Red Dead Redemption 2

[CT Phipps]

Perhaps, we can't really be sure if he was a fervent abolitionist or merely using it to gain the support of a loud minority that had a lot of influence in certain states. Personally I believe he was an abolitionist but had no intention in ending slavery in the South, merely making ex-slaves in the north more secure and safe from bounty hunters. Don't quote me on it.

My general opinion was Lincoln was an abolitionist but was running with the idea of just getting away with as much as he could versus any belief he'd actually remove slavery. I imagine had the South been less trigger happy, they would have had slavery limited to existing states as new states would all be anti-slavery with a couple of exceptions.

Actually, slavery was immensely profitable. The South produced almost 75% of US exports in the year 1860, a large part of it due to slave labour. It was big, it was profitable and it made a select few immensely rich.

I meant in the fact it was a system which kept all the money in a tiny minority's hands and prevented the middle class from developing the way an industrialized economy would.

Only a small minority owned slaves, and it wasn't slavery but racism that had cultural inertia. The north was just as racist, it merely didn't support slavery.

I'm not welcome in the "Go North" anti-Southern circles anymore than I am in Southern apologetia ones due to the fact I point out the Union freed slaves and then went on to murder the Native American en masse.

As for my own history, it basically resembles this article by a website too liberal for me.

http://www.vox.com/first-person/2016/9/30/13090100/confederacy-myths-lost-cause

 

[Dr Fallout]

My general opinion was Lincoln was an abolitionist but was running with the idea of just getting away with as much as he could versus any belief he'd actually remove slavery. I imagine had the South been less trigger happy, they would have had slavery limited to existing states as new states would all be anti-slavery with a couple of exceptions.

Possibly, that is quite conservative and pretty safe. As long as he didn't support the criminal actions of the abolitionists I imagine there would be a united US.

I meant in the fact it was a system which kept all the money in a tiny minority's hands and prevented the middle class from developing the way an industrialized economy would.

Ah I see, yeah in that regard it's shit but then again, it doesn't really face that problem if it's part of the US, at the very least it would be delayed by industrialization in the north.

I'm not welcome in the "Go North" anti-Southern circles anymore than I am in Southern apologetia ones due to the fact I point out the Union freed slaves and then went on to murder the Native American en masse.

As for my own history, it basically resembles this article by a website too liberal for me.

http://www.vox.com/first-person/2016/9/30/13090100/confederacy-myths-lost-cause

Ah yes, the Native American genocide. Something Hitler admired and wanted to use in Eastern Europe.
Sadly, I can't open the website on this computer. Will try at home.

 

[Ragemage]

Ultimately, it is my hope that Fallout: New Orleans will have the option of shooting Post-Nuke slaver plantation owners and freeing slaves because I was greatly impressed by the Paradise Falls and Lincoln missions of Fallout 3 but deeply underwhelmed by the handling of freeing slaves/The Railroad/The Institute in Fallout 4. Like everything else in the game, it was underwhelming and underbaked.

No thanks. Bethesda couldn't even handle those quests well. I'll also point out you get far better rewards for helping Paradise Falls instead of killing them which makes your point moot. And Lincoln mission? You mean the one where you help the random slaves trapped at a memorial fight off a tiny group of slavers? Yeah, that was realllll innovative stuff. Emil should get an Emmy for that. Besides, I don't want Bethesda touching Fallout anymore. It was Obsidian's idea to make Fallout: New Orleans in the first place.

It could be educational AND fun.

Not really. I wouldn't trust Rockstar with simulating history after the sloppiness that is LA Noire. They are best when they simply make things go boom, not try to be serious. GTA V's story was a complete flop because they went with a serious route for whatever reason (besides Trevor).

And yes, I would rather shoot at Southern apologist slavers and slave owners than say they weren't so bad in my escapist fiction.

So you would want to shoot me simply for defending my ancestors. Nice. By that logic we should be allowed to shoot Ulysses S. Grant too considering he had slaves too. Oh oh oh, how about we get to shoot Sherman because he burnt down half of Georgia, which was basically just innocent civilians being slaughtered and had nothing to do with the soldiers? No, of course not, you only want to see pro-Union things because it fits with your worldview. Disgusting. How would you like it if I said we should shoot all carpetbaggers and all Union sympathizers?

I had a discussion with a fellow scholar about Robert E. Lee about the subject. Specifically the old canard about Robert E. Lee fighting for Virginia as his noble-esque motivation. I pointed out that the system he chose to protect cannot be so easily handwaved away or his treason as either way he was killing citizens of the United States. I can actually name two Confederate generals who called for the abolition of slavery to win the war but that does not mean the system of slavery was one which the white soldiers were fighting for was not one which they agreed upon and championed--simply again because that WAS the basis of the Southern way of life.

