War of Rights’ Civil War battlefield is up to 16 maps

In case you haven’t been reading the newspapers hot off the wire, the Civil War is still waging (at least, on the test server). War of Rights continues to churn out updates for this North vs. South battle simulator, so let’s make a concerted effort to catch up with the latest!

Up to 150 players have been stress testing the game’s fights, and with January’s Update 93, the team was able to fix an audio bug that occurred with so much action. Update 94 added the Antietam: Skirmish at East Woods map and reworked the Bloody Lane skirmish area. Then moving into February, Update 95 improved the “morale loss scaling algorithm” and “reduced headbobbing by 50%.” Sounds good to us.

Finally, this week’s Update 96 added the Antietam: Cooke’s Countercharge and Antietam: Roulette Lane skirmishes, bringing the total number of maps up to 16.

Source: Patch #1, #2, #3, #4
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Code of Conduct | Edit Your Profile | Commenting FAQ | Badge Reclamation | Badge Key

LEAVE A COMMENT

56 Comments on "War of Rights’ Civil War battlefield is up to 16 maps"

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most liked
Subscribe to:
Reader
Mr_Planthead

Reminds me of Rising Storm:Vietnam, except I’ll get a warm fuzzy feeling every time I shoot a traitor

Reader
Geoffrey Smith

Wait, they are still calling it that?

Sigh……

Reader
Randy Savage

EDIT: Nevermind. I see others are already having the argument down below. *shrugs*

Estranged
Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Estranged

Ooooooooh, yeeeaaaaahhhhh!

Reader
Randy Savage

Dig it!

fc393e2c782e0ee4000a032e2beace3c.jpg
deekay_plus
Reader
Patreon Donor
deekay_plus

so what comes to mind here is the past comment sections’ dispute of what the “rights” int eh title means.

one might see “states rights” as what they mean, and i mean that wouldn’t necessarily be out of touch with the subject matter.

then again there’s the very real part of the period in history slave or black rights that led up to and followed the US civil war and follows us to this day in a very real and concrete way.

we do war re enactment games for pretty much every war, no matter how immoral or petty or disgusting, not sure why there shouldn’t be a civil war game as long as it’s treated with the gravity and respect the subject matter deserves.

Reader
Geoffrey Smith

I am not at all annoyed at the idea of a game regarding the civil war. I am really perplexed by the name. Which has, let us say nicely, certain connotations.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Rees Racer

I discovered these in Steam’s discussion section regarding the name of this game…both objections and support. There are (at least) two separate comments from the developers I found with just a cursory glance.

“We get this every now and again. :)

The name was chosen to highlight that there were and are different opinions as to what was the reason of the war. Part claimed/claims it was to preserve State’s rights while another that it was the fight to free the slaves – or the very most basic of human rights. It was, after all, due to the, at least tactical victory, at Antietam (which was part of the Maryland Campaign of 1862 we cover in-game) that Lincoln was able to announce his emancipation proclamation and thus changing the face of the war (for the Northerners & the rest of the world).

It is always fascinating how heated the discussions regarding the matter can be even to this day. Part of the reason why we think the conflict is so interesting.

So no, we are not neo-confederates we simply put it out there for people to make their own judgement.” (posted 16 September 2016)

“Hi there! The name was chosen by us as we’re focusing on the Maryland Campaign of 1862 which would enable Lincoln to announce his emancipation proclamation and thus changing the face of the war. The “Rights” in the title reflects two very common stances the people who fought it took. First one is the stance of the “State’s Rights” and the second one is the fight for basic human rights for an enslaved people.

We get it that the word rights trigger some but as stated above that could just as well mean the rights for the enslaved people (again, we’re focusing on the campaign that would allow Lincoln to announce his emancipation proclamation). The name of the game is not War of State’s Rights, after all :)” (posted 4 February 2018)

So, it appears the name “rights” is indeed intended to encompass more than how you might have chosen to interpret it. However, I do recognise you are hardly alone in questioning the wisdom of the title’s name. I do hope all the comments and arguments are taken into account. Perhaps the name will be altered before launch. Although after at least 18 months of answering questions and responding to complaints, I don’t know what the chances are there will be a change. I would never tell another their feelings are invalid, regardless.

Reader
Geoffrey Smith

The name was chosen to highlight that there were and are different opinions as to what was the reason of the war.

As I suspected, they are just operating from a place of historical naivety. The reason for the war is not a matter of debate. Pretending it is a matter of opinion is like saying it is a matter of opinion if Reptillians are running the worlds governments. Sure, some people believe it, but they are clearly not at all correct.

