From Numbskull:
On the eve of the Civil War, the country’s fate lies in doubt as its leaders make their arguments and its people make their decision. Slavery, states’ rights, and the shadow of war are at stake as you seek to have your candidate win the Presidency and save the nation.
Divided Republic is a card driven two to four player game representing the last calm before the storm that was to become the American Civil War. Players represent the four
major parties (Constitutional Unionists, Northern Democrats, Republicans, and Southern Democrats) and attempt to win the presidency by defeating their opponents with dirty tricks, platform speeches, and the manipulation of key historical events. All the while, President Buchanan interferes, radicals riot, and the country continues the downward spiral toward civil war. If one party wins the election history may well change. Nevertheless, there is always the chance that the population of South Carolina will finally explode into open rebellion and secede, ending the game, at which point everyone loses!
Great idea for a game! Too bad you don’t know your XBOX from your IPAD about history.
Anyone who says, with a straight face, that the South fought for states rights, is about as goofy as someone who says Hitler fought for the Jews. Its true — we have been told for generations that the South respected states rights. But the same people that told us that, told us Robert E Lee freed his slaves, when in his own account books, we now know he paid his highest bounties for the arrest and torture of light skinned slave girls, long after he supposedly “freed ” them. In fact, it’s a very real possibility Lee sold his light skinned slave girls, once his hunters found them, and after he personally took part in their torture.
Facts are stubborn thingss — and its a good thing we have them. Lee’s personal papers, for example, written in his own handwritting, passed down by his family.
Regarding states rights — I suggest you find out the real story about that too — the facts. Facts like the SSouth promised war — loudly and proudly — if Kansas was allowed any states rights. In a very real sense, the Civil War was fought to oppress and terrorize new states from exerising rights. Kansas, for example had just voted 98% to 2% to keep slavery out forever.
Within a week of that vote, Southern leaders issued Five Ultimatum, all of them — ALL OF THEM — about the spread of slavery, and specifically into Kansas.
What’s wrong with this picture? IF states rights mattered — the Southern leaders would have said “Oh, excuse us, carry on, you don’t want slaves, okay fine”.
Instead, the South actually promised WAR — W A R — if slavery was not spread.
Why have we been given such goofy narratives of Civil War and slavery? Because for 150 years, frankly, the South has been a big cry baby, inisisting to edit virtually ALL text books, and pretty much writing history in a way that glosses over, or completely covers up, the really vile stuff.
I believed our text books — for 55 years. Then I started to read Southern newspapers, Southern books, Southern speeches, from that era. Not the nonsense from later — I am talking about things written then BY Southern leaders themselves. No filter, no spin, no BS.
That’s the only way to understand slavery, states rights, the Civil War, and get the real dirt on men like Lee who were obsessed with capture and torture of light skinned girls. Really.
I don’t know if I can put a link here, but google Southern Ultimatums, to find out more about South’s loud and proud demand that slavery be spread AGAINST states rights, and promised to attack, if the Ultimatum was not obeyed.
I’m not sure if your reference, at the beginning of your comment, of “you” is directed toward me or the reader. I’d hope you don’t imply I don’t know my history as I’m pretty well versed in the Civil War and mentioned (on one of our recent shows) the war was about and always will have been about slavery, regardless of what revisionist historians might want you to believe. As far as Lee’s involvement in torture, I can’t say I’m familiar with those accusations but I do understand he was no great personal emancipator himself.