Aw, you're calling yourself a scholar. You're so adorable. And now you're stepping onto thin ice. First of all, Robert E. Lee let his slaves be free during the war BEFORE the Emancipation Proclamation. He was not some sort of mustache twirling plantation owner with thousands of slaves at his beckoning call. Second of all, it's called the War of Northern Aggression for a reason. When South Carolina seceded, they asked for Fort Sumter to be abandoned, and Lincoln flatly refused. Of course as South Carolina was now its own independent nation, the Union occupation was seen as a threat. It's not clear who fired the first shot, but if Lincoln had simply agreed and abandoned the fort as South Carolina asked, the Battle of Fort Sumter would not have happened. Seceding from the Union was perfectly allowed at the time, it wasn't till afterwards that an Amendment was added to the Constitution to prevent states from seceding ever again. So no, Robert E. Lee was not treasonous. He fought for the Confederacy with dignity and honor. Even when his men finally reached the northern state of Pennsylvania, he told his men not to burn down any crops or loot any farms under penalty of death, unlike Sherman and McClellan who let their troops run wild and kill many Southern civilians thanks to Grant's tactic of "Total War" whereupon civilians on the "enemy" side were to be treated as enemy soldiers. If anything he lost far more men to invading Unioners than he killed with his brigade. Also since you're refusing to provide sources at this point, I will no longer be linking them.

 

[CT Phipps]

Possibly, that is quite conservative and pretty safe. As long as he didn't support the criminal actions of the abolitionists I imagine there would be a united US.

I admit to favoring the picture of Harriet Tubman on the 20 dollar bill to be one holding a gun and the words, "Come with me if you want to live" underneath it.

Compromise could have averted the Civil War but it was compromise which CREATED the Civil War.

Ah yes, the Native American genocide. Something Hitler admired and wanted to use in Eastern Europe.
Sadly, I can't open the website on this computer. Will try at home.

Ayup.

 

[CT Phipps]

No thanks. Bethesda couldn't even handle those quests well. I'll also point out you get far better rewards for helping Paradise Falls instead of killing them which makes your point moot. And Lincoln mission? You mean the one where you help the random slaves trapped at a memorial fight off a tiny group of slavers? Yeah, that was realllll innovative stuff. Emil should get an Emmy for that. Besides, I don't want Bethesda touching Fallout anymore. It was Obsidian's idea to make Fallout: New Orleans in the first place.

No, I'm hoping Obsidian does it.

Not really. I wouldn't trust Rockstar with simulating history after the sloppiness that is LA Noire. They are best when they simply make things go boom, not try to be serious. GTA V's story was a complete flop because they went with a serious route for whatever reason (besides Trevor).

Oh, I 100% agree. I actually never finished LA Noire simply because the "Japan was justified in attacking Pearl Harbor because we took their oil away" line.

What complete utter bullshit.

So you would want to shoot me simply for defending my ancestors.

Are you a video game character?

Also, do your ancestors need defending?

This is about a bunch of embodiment of ideas and pixels. I'd like to point out my ancestors were Scottish Lowlanders who supported England to suppress Scotland. That doesn't mean I need to state they were such good folk that were just misunderstood.

No, like many of my relatives, I know they're assholes.

Successful ones too.

Nice. By that logic we should be allowed to shoot Ulysses S. Grant too considering he had slaves too. Oh oh oh, how about we get to shoot Sherman because he burnt down half of Georgia, which was basically just innocent civilians being slaughtered and had nothing to do with the soldiers? No, of course not, you only want to see pro-Union things because it fits with your worldview. Disgusting. How would you like it if I said we should shoot all carpetbaggers and all Union sympathizers?

You're under the weird impression I have a rosy view of history and its complexities.