I never thought they were NeoConfederates or anything. Given the great effort and love affair the Americans have had with Lost Cause history, you don’t need to be a bigot to come across it in teaching. But it is not at all the reality of historical study at this point.

It’s a shame they didn’t look more into that and continue to pretend otherwise. It’s not at all hard to look up. They still fall into that weir stance of “Well some thought “State’s Rights” without actually asking the next most logical question.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Rees Racer

You are still missing the point by hanging the entirety of your position on the singular idea that there was ONE cause for the war, and that everything else doesn’t matter. Fine, call it ALL about slavery. The southern states maintained it was their right to not only own slaves, but to secede from the union. None of what you say is in dispute from me, but this about what the names “Rights” means in the context of a game during the Maryland Campaign…not the cause of the war, however you want to define it.

As I suspected, the developers also wanted to emphasize the rights of the slaves to practise self-determination, which was validated and made law with the Emancipation Proclamation.

Please don’t allow your self-righteous indignation (and I’m sorry if I’m being impolite) over what you say is absolute cloud the issue. This is a classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees. To be clear, I’m not claiming you are incorrect about the root cause of the American Civil War, but it seems you have clearly missed the intent of the (pardon the expression) “framers” of this game, and the choice of title.

It never hurts to take a broader view and not be so completely intransigent when we are essentially discussing a word that clearly has more than one meaning, and is stated quite clearly by those who chose that word to mean several things.

This entirely (mostly civil) discussion is much more akin to ships passing in the night at this point. You maintain your position as absolute, correct, and no other interpretation is possible, yet we are talking about the use of a word you maintain has a questionable “connotation”, which by definition is an implication or nuanced possible meaning.

I’m going to take the developers at their word they intended the title of their game to encompass ALL the rights involved in the Civil War. It certainly makes more sense to me. However, as I’ve said previously, if enough people, like yourself, decide that implication means merely, and only, the right to own slaves, then perhaps they will change it.

Cheers and good luck.

Reader
Geoffrey Smith

You are still missing the point by hanging the entirety of your position on the singular idea that there was ONE cause for the war, and that everything else doesn’t matter.

There was one cause, and nothing else matters. You know how I know this? Cause it is precisely what is stated as historical fact. This isn’t, like, hard. You’ve read McPherson, you know this.

The southern states maintained it was their right to not only own slaves, but to secede from the union.

EXACTLY!

Ok, I am just gonna put this as straightforward as I can. In big bold capitals, so that maybe it is more clear

“STATES RIGHTS” IS A EUPHEMISM FOR OWNING BLACK PEOPLE THAT WAS INVENTED AFTER THE WAR. IF YOU USE THE PHRASE “RIGHTS” WITH REGARDS TO THE CIVIL WAR YOU ARE ENDORSING THE EUPHEMISM.

The war wasn’t about “rights” it was about slavery. Using “rights” lets the comfy euphemism spread. And that is a HUGE problem with what has been done with American Civil War history.

As I suspected, the developers also wanted to emphasize the rights of the slaves to practise self-determination,

You can’t “both sides” a historical fallacy.

To be clear, I’m not claiming you are incorrect about the root cause of the American Civil War, but it seems you have clearly missed the intent of the (pardon the expression) “framers” of this game, and the choice of title.

Let’s try this, again, with big bold letters:

THEIR INTENT DOES NOT CHANGE HISTORICAL REALITY

The concept of “States Rights”, which they made specific reference to, is a historical invention created after the fact. Ergo, their intent to draw reference to an historical fiction happens regardless of intent.

See what I said below about the theoretical “Master Race” game. Intent is wholly irrelevant when put in specific context.

Indeed, my position is an absolute. As you have done nothing to actually refute the point that has been made. You’ve not (and neither have the developers) done anything to disprove the reality of the term “States rights” with regards to the Civil War. Because, of course, it can not be done. Instead, you (and they) have made a wholly illogical argument about intent. It’s an attempt to frame an argument around semantical definition without actually dealing with the contextual usage. The issue here isn’t one of definition or intent, but of the contextual framework it is being used in. And with all due respect, you seem to be continually missing that.

What’s doubly funny about those quotes from them is that they in fact confirm it is a reference to the “States Right” fallacy. That’s the core of the problem. They are trying analogize a real, important concept (the ending of slavery) with a phony one (states rights). These two things aren’t equal, they are one and the same. The fact that seems lost on them is, sadly, not at all surprising.

