolition. Yet they recognized slavery as an underlying cause of the war and as a linchpin of the southerrn war effort. The majority of the soldiers were republicans and there was an underlying current of abolition principal among them, especially those from New England. Still while many may have favored freeing the slaves they were also on a whole greatly against negro equality, and would have accepted the continuation of slavery if the Union could be restored.

 

[Reichsmarshall]

Originally posted by Toejam Football
It wasnt a MAJOR factor of the American Civil War, the war didnt start to abolish slavery like so many people think.

Wholehearted agreement. Contrary to the very shallow treatment given to the causes of the Civil War in our educational system, the war was about States' Rights, not slavery. In our 'politically correct' world, it's more acceptable to view the war as a great crusade to free the slaves, even though it wasn't the case.

Emancipation was a tool used by Lincoln to keep the support of the radical Republicans. Lincoln himself said that if he could win the war without freeing a single slave, he would do it.

And no, I'm not from the South.

Edit: Ok, next time I'll read the WHOLE thread before popping off a reply. Everything I said has been brought up in better detail. Good discussion guys.

 

[Reichsmarshall]

Originally posted by Dark Knight
Paradox will be using historical flags for this game. We don't need a discussion about whether a particular flag is "offensive"; any flag could be found offensive by someone. At least this game shouldn't include the flags of any terrorist organisations.

*applause*

Wish HOI could have been the same.

 

[unmerged(14689)]

The swastika wasn't out because it was found offensive, but because showing it is illegal in some countries. Get over the flag thing, it has been discussed a zillion times already!

 

[Reichsmarshall]

Originally posted by Suvorov
The swastika wasn't out because it was found offensive, but because showing it is illegal in some countries. Get over the flag thing, it has been discussed a zillion times already!

I understand that... was just making a comment that I wished people didn't get so offended over symbolism. Wasn't trying to start another HOI flag discussion... that horse has been beaten to death many times over.

 

[CCR_of_the_Code]

Originally posted by Dark Knight
Paradox will be using historical flags for this game. We don't need a discussion about whether a particular flag is "offensive"; any flag could be found offensive by someone. At least this game shouldn't include the flags of any terrorist organisations.

But not allowing either French or early Soviet flags will hurt the game!

 

[unmerged(2952)]

Personally I hope that the Confederacy is represented by the Stars and Bars while its military units are seen to fly the Battle Flag of North Virginia. *laughs* the only tiem I've seen someoen seem the 'real' CSA flag was in Ireland of all places

 

[unmerged(2238)]

If they're going to take out some flags, that's going to happen. If they decide not to include every single gory detail of slavery in the world and in particular the North vs. South debate in the game, that's going to happen. And you know what? If the rule of not including that means that the board isn't totally swamped with irritating north vs. south stuff like "Lincoln was an evil pro-slave hypocrite" vs "the south was a country that was totally in the wrong" threads then I support it--just like I supported leaving the holocaust out of HOI just so I didn't have to wade through the various threads that would have absolutely bogged down servers and swamped a relatively sane board with totally inflamatory stuff that played a relatively (notice the word relatively, not no) role in the time period of the game.

I mean, seriously folks, I think we all know that every other thread on the board is going to be about the American Civil War anyway without the further debate about what events slavery is going to play in it... it already is even BEFORE the game's release...

 

[unmerged(11633)]

Well, to speak of another aspect of slavery, Great Britain had already abolished slavery, and the Royal Navy often cracked down on smuggling of slaves. I wonder if the British player will be able do his duty and halt the trade.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Originally posted by Gjerg Kastrioti
Well, to speak of another aspect of slavery, Great Britain had already abolished slavery, and the Royal Navy often cracked down on smuggling of slaves. I wonder if the British player will be able do his duty and halt the trade.

There is another interesting issue regarding slavery in relation to the UK:
What happened to the (ex-)slave population in the British colonies?
Were they set free, were they given "forty acres and a mule", or did they have to buy themselves off their former owners?

And, most importantly, how did this effect British economy in this regard? AFAIK sugar, cotton and tobacco were still valuable goods.

 

[unmerged(17569)]

One interesting what-if would be a U.S. that greatly increased support for a "Back to Africa" movement. An uber-Liberia that absorbed a much larger number of returning Blacks. Significant numbers of Black, Union Army vets could be induced to received their 40 acres and a mule... in West Africa.

 

[Grosshaus]

Former slaves in Africa were normally just sent away. No free land or mules given, but they just wandered back to their home villages, after all Africa at the time had loads of non-inhabited land. Some stood to work in mines/farms and although officially were free, still had a sort of indentured servant status and were de facto slaves.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Originally posted by Tambourmajor
There is another interesting issue regarding slavery in relation to the UK:
What happened to the (ex-)slave population in the British colonies?
Were they set free, were they given "forty acres and a mule", or did they have to buy themselves off their former owners?

And, most importantly, how did this effect British economy in this regard? AFAIK sugar, cotton and tobacco were still valuable goods.

On the British Caribbean islands, the impact of emancipation was slightly delayed as slaves who had worked in agriculture (i.e. sugar) had to remain on the plantation as an apprentice (receiving room & board in exchange for a 45-hour work week)until 1840, but they could buy themselves out of apprenticeship with a one-time payment. The problem economically was that the emancipated slaves wanted to own their own parcel of land (perfectly understandable after spending decades working someone else's land). Thus the agricultural workforce plummetted dramatically after 1834, & hence so did sugar production, at a time when sugar prices were dropping anyway. Thus, the colonies' tax revenues fell through the floor as well, and as these colonies had not had the infrastructure to deal with emancipated slaves in the first place, the economies of these islands rapidly declined, trapping the emancipated slaves in a cycle of poverty. In some respects, these problems were inevitable - emancipation would almost certainly lead to former slaves leaving the plantations, but the whole economy of those islands were dependent on those slaves working those plantations, and the only way to ensure this was compulsion (i.e. slavery). In other words, a real catch-22.

 

[unmerged(5605)]

They could have confiscated the land of slaveowners and handed them over to the emancipated slaves. Such a system was tried during the Civil war in some northern occupied areas (such as the coast of South Carolina). Sure, it would cause unrest among the planter class, but considering how small it was in the antilles, the political effect should have been minimal.

 

[unmerged(5934)]

But those islands depended from sugar, and the prices were plummeting anyway... Blame Napoleon and that chemist of him that discovered how to refine sugar from the aptly named sugar beets...

 

[Grosshaus]

Originally posted by eschaton
They could have confiscated the land of slaveowners and handed them over to the emancipated slaves. Such a system was tried during the Civil war in some northern occupied areas (such as the coast of South Carolina). Sure, it would cause unrest among the planter class, but considering how small it was in the antilles, the political effect should have been minimal.

Have you noticed how well this has worked in modern day Zimbabwe? The whole economy collapsed, although there were many other reasons also. A rapid shift in land ownership might cause lot of troubles while it might seem as the only morally right answer.

 

[IEX Totalview]

Originally posted by Grosshaus
Have you noticed how well this has worked in modern day Zimbabwe? The whole economy collapsed, although there were many other reasons also. A rapid shift in land ownership might cause lot of troubles while it might seem as the only morally right answer.

Excellent point. Besides, the British plantation owners, unlike those in the South, had not risen in rebellion, so there was no legal basis for taking the land. In facts, attempts to take the land might have triggered a slave-owners rebellion. I wonder if such plantation owners might have turned to the U.S. for protection...

Regardless, the British would likely have to purchase the land, and that would have been expensive, and I doubt that many people in Britain really cared one way or another.