Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
In what way do you feel it was intended?
In real life other countries were never going to touch the situation as slavery was the cause of secession and the war.
Emancipation clearly put a spotlight on the slavery issue.
A country starting to support the CSA seeing slavery highlighted, by Emancipation, is of course going to be wary of continuing support. They have other countries they interact with who are already anti-slavery.
You're missing the point the OP is making; the Emancipation Proclamation was an optical maneuver to shy away foreign intervention and provide needed moral justification, and was only a success because it was issued from a position of strength after repelling the Confederate advance into Maryland. If it was issued as the battle flag was being hoisted over Philly and Baltimore then it would be seen as a pathetic and hollow political stunt - it should not be able to be issued if the Union's fortunes are on the backpedal, or its positive effects should be scaled to the actual tides of the war.
It did, lincoln had cabinet and JCCOTW advice, ie both political and military advice was to punish the CS states by freeing their property, which will make it easier to win teh war, to have done it earlier, and drafted it for publication but chose to sit on it as the war was going badly, and await a better time to do so. The EP also made the point slavery was ok for loyal states.
Your confusing recognition of the CS as a beligerant and allowing it to purchase all it could afford to prosecute the war with a DOW and intervention to help them, since the UK for example was making a fortune from selling to both sides, had no economic reason to do more than it was already, and had very little to gain if it did, and happily continued to sell to the CSA after emancipation.
it must occur right after a US medium or large battle victory, it then lowers CS will by 10 and US will by 5, ie it recognises emancipation had effects on both sides.
*https://boardgamegeek.com/video/47890/people/people-game-and-history
>>>
The Commonwealth had military commitments in the use of the navy to stop slave trading ships so the wishful thinking of the CSA to get full recognition was always very wishful while slavery was going on. Among those states going into rebellion were those with senators openly declaring they were doing it >for slavery<.
Emancipation, even in its just in the rebellion areas, is a big factor on how voters in the UK would pressure their elected officials. UK wouldn't go back on ending the slave trade so the policy should (and currently does) greatly inhibit CSA-UK relations.
Private company sales are a little more vague as we could debate on how 1860s governments controlled their arm sales. There is still possible affects of being disliked in having those companies limit sales, sell to other customers or other delays. An indirect one perhaps being a dockside protest in England delaying the loading of arms to the CSA after Emancipation.
>>>
As to the game:
1) Policies in this game take time to develop. I just checked and in my game its showing ~35 days from when its selected to come into affect. Giving the time of a month battles and war status could flip either way, possibly severally times, during that time. So its not likely something that can be coded to only be released on major battle win for the Union.
2) The EP policy on activation could take into account the current war state or recent war state but thats a bit tricky. The overall affects seem decent though one could argue with the 20 european affect.
3) The EP policy in game affects all European relations collectively. So arguments about the UK views is only part of it.
>>>
Has any thought been given to a what-if policy for the CSA to end the slavery themselves? Not that they did it historically but as a what-if policy.
Fact free, no upper south states left over slavery, they did so over federal coercion of those who had left over slavery. Coercion ie use of force was denied to Congress to compel state unless aforce bill was passd by 2/3 of the states. When the Constitution was crafted, use of force was not seconded even for debate and left out asa power to the government. The use of force by the federal government to compel a state was not seconded, to do so therfore was unconstitutionl, Congress however later passed a law that allowed force through a force bill, which is what POTUS Jackson was forced to apply for in nullification, and was granted .When the republicans sought a force Bill in 1860 it was denied by congress.
Except the CSA constitution banned international slave trading, and the USA retained interegional slave trading just as did the CSA, so there was no wishfull thinkling, POTUS Davis never expected full recognition and neither did Lee and others. Again your not posting bad history, but false history, they said slavery was a matter for the states,not the federal government and btw Rebellion is an act against lawfull authority ( soveriegn never rebel) and there was no law against secession, there was however the right of secession gaurenteed by RI VA and others ratification ordinces that provided unilateral secession for a state, and the text of the constitution gives all states the rights others have asserted.