Their lack of that understanding, and their intent, doesn’t do a wit to actually change that.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Rees Racer

I can see you are going to expand on your extraordinarily long list of argumentative fallacies in order to maintain you are right. It’s too bad you’ve really ignored the issue by concentrating on the singular thing you feel invalidates every other possible interpretation.

I never disagreed with your main point(s) on the cause of your Civil War, or whether it was justified in any way. You’ve taken such umbrage and are so resentful of any other view, that your iinital argument that the name of the game has “certain connotations” , but has now evolved into an elitist soapbox where you are are seemingly screaming into the wind with bold capital letters…at no one.

I’m so sorry I wasted time trying to have a discussion with someone who has been completely unwilling to look at the entirety of what the title of a game means. The whole idea is such an affront to you…there is no room for reason. I believe I’ve been very patient, and more than fair. I do hope you’ve found comfort in such narrow absolutism.

Many people on our side of the world love and admire the United States, but worry a great deal about the present disposition of Americans. It appears more than 150 years since the Civil War…perhaps not long enough to unify you all after that horrible conflict.

Reader
Geoffrey Smith

Argumentative fallacies….lol.

No, you’ve simply never looked at the issue at hand. You’ve dodged and moved the goalposts. You’ve tried to turn it into a discussion that doesn’t exist rather than address the initial complaint.

Can you deny the context? Can you deny the history? Can you deny the rationale? It seems that you are unwilling to do any of that. As I said much earlier, you just get a weird cul de sac of wishful thinking regarding intent.

And fuck off with that shit about American unity. You know what one of the main problems that prevents American unity? Ignorance of the history of America. “States rights” is symbolic of that willful ignorance of the racism self destruction that is at the hear of that. I really, really laugh my ass off when I try to get lectured on American social ills by those who aren’t even here to live them.

I have found a great deal of comfort not in my absolution, but in my certainty. Passed on years of academic study and research. And again, as you seem wholly unable to contend with that. Yeah, it brings me great joy to once again remind people of the reality of the Civil War era. If you want a good view of what the kind of distorted thinking that the developers seem to be taking to Civil War history, go down a few comments and read Estranged bizarre comments.

Reader
Mads Larsen

Project Lead of War of Rights and Co-Founder of the Campfire Games here.

I’m sorry you think we’re here to try and distort history. That being said, feel free to interpret our title in whatever way you wish. The strong reaction to it shown by you and others is exactly the reason why we chose it in the first place. We’re fascinated that war is still such a hot topic to this day. :)

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Rees Racer

Many Europeans (and in the old British colonies “down under”) are fascinated by the American Civil War. I’m actually quite a student of history, in general…and this conflict has always been of particular interest to me. We’re only partially aware of the present movement to remove monuments and characterise some of the soldiers who fought for the Confederacy as traitors etc. Strangely, we don’t regard the Revolutionaries who took up arms against the Crown similarly. But that is not really the issue.

When I see the name of this title, I think the name “rights” encompasses everything from the rights of the states to conduct their own business (even if reprehensible), to the right of President Lincoln to wage war to keep the Union together and proclaim slavery no longer legitimate, and granting the slaves their right to live free.

As with many things, the wording of the title may suit those who choose to take issue with it. As an outsider, of course, my interpretation of the American Civil War is very much about so many things…the legality of secession, self-determination, slavery, and in the end…the rights of those who govern, and those governed. The world has historically chosen war to determine the rights of each.

Reader
Vicarious Fan

here you go. Food for thought if it was actually about States rights then why were the Confederate states not allowed to make any laws against slavery and why where they not allowed to leave the Confederacy?

Reader
Geoffrey Smith

Firstly, the American revolutionaries were successful. If they weren’t, and the Americans were still colonial holdings, do you think we would have a Washington Monument? Secondly, most (if not all) of the monuments erected to the Civil War regarding Confederate members were done so well, well after the fact, during the Jim Crow era and the civil rights movement as symbols of white authority in the South. That is all wrapped up in the American history of white superiority.

And not some, all Confederate soldiers were traitors to the United States.

