Quote from: CTPhipps;913716Friend, again, I'm Super-Southern and I've read the Constitution of the Confederacy.

You are confusing the reasons the South seceded with why the War started. The North did not invaded to free the slaves. The North invaded to feed Lincoln's egotism.

Quote from: Tod13;913727You are confusing the reasons the South seceded with why the War started. The North did not invaded to free the slaves. The North invaded to feed Lincoln's egotism.

There's not exactly a number of countries in the 19th century or any period prior to the 20th which were about peacefully letting go of massive amounts of territory. You are correct that Lincoln invaded the South to "preserve the Union." The thing was, he was still incredibly anti-slavery so it's not exactly changing anything.

Quote from: CTPhipps;913729There's not exactly a number of countries in the 19th century or any period prior to the 20th which were about peacefully letting go of massive amounts of territory. You are correct that Lincoln invaded the South to "preserve the Union." The thing was, he was still incredibly anti-slavery so it's not exactly changing anything.

Lincoln was not anti-slavery. He adopted that stance as an excuse for the invasion. He himself wrote he would have supported whichever side of the issue gave him the most support.

Quote from: Tod13;913732Lincoln was not anti-slavery. He adopted that stance as an excuse for the invasion. He himself wrote he would have supported whichever side of the issue gave him the most support.

   Citation needed, especially given his strong public record of antebellum hostility to the 'peculiar institution'.

This conversation is exactly why after 6 months of playing I tossed Deadlands and very carefully transported characters, NPCs, some settings, plots and all over to a historically accurate setting in the same period. So much easier to just deal with what was, be it good or evil, than what we are dealing with here.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;913735Citation needed, especially given his strong public record of antebellum hostility to the 'peculiar institution'.

From Abraham Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley, 22 August 1862:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it."

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

Quote from: AaronBrown99;913751From Abraham Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley, 22 August 1862:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it."

   That only establishes that Lincoln prioritized the preservation of the Union over the abolition of slavery. Going from that to "Lincoln only adopted an anti-slavery position to get support for conquering the South" is a stretch worthy of Mister Fantastic.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;913756That only establishes that Lincoln prioritized the preservation of the Union over the abolition of slavery. Going from that to "Lincoln only adopted an anti-slavery position to get support for conquering the South" is a stretch worthy of Mister Fantastic.

Yes, Lincoln was elected by the Republican Party which literally had no position uniting it Pre-Civil War than anti-Slavery. It was made of Anti-Catholics, Catholics, Rich people, poor people, and more who had only one issue combining them. A hundred smaller parties who just wanted to hurt slavery every bit they could by isolating and making it impossible to spread.

You could make an argument Lincoln was a canny politician (ha!) who wanted to use slavery to get elected but he was well-well-well anti-slavery before the War.

It was literally the position which got him elected. He mentioned slavery as his stance more than Trump did his wall.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913749This conversation is exactly why after 6 months of playing I tossed Deadlands and very carefully transported characters, NPCs, some settings, plots and all over to a historically accurate setting in the same period. So much easier to just deal with what was, be it good or evil, than what we are dealing with here.

If you want but there's a reason I've never played a historically accurate Western.

And the arguments are actually fairly useful and informative, IMHO.

Because they nicely do confront the propaganda my ancestors were so fond of.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913709Claims that there's no way the South could have survived without slavery, even with economical support from Britain and France are countered by the fact that the South with slavery could still not have survived without economical support from Britain and France...but making it with support from Britain and France is FAR more likely.

Whether or not they could have survived economically without slavery is beside the point. Without slavery, why are they even fighting the war? "Keeping slavery" was their victory condition. If they abolish slavery just to get international support, it would be a fairly transparent ploy. As soon as they get built up enough to maintain a stalemate with the Union without outside help, they'll reinstate slavery (unless it takes so long that they just keep fighting for the sake of tradition and they forget what the war was originally about).

Quote from: Xúc xắc;913778Whether or not they could have survived economically without slavery is beside the point. Without slavery, why are they even fighting the war? "Keeping slavery" was their victory condition. If they abolish slavery just to get international support, it would be a fairly transparent ploy. As soon as they get built up enough to maintain a stalemate with the Union without outside help, they'll reinstate slavery (unless it takes so long that they just keep fighting for the sake of tradition and they forget what the war was originally about).

That is the real rub, isn't it? If they're willing to give up slavery then why wouldn't they reintegrate into the Union?

Quote from: CTPhipps;913780That is the real rub, isn't it? If they're willing to give up slavery then why wouldn't they reintegrate into the Union?

Tariffs and self-determination mostly, but you'd have to be willing to take their word for it and not disqualify anything written at the time as being "hiding the REAL REASON" they seceded.

Why not have the best of all worlds?

While Confederacy that'd abolish slavery, even in face of defeat (the slave units were only a step towards abolishing slavery, although very powerful and practical) is unlikely, or unlikely to do it soon, it's possible with supernatural intervention.

BUT

Even in Confederacy, there were more hardline slaver states, and ones more interested in slaves + states rights'/southern chauvinism. So why not have Confederacy have it's own secession, from hardline slaver states? So some of the original secessionist states leave again - Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia*, Florida, South Carolina and in addition, the later joining Texas. Much behind in industry potential as Border States, they'd quickly fall...if it wasn't for unleashing armies of technomagically mind - controlled slaves.

*Georgia and South Carolina's statemen, have opposed strongest the earlier plans and suggestions to abolish slavery, and cost Cleburn any chance of promotion.

Quote from: Rincewind1;913790Why not have the best of all worlds?

Why not play a different western game?

People are willing to handwave the shit out of whichever setting they get their mitts on, but this particular one just triggers the shit out of people.

My current idea for an altered timeline:

* The South wins the Battle of Gettysburg due to their dead rising to continue to fight and Lincoln is assassinated, becoming Harrowed, only for Andrew Johnson to sign a treaty with the Confederacy.

* The devastated South is almost immediately overwhelmed with monsters, famine, pestilance (I like the "Red Death" as a name for it), and other signs of the Reckoners actions.

* The North and South both move out to try and secure new territories but the existence of ghost rock changes everything.

* Texas, Nevada, and California in this universe would have strong independence movements as neither the Union or Confederacy would be all that appealing for various reasons.

* Confederacy sympathies are low because of mismanagement, tyranny, and brutality from the Reckoner-influenced governments. This drives many settlers out West.

* Utah IS an independent country in this version as no one would want to join either side.

* The Underground Railroad still exists but is actively sabotaging Southern efforts with violence now as well as liberating slaves forcibly.

* Mexico would be interested in retaking Texas as well given its own ghost rock would be financing an industrial revolution.

* Slave catchers are a good go-to bad guy as they work in the Wild West as professional kidnappers.

* Southern agents are desperate to get the Wild West to prop up the dying Confederacy with their resources and new slaves. Hence, the Cold War is very close to hot.

It's still pretty rough but I think it makes a very interesting timeline which still preserves much of Deadlands.