UK voters were the well of in society, they numbered 800k or so of the very well off and there was no secret ballot and they were rather much pro CSA, those withoutb the vote were pro USA, and were the very people whom owned the companies making the things for export both sides wanted. Since UK US and CSA have all agreed not to participate in the international slave trade what a nation does internaly has no effect on the UK of 1860 which has abolished all protectionist measures and adopted free trade with any and all comers. Slavery was ok in the British empire, the US Union and the CSA so again, not bad history, just not history at all.
UK was selling to both sides, as long as they had the gold they could purchase what they wanted.UK government had no authority to prevent private enterprise, instead it lent then money to make the weapons to sell to both sides as part of its economic policy, since USA had no bessemer production worth talking about, the UK superior steel was exported to both sides as fast as the Uk could churn it, and weapons made from it out and ship it. From UK National armouries it sold to both sides, and all over the world to others.
Devs have as its in game already.
Which is about slavery.
I know your deep into that rabbit hole of making it sound otherwise but secession was about slavery.
What your arguing is kinda like if you A (first secession) is in a bar getting drunk beating B (the slave) and someone stops A. Then C says they prefer A and will join the fight too. Its still about the initial wrongful act (of slavery).
The states who voted for secession were of course not allowing the slaves to vote on the matter. Of course the slaves showed their "vote" when Union armies came by many joining as labor and taking up arms. So had there been a universal suffrage allowing everyone to vote the seccisons are not likely to happen so again... slavery specifically not allowing slaves to vote.
Im sure the devs and mods see many of these circular arguements. Just bear in mind you aren't going to mislead everyone with it not being about slavery.
Fun fact:
Anti-education laws in the post war confederacy were a thing. Where no child could have any book that said anything bad about the south. Therefore you had generations of misinformed children growing into adults with a bloated view of the south which should be more negative than it turned into. I.E. The south was demanding to continue slavery.
>>>>
[/quote]
oh good.
It is also likely one that takes the policy development time to bring into affect.
Hmm I wonder if doing that in the South would actually have states leave the Confederacy since they no longer have the same problem with being in the Union.
Some would fight on but some might actually leave the Confederacy.
Again not bad history, not history at all. VA voted not to secede over slavery, after long debate on the merits, when POTUS called up the militia against the US AG advice* and against his own objection to POTUS doing so illegally in the war with mexico**without a court telling him he could, it then seceded over coercion after debate on coercion and coercion only.
*"Under the act of 1795, the President is precluded from acting even upon his own personal and absolute knowledge of the existence of such an insurrection. Before he can call forth the militia for its suppression, he must first be applied to for this purpose by the appropriate State authorities, in the manner prescribed by the Constitution."
**
Lincoln in congress:
Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect. . . . The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings
had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the
object. This, our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where Kings have always stood.
Fact free at every level. It was about state sovreignty, if you were then you had the right, if you were not then you did not, Republicans simply re wrote history post war.
Madsion , That the people of the several States thus united by the constitutional compact, in forming that instrument, and in creating a general government to carry into effect the objects for which they were formed, delegated to that government, for that purpose, certain definite powers, to be exercised jointly, reserving, at the same time, each State to itself, the residuary mass of powers, to be exercised by its own separate government; and that whenever the general government assumes the exercise of powers not delegated by the compact, its acts are unauthorized, and are of no effect; and that the same government is not made the final judge of the powers delegated to it, since that would make its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among sovereign parties, without any common judge, each has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of the infraction as of the mode and measure of redress.
Again with Madison
If we consider the federal Union as analogous not to the social compacts among individual men: but to the conventions among individual States. What is the doctrine resulting from these conventions? Clearly, according to the Expositors of the law of Nations, that a breach of any one article, by any one party, leaves all the other parties at liberty, to consider the whole convention as dissolved, unless they choose rather to compel the delinquent party to repair the breach.
