You've undoubtedly heard about it.
You might have already seen this, if not, now's the time.
I think this is going to have all sorts of inspiration for tabletop gaming. -not to mention pc & video games.
Since tomorrow is President's Day here in the U.S. it seemed a good time to remember the president who had to handle not just a civil war and help bring an end to slavery*, but had to deal with all those blood suckers too.
Enjoy:
* Remember though, it's not as simple as most think: the U.S. civil war was not about slavery. It was not a goal of the war to bring an end to slavery: that wasn't even on the table. Many slavery states fought on the side of the Union. Lincoln's goal for the war was not to end slavery, it was just to prevent secession. Granted, one reason of secession was slavery states feared that the federal government might try to end slavery, which was something they considered a 'sate right': but it was one of many 'state's rights' issues that was behind it. In fact, the 'Emancipation Proclamation' didn't free a single slave by itself: it "freed" all slaves in rebel states: those states he had no power over, but did nothing to change the status of slaves in states loyal to the union: only when rebel territory fell into the hands of Union armies were any slaves freed as a result. If the Union wanted to free slaves why didn't it free those it did have power over (all of the slavery states that were fighting for the Union)? It seems it was designed more to create chaos in the Confederacy than to actually be about freeing slaves. Not until the war dragged on and on, and it became ever less popular did the goal of freeing slaves become tied to the purpose of the war: the enthusiasm of the abolitionist cause was tapped to bring renewed support for the war.
Slavery did end as a result of the war (leading to support for the 13th amendment) but it wasn't the reason for the war, nor a goal of the Union for the war when it began. It makes me wonder: if there had been a swift victory for the North, would slavery have even come to an end at that time? It doesn't seem very likely. It may be that only because the South made it so difficult to win, that it was such a long and brutal conflict, that it made it possible for abolitionism to gain more support and become needed for the morale of the North to continue the fight. In fighting so hard to preserve their 'right' to have slaves, did the South make it inevitable that Slavery would end? Interesting and ironic if so.
It'd be nice if it really was an altruistic effort to help people in need. I guess people prefer the noble sound of a war to end slavery, but it wasn't anything so simple as is usually the case in war & politics.
You might have already seen this, if not, now's the time.
I think this is going to have all sorts of inspiration for tabletop gaming. -not to mention pc & video games.
Since tomorrow is President's Day here in the U.S. it seemed a good time to remember the president who had to handle not just a civil war and help bring an end to slavery*, but had to deal with all those blood suckers too.
Enjoy:
* Remember though, it's not as simple as most think: the U.S. civil war was not about slavery. It was not a goal of the war to bring an end to slavery: that wasn't even on the table. Many slavery states fought on the side of the Union. Lincoln's goal for the war was not to end slavery, it was just to prevent secession. Granted, one reason of secession was slavery states feared that the federal government might try to end slavery, which was something they considered a 'sate right': but it was one of many 'state's rights' issues that was behind it. In fact, the 'Emancipation Proclamation' didn't free a single slave by itself: it "freed" all slaves in rebel states: those states he had no power over, but did nothing to change the status of slaves in states loyal to the union: only when rebel territory fell into the hands of Union armies were any slaves freed as a result. If the Union wanted to free slaves why didn't it free those it did have power over (all of the slavery states that were fighting for the Union)? It seems it was designed more to create chaos in the Confederacy than to actually be about freeing slaves. Not until the war dragged on and on, and it became ever less popular did the goal of freeing slaves become tied to the purpose of the war: the enthusiasm of the abolitionist cause was tapped to bring renewed support for the war.
Slavery did end as a result of the war (leading to support for the 13th amendment) but it wasn't the reason for the war, nor a goal of the Union for the war when it began. It makes me wonder: if there had been a swift victory for the North, would slavery have even come to an end at that time? It doesn't seem very likely. It may be that only because the South made it so difficult to win, that it was such a long and brutal conflict, that it made it possible for abolitionism to gain more support and become needed for the morale of the North to continue the fight. In fighting so hard to preserve their 'right' to have slaves, did the South make it inevitable that Slavery would end? Interesting and ironic if so.
It'd be nice if it really was an altruistic effort to help people in need. I guess people prefer the noble sound of a war to end slavery, but it wasn't anything so simple as is usually the case in war & politics.
Are you a patriot or a vampire?
ReplyDeleteI think this one will needed to be seen to believed, but does look awfully good!
I'm wondering if we'll see Bill Compton make an appearance ;)
ReplyDeleteSuccession? Uh? I hope you mean secession (withdraw from the union, break it apart).
ReplyDeleteMy mother read the book and liked it. I want to see the movie, I think they did a great job on the work.
ReplyDeleteI can also agree with you about the post about Able, he was very twisted by many in history as "freeing the slaves" and tied into the cival war. I got sent to the principal's office once for arguing with a teacher about some cival war facts. My mother is a history teacher also, so I grew up with this stuff....
My family fought on both sides, neither owned slaves or would even bother owning them. We was irish and we earned everything we did ourself. In some ways I wonder if the side that won was the right one....man politics are jacked over no matter what party you are in...everyone is a crook and no ethics anymore.
Did you see this?
http://2hourblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/high-moon-dead-reckoning.html
Someone is already making Abe Lincon Vampire Hunter Figs and Mark Twain Vampire hunters among others...
Styx: I think it's one of the most interesting event in US history, and over-simplified to the point of becoming a national mythology in a lot of ways.
ReplyDeleteI always thought it was a little hypocritical for a country that began as a rebellion against its government for the purpose to separate and form an independent country to then deny that same decision when part of the country wants to also separate and form their own country. I mean, if it was a good enough reason before to say 'we don't like the way you govern us, we have different ideas so we're on our own now" then why isn't it just as valid 80odd years later?
I suspect that is one of the reasons that slavery is put up as the 'reason' for the war. No question that is a moral high ground, but saying no you don't have the right to make your own country, when that's the origin of the country to begin with? Not so clear.
Personally, I think the US government should have let them make their own country, and *then* inform that if they continue the abuse of human rights known as slavery, which no one has any right to do (regardless of writing laws on paper) that we'd invade to set it right if it must be done. Idealistic and impractical maybe, but that's my instinct.
And those minis are awesome!
I can't really picture Samuel Clemens being a cross-bearing undead turner considering his stance in religion. Still, very fun minis!
Yes, Thanks for the catch: I think I'd typed it 'sucession' (U instead of an e) and spell check's first suggestion I clicked before really looking at it. I suppose if they had won the war it would have ended up being a succession though.
ReplyDelete--and I just re-did this reply again after noticing another typo within the reply. Between my touch of dyslexia and poor typing skills it's a wonder I get anything intelligible out here at all!