With all due respect, you are missing a LOT of the context here when it comes to the word “rights” with regards to the Civil War. The idea that the war was about “States Rights” or “rights” of any kind is a post hoc invention of Lost Cause writers after the war, once the ability to morally sustain an argument for slavery was no longer palpable publicly. Despite all contemporary documentation specifically mentioning slavery as the raison d etre for the existence of the Confederacy, after the end of Reconstruction you begin to see the Lost Cause writers add in length about issues for which there was never previous issue (like…”states rights”). These issues had always been wrapped up in the reality of slavery as an economic and political function of the American South. Attempting to portray “states rights” as some sort of separate, equally valid rationale from slavery is logically absurd. The Confederacy were presuming no “rights” different from the US Constitution, save the ability to always own black people as property. Using a title like “War of Rights” gestures towards this absurd, and historically false, narrative.

And hey, you’re English I presume given your reference to the Crown. If the was was really about self determination and the centralization of federal power in America, why didn’t Britain intercede on behalf of the Confederacy? Why didn’t France? or any European country for that matter? Destabilizing an American nation that represented a growing threat to their colonial powers would certainly be tempting. Could it be because those countries had all spent the previous decades abolishing both the slave trade and slavery, and it was well understood that the Confederacy was little more than a paper state for sanctioned slavery in perpetuity? Hmmmm…..

Look, I don’t care that the game exists. I’ll never play it anyway. But it’s title is absurd, and steeped in a lot of the very bad history that continues to go around about the Civil War to this day.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Rees Racer

Take issue with it however you like to suit your argument(s). I’m not keen to get embroiled over semantics. What I do know is the game is called War of Rights, and not War of States’ Rights, or Defenders of the Lost Cause. It seems purposely ambiguous to encompasses any and all interpretations…including the rights of the slaves to be free and exercise self-determination. It seems you’ve chosen the one that is offensive to you…and perhaps others, I don’t know.

If it bothers so many Yanks to have a game with this name, I encourage you to petition the developers, who are Danish, by the way…and likely hold a more universal view of what the word “rights” means globally. And I’m a Kiwi.

This is a gaming site, not a political forum. To that end, I look forward to how the gameplay sorts out, and whether it’s going to be fun.

Estranged
Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Estranged

Rees, the name is very clever, imho.

Reader
Geoffrey Smith

LOL….”semantics”.

I am always bemused that when confronted with the actual, historical context, the people who defend the title lose themselves in weird cul de sacs of wishful thinking.

This isn’t an “interpretation”. This is a game and title with a very specific historical setting, historical place, and historical background. Those things all apply no matter what someone might “interpret”. The fact that they are Danish doesn’t change anything about the reality of the term “rights” with regards to the Civil War. This has specific meaning, it is not a fantasy setting where the context can be created at a whim. If you can’t actually contend with historical reality of the Civil War, then you aren’t making much of an argument.

There is no need to petition anyone about anything. I can simply denounce the title, provide the correct historical background, and never provide the developer money. Much more effective for what I am looking for. Why make a quixotic petition that would only give it publicity?

Not only is this not a political forum, this isn’t even a political discussion. It is a historical one. The fact that you think it is political is exactly what has been wrong with Civil War history in America for a long, long time.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Rees Racer

I don’t remember ever getting into an argument in the many years I’ve used Massively’s comment section. So I’ll just say I can appreciate your position because it is important to you. I do hope you have a lovely day, and your indignation eventually leads to some serenity. Perhaps play a game?
The only thing I was trying to do was offer perspective from someone (perhaps some of the rest of the world) that the title doesn’t have to be as negatively connotative as you have decided it absolutely is. I don’t believe there is one right answer for the what the word “rights” means in the game’s title.

Princess_Bride_That_Word.jpg
Reader
Geoffrey Smith

So, in other words, you can’t actually contend with the historical context for the title, got it.

Thanks for the image macro though, totally owned it.

Look, I appreciate that you are trying to be polite, but you are also pretending that more than a century of American history doesn’t apply cause…well… I don’t know why. This isn’t a matter of the meaning of a word, it is matter of what that word entails to a specific event. What one might BELIEVE does not negate that historical reality. And considering that this kind of willful disregard for accurate American history has caused a lot of problems for America, you can see why people would be exasperated with that, yeah?

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Rees Racer

Just because I choose not to “contend with the historical context” does not mean I am unable to do so. This is a gaming site, not a political (apologies… historical ) forum. You are obviously, as you say, exasperated. Please don’t accuse me of pretending, or being anything for that matter, because you don’t know me. I recognise context means a great deal, especially when it comes to geographical and cultural differences…and seemingly in your country especially. I hope they change the name, because if you are so fussed about it, I can imagine others are as well.