So, you cant do analogy either. A ( slave states who use the breaches over slavery as the lawful reason why they can secede, and takes their property away from B, this excludes C who voted not to do so) exercises their Sovereign rights, and is told no, your not a Sovereign, and force is used to prevent it, by B, this is the mugger who wanted to take property from A, and A chose to run away rather than fight to protect his property, C then comes to the aid of A to protect his rights in property from the thief.
Nor was any other state as no state allowed any blacks the vote, some free northern states, Lincolns home State, returned any free black to slavery for just being in their state longer than 24 hours.
This was because of the US Confiscation Act that gave all mil Departments the authority to take property from those in insurrection and employ them for the military, male and female, with or without the slaves consent. Slavery did not end for blacks, they just changed owners.
You know these conscripted for use were held in mil stockades right?, only allowed out for work under armed guards.
You do know the head of the freedmans bureau, O Howard reported on the mortality rate in them was extreme, Camp Nelson in Kentucky with 500 men women and chidren had 30 a day dead, and he expected the negro race to become extinct.
You know probably more Northern conscripted blacks died in the war, than northern soldiers were killed in battle right?. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sick-Freedom-African-American-Suffering-Reconstruction/dp/0190218266
Northern docters who visited the camps were trained that negros were not treatable for a wide range of illness, that effected whites, and simple left them to die from them, penned in the cap and left for the disease to run its course through the population, hence the absurdly high mortality of black troops in the war and the massive loss of black lives in the war, post war congress determined 30% of Mississippi slaves have died or disappeared in the course of the war.
I made no circular argument.
There is actual history and then there is your made up stuff.
William Tecumseh Sherman, believed that "all the Congresses on earth can't make the negro anything else than what he is; he must be subject to the white man, or he must amalgamate or be destroyed. Two such races cannot live in harmony, save as master and slave."
William H. Seward Secretary of State:
"The population of the United States consists of natives of Caucasian origin, and exotics of the same derivation. The native mass readily assimilates to itself and absorbs the exotic, and these constitute one homogenous people. The African race, bond and free, and the aborigines, savage and civilised, being incapable of such assimilation and absorption, remain distinct, and, owing to their peculiar condition, constitute inferior masses, and may be regarded as accidental if not disturbing political forces. The ruling homogenous family, planted at first on the Atlantic shore, and following an obvious law, is seen rapidly and continually spreading itself westward, year by year, subduing the wilderness and the prairie, and thus extending this great political community, which, as fast as it advances, breaks into distinct States for municipal purposes only, while the whole constitutes one entire, contiguous, and compact nation."
Lincoln
While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
Stephen Douglas was merely stating an historical fact when he declared in 1858 that "this Government was established on the white basis. It was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and never should be administered by any except white men."
“Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We cannot then make them equals”
-Abraham Lincoln The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln
“I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship”
-Abraham Lincoln
“I will to the very last stand by the law of this state[ Illinois], which forbids the marrying of white people with Negroes.”
-Abraham Lincoln
Senator Benjamin F. Wade, said in a speech delivered in the United States Senate, "Who is the judge in the last resort of the violation of the Constitution of the United States by the enactment of a law? Who is the final arbiter, the General Government or the States in their sovereignty? Why, sir, to yield that point is to yield up all the rights of the States to protect their own citizens, and to consolidate this government into a miserable despotism."
If they [the Southern people] do not feel interested in upholding this Union — if it really entrenches on their rights — if it endangers their institutions to such an extent that they cannot feel secure under it — if their interests are violently assailed by the means of this Union, I am not one of those who expect that they will long continue under it. I am not one of those who ask them to continue in such a Union. It would be doing violence to the platform of the party to which I belong. We have adopted the old Declaration of Independence as the basis of our political movements, which declares that any people, when their Government ceases to protect their rights, when it is so subverted from the true purposes of government as to oppress them, have the right to recur to fundamental principles, and if need be, to destroy the Government under which they live, and to erect upon its ruins another conducive to their welfare. I hold that they have this right. I will not blame any people for exercising it, whenever they think the contingency has come. I certainly shall be an advocate of that same doctrine whenever I find that the principles of this Government have become so oppressive to the section to which I belong, that a free people ought not longer to endure it.... I hope the Union will continue forever. I believe it may continue forever. I see nothing at present which I think should dissolve it; but if other gentlemen see it, I say again that they have the same interest in maintaining this Union, in my judgment, as we of the North have. If they think they have not, be it so. You cannot forcibly hold men in the Union; for the attempt to do so, it seems to me, would subvert the first principles of the Government under which we live.