Aw, you're calling yourself a scholar. You're so adorable. And now you're stepping onto thin ice. First of all, Robert E. Lee let his slaves be free during the war BEFORE the Emancipation Proclamation. He was not some sort of mustache twirling plantation owner with thousands of slaves at his beckoning call. Second of all, it's called the War of Northern Aggression for a reason. When South Carolina seceded, they asked for Fort Sumter to be abandoned, and Lincoln flatly refused. Of course as South Carolina was now its own independent nation, the Union occupation was seen as a threat. It's not clear who fired the first shot, but if Lincoln had simply agreed and abandoned the fort as South Carolina asked, the Battle of Fort Sumter would not have happened. Seceding from the Union was perfectly allowed at the time, it wasn't till afterwards that an Amendment was added to the Constitution to prevent states from seceding ever again. So no, Robert E. Lee was not treasonous. He fought for the Confederacy with dignity and honor. Even when his men finally reached the northern state of Pennsylvania, he told his men not to burn down any crops or loot any farms under penalty of death, unlike Sherman and McClellan who let their troops run wild and kill many Southern civilians thanks to Grant's tactic of "Total War" whereupon civilians on the "enemy" side were to be treated as enemy soldiers. If anything he lost far more men to invading Unioners than he killed with his brigade. Also since you're refusing to provide sources at this point, I will no longer be linking them.

Before I read this wall of text, Lee was one of those two generals I mentioned. The letter was something akin to "I believe the natural order of things to be the Negro subordinate to the White Man but given our situation, it should be considered an action."

Even so, that doesn't forgive the Norris case or the fact Lee freeing his slaves is undermined by the horror of his slave hunts.

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/st...orth-a-military-disgrace/stories/201306300221

 

[Vergil]

I admit to favoring the picture of Harriet Tubman on the 20 dollar bill to be one holding a gun and the words, "Come with me if you want to live" underneath it.

I want reddit to leave.

 

[a721402]

Guess this pet shop owner will never replace the dead parrot with a living one.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Oh, I 100% agree. I actually never finished LA Noire simply because the "Japan was justified in attacking Pearl Harbor because we took their oil away" line.

What complete utter bullshit.

Actually that's a legitimate reason...

 

[CT Phipps]

With the permission of my fellow posters, I'm just going to talk about what I want from the game now.

* More Red Dead Redemption
* Free Red Dead Revolver for Xbox One with it.
* A character like Bonnie MacFarland

 

[Deleted member 93956]

You only cherry picked the very first paragraph and just happened to say positive things about it while completely ignoring everything else I had to say in favor of looking pretty. Good job. Once again, even though you'll simply choose to ignore this too, you can't say things like "Kill all Confederates" and then go tralalaing away like nothing's wrong and you're being an agreeable respectable person. No no no, I won't let you insult my ancestors that way and let people think you're some nice person because you blatantly throw out entire paragraphs and pick up specific things you agree with to talk about so people will be complacent and not argue with you anymore.

I also just remembered from Red Dead Redemption, the regular game, one part I liked a lot was how in the end

Spoiler

you become Marston's son and avenge your father.

I'd really like to see more games with a sort of "family-tree" dynamic like in Jojo's Bizarre Adventure, where every season it's a different descendant of the original fighting the bad guy instead of being the same person. I would love to be able to sire a child at one point and then be able to play as said child later on, then keep going like that, making a whole dynasty of characters. It's been done before in games like Harvest Moon and Fire Emblem, I don't see why it couldn't happen here.

And Rogue Legacy! Although you die so much that you are more like a family of rabbits.

 

[Ragemage]

No, I'm hoping Obsidian does it.

Too bad they'll never get the opportunity.

Are you a video game character?

Also, do your ancestors need defending?

Considering how you've been dodgily slipping in and out of talking about like this is about a video game all while blatantly saying you hate your ancestry, yes.

This is about a bunch of embodiment of ideas and pixels. I'd like to point out my ancestors were Scottish Lowlanders who supported England to suppress Scotland. That doesn't mean I need to state they were such good folk that were just misunderstood.

Never said my specific ancestors were entirely good people. Not once. However I do need to state that you being a nincompoop about their position and how they thought (you stating that all white soldiers in the war apparently had high ambitions of rising to be plantation masters someday) and acting like the Union doesn't need to be shot on sight as well (multiple cases of Union soldiers raping Southern women, the burning of Georgia, Ulysses S. Grant owning slaves and only letting them go years later)

You're under the weird impression I have a rosy view of history and its complexities.

Oh no, I'm just under the impression you're a self-hating Union apologist that doesn't know a damn thing about the Southern position.

Regardless, this sort of #triggering shit is the reason I don't want Rockstar being the one to make a Civil War game, because I know goddamn well they would make it completely about being entirely pro-Union because having anything pro-Confederacy isn't "hip with the kids". When the Union was just as bad if not worse than the Confederacy. There has pretty much never been a pro-South video game and I know this certainly won't be the first one, which is exactly why I don't want them approaching the topic because they'll do it poorly in a way that offends me, most likely by making all Confederate veterans/sympathizers look like racist, mysoginistic, and whatever buzzword of the day you can think of assholes. They won't do anything to try and make you sympathize with the Confederacy because Rockstar has never been pro-South. (just look at Redneck ville in San Andreas and GTA V) So basically it'll be another "OH THE UNION WAS ENTIRELY RIGHT AND DID NOTHING WRONG EVER" game while the Confederacy gets the shaft. Again. Yaaaawn. Boring and predictable.[/QUOTE]

 

[CT Phipps]

Well to clarify, Redmage, I think the Confederacy was a nation founded for the explicit purpose of oppressing a minority in an irredeemable way.

