United States Colored Troops

[DarrylSigfried]

I do enjoy playing as the confederates most of the time (since I was born in Georgia, and therefor have a regional bias placed in my head), but I do sometimes play the Union, mostly in the Gettysburg HB (primarily since my family at that time were northerners living in Pennsylvania, and one of my relatives, Abraham C. Freet, died on the first day of Gettysburg). However, while playing the Union campaign, I felt like there could be more diversity to playing as the Union. By that I mean the use of the U.S.C.T.

While you could pretend that one of your brigades was a Colored brigade, I think it would be a great mechanic to be able to specifically recruit a black unit. It would add even more flavor to the game and would make me play the Union campaign more often.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Personally, one of my most used brigades in this game is the 54th Massachussetts Infantry, carrying Enfield rifles exclusively because I can't hear Enfield Rifled Musket without saying it in Morgan Freeman's voice.

That being said, this idea has been discussed but will not be pursued for a wide variety of reasons. Primarily, developer resrouces at this point are being allocatted to fine tuning the game, no major overhaul of game mechanics is to be expected.

[G Willikers]

I realize this is an old thread but I would like to know how adding USCT infantry would be a major overhaul. It seems like adding them would involve recoloring existing units, adding a flag, and making them available in game after 1862. I may be understating it somewhat but for a dedicated team it doesn't sound like a huge project.

I would gladly pay for a DLC that included more unit variety and customization if it came to that.

[NoobyNooberson]

I would also like to see more content like different battles (or even a different subset of minor battles leading up to a grand battle) just for some variety. New unit options would be cool as well.

[G Willikers]

Originally posted by NoobyNooberson:

(or even a different subset of minor battles leading up to a grand battle) .

This is a good idea that could lead to a more strategic feel to the game. A lot of the complaints around campaign mode are that it feels like a series of disjointed battles rather than a campaign (which I agree with).

But definitely USCT. They contributed nearly 200,000 men to the northern effort and played major roles in a number of campaigns, to exclude them feels wrong.

[pfcjking]

To that point, I often create my own black Confederate units. I've always thought the CSA surrendered the moral high ground when they refused to allow blacks to serve. So I right that wrong by creating an entire division of "CS Colored Troops".

[G Willikers]

Originally posted by pfcjking:

To that point, I often create my own black Confederate units. I've always thought the CSA surrendered the moral high ground when they refused to allow blacks to serve. So I right that wrong by creating an entire division of "CS Colored Troops".

Are you familiar with General Patrick Cleburne? He tried to do the same thing with the promise of manumission, it didn't go over very well.

[pfcjking]

Originally posted by G Willikers:

Originally posted by pfcjking:

To that point, I often create my own black Confederate units. I've always thought the CSA surrendered the moral high ground when they refused to allow blacks to serve. So I right that wrong by creating an entire division of "CS Colored Troops".

Are you familiar with General Patrick Cleburne? He tried to do the same thing with the promise of manumission, it didn't go over very well.

Yeah, and I am a fan. He was right.
Matter of fact, when I make that CS Colored Troops division, I usually put him in command.

When he wrote that opinion and passed it around that war council meeting, it effectively ruined his career. He was told in no uncertain terms to shut his mouth. He never was given permanent corps command, though he was deserving of such and there was great need for him. The whole story of his proposition was so buried, the public did not find out about until 30 years later when a veteran who was at the meeting spoke out about it.

Basically, the politicians in Richmond valued the life of their slaves more than they did the poor white soldiers who were dying by the thousands to give them their right to own those slaves. That is the ugly truth of the matter. If Richmond had given the slaves their freedom in return for their service, like Washington had done in the Revolution, then the war really would have been about independence and freedom.

[J. P. Armistead]

Originally posted by pfcjking:

Originally posted by G Willikers:

Are you familiar with General Patrick Cleburne? He tried to do the same thing with the promise of manumission, it didn't go over very well.

Yeah, and I am a fan. He was right.
Matter of fact, when I make that CS Colored Troops division, I usually put him in command.

When he wrote that opinion and passed it around that war council meeting, it effectively ruined his career. He was told in no uncertain terms to shut his mouth. He never was given permanent corps command, though he was deserving of such and there was great need for him. The whole story of his proposition was so buried, the public did not find out about until 30 years later when a veteran who was at the meeting spoke out about it.

Basically, the politicians in Richmond valued the life of their slaves more than they did the poor white soldiers who were dying by the thousands to give them their right to own those slaves. That is the ugly truth of the matter. If Richmond had given the slaves their freedom in return for their service, like Washington had done in the Revolution, then the war really would have been about independence and freedom.

I read somewhere that something like only 1% of confederate soldiers were slave owners . If so then those boys were not dying simply for their right to own slaves.

[G Willikers]

Originally posted by J. P. Armistead:

Originally posted by pfcjking:

Yeah, and I am a fan. He was right.
Matter of fact, when I make that CS Colored Troops division, I usually put him in command.

When he wrote that opinion and passed it around that war council meeting, it effectively ruined his career. He was told in no uncertain terms to shut his mouth. He never was given permanent corps command, though he was deserving of such and there was great need for him. The whole story of his proposition was so buried, the public did not find out about until 30 years later when a veteran who was at the meeting spoke out about it.

Basically, the politicians in Richmond valued the life of their slaves more than they did the poor white soldiers who were dying by the thousands to give them their right to own those slaves. That is the ugly truth of the matter. If Richmond had given the slaves their freedom in return for their service, like Washington had done in the Revolution, then the war really would have been about independence and freedom.