I’m afraid the indignation my comments and questions (which I thought fair) have incurred from you regarding this matter have left me quite soured this morning, as it seems a different point of view from your own has been discounted out-of-hand…and angrily. I’m truly sorry you’ve taken offence to my attempted objectivity. In the game itself, I don’t care which colour uniform I might wear, blue or grey…but if it’s fun, I might have a go.

It’s a beautiful and sunny summer day here, so I’m going for bike ride.

Reader
Geoffrey Smith

Oh no, I am not angry. And especially not angry with you. I greatly appreciate your politeness in this. And I am sorry that I have soured you this day.

As I said, it is more an exasperation than anger. It’s not really a “point of view” thing, it is more about the history of the Civil War and how it has been treated in America. That’s why this argument comes up whenever this game comes up. It has been a big flashpoint here in the states for awhile now.

If you are interested in it, I certainly encourage you to read more history about the era, it is certainly fascinating to read. I could even recommend some good stuff.

Best regards to you!

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Rees Racer

I’ve read the following non-fiction (and several others):
“Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era”
“This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War”
“Confederates in the Attic: Dispatches From the Unfinished Civil War”
“Grant and Sherman: The Friendship That Won the Civil War”
“Chancellorsville 1863: The Souls of the Brave”
“Landscape Turned Red: The Battle of Antietam”
“Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory”
“The Civil War: A Narrative”
“A Stillness at Appomattox”

Just because I’m not American does not mean I’m not informed or educated. What I understand (as an outsider) is that your country remains deeply divided…and objectivity is a nebulous concept when it comes to this seminal conflict, and its (perceived) causes.

Reader
Geoffrey Smith

Oh, I missed this the first time when reading the book list.

There is no real problem with objectivity with relation to the Civil War and it’s causes, it’s more a matter of co-opted history that serve(s) to benefit a more comfortable narrative.

Every school child is taught that slavery was the reason for the war, which of course it was. The problem more arises when people try to square this with the concepts of “American Exceptionalism” and the “goodness” of America. Since no one but a hardcore racist would suggest slavery was actually a good thing, many American’s create a long list of “yeah, but…” reasons to try explain while the Confederates were still “good”, in spite of, you know, owning people as property.

The history itself really isn’t in dispute, it is the mental gymnastic too many do to abate the discomfort about it that is the issue.

Reader
Geoffrey Smith

Oooo, Battle Cry of Freedom is really good. McPherson does a fantastic job of making clear how slavery was the center of everything and the root cause of it.

Did you read all three volumes of The Civil War? I am not as keen on Foote’s work cause he did more than his fair share of Lost Cause mythologizing. Plus he had some, let’s say problematic, views of the Confederacy.

I’d also really recommend the new biography of Grant out, it was fantastic. And it helps set up further reading on Reconstruction. I’d also check out Out of The House Of Bondage, which gives a great perspective of the Civil War from the vantage point of slaves.

deekay_plus
Reader
Patreon Donor
deekay_plus

connotations being both pro and con both sides in the particular war… which is my point.

the war was as much about state’s presumed rights as it was about civil and human rights.

i’m not sure that beyond it being somewhat obviously provacative on both ends, that it necessarily is procrative purely or explicitly in the implied way.

and it is history.. as history that is largely not in dispute. much less than other wars wich video games have covered in spades.

Reader
Geoffrey Smith

The war was entirely about slavery, full stop. The “State’s rights” was the “right to own slaves”. This was expressed, repeatedly, by the articles of secession from the states themselves as well as the policies, statements, and actions of the Confederate government.

I am not entirely certain what you mean by “pro and con” connotations. The title seems to suggest that this was, indeed, a war of “rights”. It was not. It’s a really poor title.

deekay_plus
Reader
Patreon Donor
deekay_plus

yes it was about civil rights. so if it’s primarily about civil rights then why is the title “war of rights” wrong or bad? literally it was a war fought by the north after a time to ensure the rights of millions of americans.

it was a war fought for their rights. is it not a war of rights?

Reader
Geoffrey Smith

It was not about “civil rights”. It was about slavery. The word “rights” here is doing some heavy lifting in order to negate the more ugly and destructive reality of it.

Civil War is a far more accurate terminology, since it was, in fact a war between citizens of the same nation.

Furthermore, the whitewashing of Civil War history in America has a long, long, LONG, history behind it. There is no need to soft pedal it, and doing so has been a not at all constructive policy for the county.

Or to put it in a more snarky tone “What “right” exactly, was the Confederacy fighting for?”