Hobbs v. Fogg
a free Black man sued for the right to vote in Pennsylvania. The State supreme court replied:
...[A] free ***** or mulatto is not a citizen within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and of the State of Pennsylvania, and, therefore, is not entitled to the right of suffrage.... But in addition to interpretation from usage, this antecedent legislation declared that no colored race was party to our social compact. Our ancestors settled the province as a community of white men; and the blacks were introduced into it as a race of slaves; whence an unconquerable prejudice of caste, which has come down to our day.... Consistently with this prejudice, is it to be credited that parity of rank would be allowed to such a race?... I have thought fair to treat the question as it stands affected by our own municipal regulations without illustration from those of other States, where the condition of the race has been still less favored. Yet it is proper to say that the second section of the fourth article of the Federal Constitution, presents an obstacle to the political freedom of the *****, which seems to be insuperable.
*
The Ohio supreme court Calvin v. Carter
It has always been admitted, that our political institutions embrace the white population only. Persons of color were not recognized as having any political existence. They had no agency in our political organizations, and possessed no political rights under it. Two or three of the States form exceptions. The constitutions of fourteen expressly exclude persons of color by a provision similar to our own; and, in the balance of the States, they are excluded on the ground that they were never recognized as a part of the body politic.... Indeed, it is a matter of history, that the very object of introducing the word white into our constitution, by the convention framing that instrument, was to put this question beyond all cavil or doubt, by, in express terms, excluding all persons from the enjoyment of the elective franchise, except persons of pure white blood.
Thacher v. Hawk Indiana supreme court
This exclusion of persons of color, or, of any degree of colored blood, from all political rights, is not founded upon a mere naked prejudice, but upon natural differences. The two races are placed as wide apart by the hand of nature as white from black, and, to break down the barriers, fixed, as it were, by the Creator himself, in a political and social amalgamation, shocks us, as something unnatural and wrong. It strikes us as a violation of the laws of nature. It would be productive of no good. It would degrade the white, if it could be accomplished, without elevating the black. Indeed, if we gather lessons of wisdom from the history of mankind — walk by the light of our experience, or consult the principles of human nature, we shall be convinced that the two races never can live together upon terms of equality and harmony.
Crandall v. The State Connecticut supreme court
The persons contemplated in this act are not citizens within the obvious meaning of that section of the Constitution of the United States which I have just read. Let me begin by putting this plain question: Are slaves citizens? At the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State was a slave State.... We all know that slavery is recognized in that Constitution; it is the duty of this court to take that Constitution as it is, for we have sworn to support it.... Then slaves were not considered citizens by the framers of the Constitution....
Are free blacks citizens?... To my mind it would be a perversion of terms, and the well known rules of construction, to say that slaves, free blacks, or Indians were citizens, within the meaning of that term as used in the Constitution. God forbid that I should add to the degradation of this race of men; but I am bound, by my duty, to say that they are not citizens.
Some other fun facts.
Pre war, Dickens and other europeans all wrote about what they saw in America and commented on racisim being worse in the North than the south.
Segregation did not exist in the slave states, it was a free state invention. New York, Massachusetts, Ohio, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania all segregated black and white and denied free blacks the right to vote, ( no black could use the courts so no contract with them was able to be enforced by the black, as the black could not counter what the white man said in court) and taught blacks differently than whites, including their place in society, post WBTS the former slave states enacted jim crow laws, all initially taken from existing free states laws, including on how to educate blacks.
Here is how its taught today in USA, SC
https://digital.scetv.org/teachingAmerhistory/lessons/Secession.htm
To excericise a right ( secession being a right of a sovereign) to end a compact of wills*( any union entered into by free will with other equal sovriegn powers) required a breach of the compact, slavery was the breach of compact for the deep south. Coercion for the upper south.