I read somewhere that something like only 1% of confederate soldiers were slave owners . If so then those boys were not dying simply for their right to own slaves.

While it is true that most slaves were "owned" by the richest and many southerners couldn't afford them, way more than 1% of the southern armies were made up of slaveowners and I would like to know what your source is on that. Slaves made up roughly 40% of the deep southern population (according to the national park service, 3.5 million slaves to 5 million free) and 1/6 of the border state population (2.5 million to .5 million).

Adding to that, even if you weren't a slaveowner the concept of racial heirarchy and the right of a white person to own a black person were deeply ingrained cultural elements in the south. It comes up again and again in speeches, essays, and interviews among leading agitators for independence at the time.

It is telling that even men like Cleburne were only advocating independence for those who agreed to enlist. The slave families not allowed to enlist, or without fit males to send to the war, would remain in bondage. Slavery itself would exist but you would now have the right to kill someone you didn't know because your master promised he would free you if you did. Still a highly problematic, exploitative system

[Crowkeeper]

Or you know, the jackass who started developing these games in the first place could use a better engine so we could get modding capabilities.

It seems absurd that a guy like Darth would use an engine like Unity that's basically anathema to modding when he himself got his start as a modder. If anyone should understand the value of modding, it would be him.

[identifiedasbeingdisrespectful]

Originally posted by G Willikers:

Originally posted by J. P. Armistead:

I read somewhere that something like only 1% of confederate soldiers were slave owners . If so then those boys were not dying simply for their right to own slaves.

While it is true that most slaves were "owned" by the richest and many southerners couldn't afford them, way more than 1% of the southern armies were made up of slaveowners and I would like to know what your source is on that. Slaves made up roughly 40% of the deep southern population (according to the national park service, 3.5 million slaves to 5 million free) and 1/6 of the border state population (2.5 million to .5 million).

Adding to that, even if you weren't a slaveowner the concept of racial heirarchy and the right of a white person to own a black person were deeply ingrained cultural elements in the south. It comes up again and again in speeches, essays, and interviews among leading agitators for independence at the time.

It is telling that even men like Cleburne were only advocating independence for those who agreed to enlist. The slave families not allowed to enlist, or without fit males to send to the war, would remain in bondage. Slavery itself would exist but you would now have the right to kill someone you didn't know because your master promised he would free you if you did. Still a highly problematic, exploitative system

Ewell had proposed freeing all slaves just to get needed manpower and offered to command them. He was rejected of course, but it didnt' particualrly affect his career. Yes, racial hierarchy was a major component of Southern culture at the time, but the perception that everyone felt that every black person deserved to be in bondage is incorrect. There were freemen within the CSA and a particular few held officer rank and many fought toward the end, especially in the west that this game doesn't focus on.Stand Waite would not have been a general if the general CSA attiutde was hatred of anyone not white. Of course it was a major factor in secession, it was the vast majority of their economy and would be forcibily removed with no action as well as contemporairly being taxed to death. Their belief was in superiority, and therefore right to ownership, just as any other culture in history that has used slavery. They believed equal rights would destory the South's culture and economy, and looking at its current state, they didn't appear entirely wrong in ideology, even if wrong in execution. To act like the majority of the Union did not also agree with the superiority portion is a distortion.

Other than having a racial hierarchy to it, their style of slavery was really no different than any other historical usage of direct slavery. Freed, one's descendants were not slaves, as a slave, one's descendants were. Freeman being a sceond class citizen similar to the libertines of Rome. If you want a real "highly problematic explotative system", Islamic slavery and conquest is where you should look. They didn't even have slave reproduction, castration and all...

[NoobyNooberson]

Well said sc2mails. I grew up in the deep south and I am astounded at the lack of understanding evident by most modern Americans about what was going on in the South leading up to and during the War. When I toured Gettysburg I truly underestood why the South had to lose, but the broad brush many paint the South with is just sad and tragic.

[identifiedasbeingdisrespectful]

Originally posted by NoobyNooberson:

Well said sc2mails. I grew up in the deep south and I am astounded at the lack of understanding evident by most modern Americans about what was going on in the South leading up to and during the War. When I toured Gettysburg I truly underestood why the South had to lose, but the broad brush many paint the South with is just sad and tragic.

I think most don't realize every single CSA soldier was paroled. They were all buried with and entitled to full miltary honors after the war. The primary issue was indeed slavery, but that wasn't so much because of a higher moral impertaive as much as it was a religious one. The perdominant Christian and especially protestant view at the time was that a Christian should not hold another Christian in slavery. Almost all in bondage were forcibly converted, this caused a major religious schism.

[Hat8]

The American and Texan revolutions were also largely motivated by the interests of slave owners.

Anyway, a black unit would be great. They were used as stormtroopers of sorts so it'd be interesting to use them.

[Landsknecht und Deutscher Ritter]

It's unfortunate that this game falls into the typical trappings Yankees vs Dixie routine, In reality less than half of the Union army was Yankees with 100,000 Southern whites, 200,000 German, Irish and African Americans, 50,000 English and Canadians, 40,000 French, 4,000 native americans and another 324,000 immigrants mostly from smaller ethnic groups in Europe. It wouldn't be unrealistic to have union units that spoke German or Gaelic, Although you can't really make out any details of the models themselves and officers would almost exclusively be white so i don't see how you could intergrate African-American units in. I suppose you could always name them after a historical black unit.