Estranged
Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Estranged

How has the Civil War been whitewashed? Goodness sakes alive.

Reader
Vicarious Fan

this is how it was white washed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOkFXPblLpU&

For over 100 years after the civil war southerns had text books saying that slavery wasn’t that bad and in many ways was fun for the slaves.

Estranged
Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Estranged

Vicarious, this is all reaching. BTW, why aren’t we talking about whom shipped in slaves? I have a clue, they came from northern ships very often. The US is a really young country. Europe/Middle East/Asia was involved in this type of behavior thousands of years. Somehow, America managed to eradicate it within 100 years. That is history. I see all this history being thrown around.

Also, for the love of…

Aren’t we past stereotyping southerners as racist idiots? Why is this OK? Still fighting that war? Northern elites?

Reader
Vicarious Fan

we aren’t talking about who shipped the slaves because when Slavery was made illegal those people who shipped slaves either moved to the south or stopped.

They didn’t continue to violate federal law, leave the union, and try to destroy America just so they could keep selling slaves.

Who is stereotyping southerns? The video i posted said nothing about that.

Course things like this don’t help…

BTW again i’m a Texan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CSgMHVuHhc

Estranged
Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Estranged

Hey Vicarious. I apologize, sorta used your comment as a pulpit of sorts. The ones hanging on to “rebel pride” are bothersome. Luckily, they don’t define our thinking. Sometimes I’m so busy fighting the stereotypes that the message is skipped over for something else.

Texas is interesting, by the way. With the ties to Tennessee – Sam Houston…

http://www.texasescapes.com/MikeCoxTexasTales/153Tennessee.htm

Reader
Geoffrey Smith

The ones hanging on to “rebel pride” are bothersome. Luckily, they don’t define our thinking.

O RLY?!?!

Who do you think erected the Confederate monuments all over the south? Who invented Lost Cause mythology? Who convinced you Civil War history wasn’t whitewashed? Did I dream the United Daughters of the Confederacy? The League of the South?

I guess the Neo-Confederate’s don’t exist and the SPLC can disband. They are over in Montgomery, go give them a visit. While you are at it, stop by Killen where the LoS is headquartered and let them know how much you revile them.

kthxbye

Reader
Geoffrey Smith

The importation of slaves was banned in the US in 1808. After that slaves that were imported to the US were done so illegally largely through Spanish Florida and Texas by international slave traders running the blockade of Africa. This was the sticking point the Amistad case. So, I have to ask you, got any actual, you know, evidence of what you are saying?

Europe/Middle East/Asia weren’t really involved in slavery for thousands of years. There were several different times it had been banned in those places, then brought back, and banned again. France did this a few times (specifically pre and post Napoleon).

Hilariously, this really undermines what the point you think you are making. Lots of people, all throughout history, knew slavery was wrong, and had been doing things to eradicate it. When America came into being, it didn’t do so from the ether, it was founded with the cumulative knowledge from all those places. And still it wasn’t until after those places, and war fought entirely on the desire to keep it, was slavery finally removed in America. Of course slavery ended and we went right into Jim Crow and sharecropping once Reconstruction was defeated.

Do a modicum of reading and research before you jump into a historical debate that has concrete facts that can be drawn on.

And if southerners don’t want to be caricatured as racist clowns, they might want to do more to make sure they don’t pretend the history of the American South isn’t replete with violent racism and an attempt to create an ethno-slave country of their own.

Estranged
Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Estranged

Geoffrey, you are biased and ignoring any point that might question your objective. The narrative is clear on your end.

Also, you broad brushed an entire cultural group, which basically invalidates your argument at that point.

When people attempt to “talk down” to others or “set them straight”, it is time to move on.

Pseudo-intellectual elitism is a scourge far worse (that actually impacts today and our future) versus the naming of a niche video game. Versus a few misled souls that hang on to the past. BTW, you are hanging onto the past as tight as a Klansman or ISIS zealot.

You gave me the evidence of what I was saying…

Thanks.

Also, whom do you think built the historical structures in the Middle East and Europe? Technically a slave. Smells like a slave, walks like a slave, quacks like a slave…

Name ’em what you want.

Then like I mentioned below, we can go into how “the elite” North raped, pillaged and burned the South. Doesn’t sound like the methods of a virtuous people, looking to right a wrong.

Reader
Geoffrey Smith

You are right, I am biased to historical fact. Ya got me.

Broad brushed which cultural group? Southerners? This from the guy with a comment about “the elite” North? Cute.