Compact of wills has its origins in UK law, Henry the VIII was the sovereign and above the law, his will was to have the heir he wanted, not what the law said he must have, so changed the law to suit.
James Madison
"If we consider the federal Union as analogous, not to the social compacts among individual men, but to the conventions among individual states, what is the doctrine resulting from these conventions? Clearly, according to the expositors of the law of nations, that breach of anyone article, by anyone party, leaves all other parties at liberty to consider the whole convention dissolved, unless they choose rather to compel the delinquent party to repair the breach. In some treaties,indeed, it is expressly stipulated that a violation of particular articles shall not have this consequence, and even that particular articles shall remain in force during war, which in general is understood to dissolve all subsisting treaties.
A Hamilton
"If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify."
Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199 (1796) 3 U.S. 199 (Dall.):
"In June 1776, the Convention of Virginia formally declared, that Virginia was a free, sovereign, and independent state; and on the 4th of July, 1776, following, the United States, in Congress assembled, declared the Thirteen United Colonies free and independent states; and that as such, they had full power to levy war, conclude peace, etc. I consider this as a declaration, not that the United Colonies jointly, in a collective capacity, were independent states, etc. but that each of them was a sovereign and independent state, that is, that each of them had a right to govern itself by its own authority, and its own laws, without any control from any other power upon earth.
Justice Taney in Martin v. Waddell's Lessee:
"...For when the revolution took place, the people of each state became themselves sovereign; and in that character hold the absolute right to all their navigable waters, and the soils under them, for their own common use, subject only to the rights since surrendered by the constitution to the general government...."
M'Llvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 4 Cranch 209 (1808), held that this Treaty only had the effect of establishing the recognition of one country to the sovereignty of the States, which had actually existed since their independence in 1776:
"This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British King. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted."
Hamilton cried when he signed the constition, because he knew he had failled to prevent future secesions in the Union, he wrote
"If a number of political societies enter into a larger society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuent to the powers intrusted to the constituition, must necessarly be supreme above those societys and the individuals of whom they are composed. It would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the partys and not a government, which is only another name for political power and supremacy. But it will not follow from this doctrine that the acts of the larger society which are not pursuent to this constituitional powers, but which are invasions of the residual authorities of the smaller societies will be the supreme law of the land. These will be merly acts of usurption and deserve to be treated as such."
USSC
"The reservation to the States respectively," says the Supreme Court, "can only mean the reservation of the Sovereignty which they respectively possessed before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and which they had not parted from by that instrument. And any legislation by Congress beyond the limits of the power designated would be trespassing upon the rights of the States or the people, and would not be the supreme law of the land, but null and void.
Meant generations of children were giving a false view of the south due to the schools being prohibited from saying anything bad about the south. Looking back you can describe that a "violation of freedom of speech" and "fake history."
There is also the fact that nobody really wants to admit that their lineage was involved in what is now judged as immoral. If you go back a few more generations or a few dozen generations almost every society had slaves or serfs.
But what you get is people who have wall-post long dribble in game threads about one aspect of the game because they can't handle that the Southern States insisted on slavery.
They did.
Get over it.
Coercion is so stupid a phrase to use to when the whipped, beaten and killed slaved were coerced by Southern Slave owners.
No Slave was allowed to vote against Seccession of the South. That is also truth.
A point, relevant to this thread (unlike bad essay anti-slavery ramblings), is that the game mechanism for deploying a policy takes 30+ days.
So if we have an event like a major battle win to start the 30+ day timer events might change by then
Or
Should the policy affects be variable on the state of war at the time it comes into affect?
He's basically trying to make it sound like the South were cool dudes and that the US form of Constitution isn't for "all the people" as slaves don't have rights, aka black lives didn't matter back then. Today the world has moved on and the propaganda of the slavers isn't well received. Hence the pulling down of statues in the modern South as the deeds of those people is now looked on as pretty horrible.