And I think the Union committed unforgivable genocide and conquest literally as soon as the Civil War was over.

Union apologist.

 

[Vergil]

Well to clarify, Redmage, I think the Confederacy was a nation founded for the explicit purpose of oppressing a minority in an irredeemable way.

He knows, he just got done explaining why that's wrong.

 

[CT Phipps]

He knows, he just got done explaining why that's wrong.

Do I need to repost the Declarations of Independence? :-p

But like I said, I'm done talking about the Confederacy. Good arguments folk. I appreciate you all taking the time out of your days to discuss the issue. It's been most informative and I felt everyone learned a lot.

:thumbs up:

 

[Vergil]

Do I need to repost the Declarations of Independence? :-p

Do I need to repost the last 2 pages? :-p

It's been most informative and I felt everyone learned a lot.

Yea, hopefully you did "scholar".

 

[CT Phipps]

Do I need to repost the last 2 pages? :-p

All of which pretty much did nothing to refute it was about slavery.

:thumbs up:

 

[CT Phipps]

Oooo, trailer is up.

 

[joevonzombie]

Looks like another Rockstar game.

 

[Vergil]

All of which pretty much did nothing to refute it was about slavery.

Ragemage and Dr Fallout both posted yuge parapgraphs on the topic that totally blew your "oy vey all them confederates wanted to own slaves" as you continually moved the goalposts trying to distance yourself from your shitty statement. Either you're just convientiantly ignoring what they said right now or I really think you should look into getting some of this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension

Now as far as that trailer goes, Im far beyond Rockstar's signature overly scripted "cinematic" trailers impressing me to be honest.

 

[CT Phipps]

Ragemage and Dr Fallout both posted yuge parapgraphs on the topic that totally blew your "oy vey all them confederates wanted to own slaves" as you continually moved the goalposts trying to distance yourself from your shitty statement. Either you're just convientiantly ignoring what they said right now or I really think you should look into getting some of this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension

*sigh*

Their position was one which was that "most Southerners didn't own slaves therefore they didn't have a vested interest in slavery" and "the journals of the Confederates didn't mention slavery as a reason they fought." I argued that slavery was such an inherent part of the system that it didn't need to be mentioned as it was self-evident which nobody bothered to rebuttal.

BUT since you actually seriously seem to feel the need this is an argument, here we go.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/why-non-slaveholding.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/07/AR2011010706547.html

https://www.quora.com/If-the-majori...s-why-did-they-fight-a-war-to-protect-slavery

The first group of southerners to secede from the Union, and then go to war against the Union (it was their choice, they fired the first shots) were the people of South Carolina, who fired on the Union first on 9 January 1861 when the Star of the West attempted to bring supplies to Fort Sumter, and then again on 12 April 1861 in a sustained bombardment that led to surrender of the fort.

In this particularly aggressive southern state, first in line to secede, first in line to fight, and an aggressive rabble-rouser for all the others, 46% of all free families owned slaves.

1860 Census Results

So if we reasonably assume that the slave owning families were a bit more motivated to send their boys to the front lines to defend the family wealth, and upholding the family martial tradition, then the first group of southerners to take up arms in insurrection were most certainly in the majority slave-holders!

Another fact that is usually down-played is just how very common slave owning was across the Deep South. Overall all, 37% of all free families in the Deep South owned slaves and (after West Virginia seceded from the CSA) it was 35% for the entire Confederacy. So it was extremely common and slave holding volunteers easy to come by.

Then in April 1862, a year ahead of the Union, the Confederacy instituted the draft. After that point it was not a matter of volunteering, southern boys were forced to fight, slave-holder or not (owners of 20 or more slaves actually got draft exemptions, it was later dropped to only 15 slaves). The Union only began drafting in March 1863, up to that time only the South lacked sufficient volunteers.

Seriously, this bullshit about the idea of a tiny minority being involved in the slave system is eye-rolling as no, only a tiny minority lived and owned plantation. However, plenty of Southerners actually owned slaves. It was the equivalent of owning an extra car and plenty of Americans do that.