“Psuedo-intellecutalism”….LOL. Ya, you’re right. Just cause I read a bunch of books and got a degree, I am not really qualified to talk about history. And I have spent more time combating historical nonsense this elsewhere than I have here. This is largely for amusement.

I love that the point about slavery in Europe and the Middle East went right over your head. I literally burst out laughing reading your sentence there. Ya, you got me again, I am totally ok with Pharaoh enslaving Moses or whatever. Nailed it.

Your “people” rape, pillaged, and destroyed black people and their families for a century. Sorry your “people” felt that right was so important they instigated a war to keep it. Maybe you should complain to them about it, eh?

Reader
Geoffrey Smith

This is accurate. Though I have a sad feeling you are shouting into the wind here.

Reader
Geoffrey Smith

Lost Cause? Beardian history? The death of Reconstruction?

You ever read Battle Cry of Freedom? How about the recent biography of Grant by Chernow? Anything? Or Pryors’ Reading the Man?

Sheesh.

deekay_plus
Reader
Patreon Donor
deekay_plus

like as opposed to the ugly side of ww2 or european wars or vietnam war or modern wars which have games in spades with similarly colourful and relevant names.

and wouldn’t this be the opposite of white washing? or soft pedaling? is this not a blunt reminder of the very real stakes of that war?

on your final, what right was the confederacy fighting for? it’s historically not argued over that they were fighting for states soverignty from federal authority, particularly the right to own slaves. it’s a part of history. there’s no whitewashing there.

i’m not sure where your from or where you went to school but this is jr high material where i grew up m8.

Reader
Vicarious Fan

see the video i linked above it will expalin all of your questions. Yes the south did try to white wash history… and they were very succesful.

Estranged
Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Estranged

VF, I totally disagree. The “winners” continue to paint “the South” as ignorant, hood wearing rednecks. Will remind “us” of the past at any time it is politically beneficial.

This is the truth about the South (for everyone’s benefit)

People and companies are aggressively moving here for superior weather, lower cost of living and technically trained employees. We do everything from making rockets, to building cars and raising ships. All in my state of Alabama. Our unemployment rate is the lowest in state history. My county has a 2.3 percent unemployment rate (Which is basically the equal of anyone wanting a job being able to have one).

Yeah, we have a Space Camp (for kids) and aerospace museums everywhere. My University claims 7 astronauts. We have been to the moon.

The reasoning behind the stereotype is over. We survived the sacking, raping and pillaging of the South to be better. Go ahead, take the comments of the fringe and make them the baseline. Do as you wish.

Anyone want to discuss the history of the slaughtering of innocents by Union troops? Rape? Burning their homes? That is whitewashed.

Millions of people died, due to a few rich people puffing their chests.

The poor fight wars for the rich. This shouldn’t be celebrated. It is disgusting.

Reader
Mr_Planthead

Weird, guy from Alabama talks about the “winners” talking bad about the south while he talks crap about the “elite” northerners and pretending the south did nothing bad during the war. Ah well, easier just not to argue and just quote the ordinanace of secession from your state:
“And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as a permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States,”

Reader
Vicarious Fan

this has nothing to do with stereotyping. This has everything to do with the South deciding to rewrite history to make it out as if they fought for a noble cause and lost.

Hence why they taught generations that slavery wasn’t that bad and built statutes across the country.

The current south has nothing to do with the way the Civil War was taught for most of the time after the Civil War

BTW I’m at Texan so you don’t need to tell me about how the south is doing.

Reader
Geoffrey Smith

Yeah, uh huh. That’s nice. What does it have to do with the Civil War? Congrats on the Moon though. That’s really far up there! You know what else Alabama does? Run child molesters for the US senate.

You know who else survived sacking, raping, and pillaging? The millions of black people Alabama fought a war over to keep being able to own as property.

Sure, let’s discuss Sherman’s March to the Sea. I really, really wish I could have seen the look of joy on a slaves face as he watched his former masters plantation, where he was whipped, beaten, probably separated from his family, and forced to work day and night, get burned to the ground. I would’ve loved to share in his elation.

But yeah, we really should have been nicer to those people who thought owning other people as property was cool.

And GTFO with that Beardian history nonsense. This wasn’t about “rich people”. The Civil War was about the stout belief in the inferiority of black people and how they should remain slaves for the South. The delusion that the poor South wasn’t benefited from slave owning is utterly nuts.

Again, do a modicum of reading.

Estranged
Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Estranged

Geoffrey, talking down to people does not deem you superior, it makes you a cartoon.

Also, your take on war should justify any conflict we have had over the years (which I’m sure you disapprove of, right?).

The elite had slaves and plantations. Regular people were just surviving. This doesn’t suit your story, I know, sorry.

You should write a movie or novel, this is some over the top hyperbole.

The intellectual elite seems to have quite a few abusers of women being exposed lately…

You know, the ones that were preaching to the masses?

Geoffrey, you doth protest too much.

Also, once again, you take one situation and label the entire group. We could go on and on, as you continue to stretch your superiority for MOP. However, I’m bowing out because this obviously is going nowhere.

This is Alabama: we live, work and eat with people from all corners of the world. The ones that won’t allow the past to die are people like yourself.

Like my Indian doctor will mention:

“The inflated Super Ego of the far left and right will be the downfall of humanity.”

Reader
Geoffrey Smith

A cartoon would be someone pretending the victims of the Civil War were the Confederates, and not slaves.

Your concept of “elites” and “poor” and some sort of divide over slavery isn’t borne out by the historical record. Every facet of southern life, financial, religious, political, and communal was dedicated to the upholding of slavery. Churches routinely preached the inferiority of black people and the biblical justification for slavery. Politicians routinely derided abolitionists. Communities constantly feared slave uprisings due to a massive slave population.

If all of this bothered poor Southerners so much, why didn’t they do more to end slavery? Why weren’t they abolitionists? Why didn’t they fight against secession? The answer, of course, is because slavery didn’t bother them that much at all.

You have a really tough time forming cogent writing, you know that? Like all those one sentence paragraphs give no frame of reference to anything they are talking about. Might wanna work on that.

It’s pretty telling how the concept of slavery never once comes up whenever you get into a discussion of the Civil War. Instead you boo hoo about the poor, abused South. You couldn’t be more transparent there.

You are right, I feel pretty comfortable labeling people who owned slaves and/or fought to keep that privilege as morally reprehensible. And I don’t spill any tears over their losses.

Yes, yes. Alabama is a cosmopolitan rainbow. You know what else is? New York City. Only significantly less racism and no child molesters running for Senate.

You want “the past to die” so people will finally stop reminding you of the ugly history that seems to hurt your feelings. Sadly for you, that won’t be going away.

Reader
Geoffrey Smith

Oh, as for “colorful names”, show me a World War II game called, I dunno… The Aryan Struggle…. and I will absolutely condemn that stupid ass name too.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Rees Racer

I don’t know…how about any of more than a dozen games with the name “Panzer” in the title, where the goal is to fight for the Nazis?

Reader
Geoffrey Smith

“Panzer” is an actual German word referring to tanks. Heck, it was an actual tank. A thing.

The actual analogy here would be, say, creating a World War II game game where you speed tanks around a track and call it “Master Race”. Hey, the “Race” is just referring to the actual race. Of course, in the context of World War II that has a very, very specific meaning.

Reader
Geoffrey Smith

No, it is not the opposite of whitewashing.

Firstly, the war was never, ever, about “rights”. It was about slavery. “Rights”, in this case, is a comfy euphemism for chattel slavery. That has always been the soft pedal instead of saying “Well, southern whites really wanted to own black people as property”.

And again, no. They were not fighting for state sovereignty. It was all about the fear of losing slavery. State sovereignty was the bromide used to avoid saying “slavery” (though of course they would say it often anyway). And it wasn’t “particularly the right to own slaves”, it was ENTIRELY the “right” to own slaves. The Confederate Constitution was basically a carbon copy of the US Constitution save for the protection of slavery.

You are correct though, this is Jr. High material regarding antebellum America. So why do I need to explain it?

Also, if you don’t think the Civil War has been whitewashed in America, I would LOVE to hear your explanation for Lost Cause writing, Beardian history, or even something as obvious as Gone With The Wind.

Reader
Fluffy Magical Unicorn

Pretty much this. I still have people regularly shout at me on the internet that the ‘civil war’ was never really about slavery and was instead about ‘economics’ (the economics of WHAT, I always ask) or how the South was simply reacting to ‘government overreach’ (overreach into WHAT? I ask).

We still don’t live in a country that has come to terms with what this part of our history actually means. To be fair, humans all over the world are bad at this. Look at Poland and it’s new ‘Poles totally didn’t take part in the holocaust’ laws.

Estranged
Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Estranged

DK, interesting. Your inference seems to be a given for me. However, many argue against that notion, thinking it negates the tragedy of the situation,