Hrrrm? Lovely. This is a prime example of real world politics getting in the way of, and diminishing the value of roleplaying, and RPGs in general. While we are sitting here at the poker table I'll see your raise, and up the ante by $10.
Shane made a deliberate decision to include a successful CSA in the Deadlands setting originally, and did so because it was in fact controversial and was a draw for players from the South where they could imagine and partake a world where what they believe in, and value remained. For the same reason that he chose to originally include that, I chose not to buy Deadlands. I remember visiting them at their booth at GenCon back in 2000-2001 just after their second edition release and shaking my head wondering where they would ever find enough support to succeed with a game that defended Slavery, and a successful South. Succeed they did though, and now that it is a success, he is turning his back on his original fans (note: not me though, because I never was a fan), and ditching them. So, bad move economically in the short term, but good move politically because dumping them fans will open up a much larger market of newer younger gamers with politically correct views.
My choice for Western gaming turned out to be Aces & Eights, which supports an alternative history where the North and the South went to war early, and the war ended in a draw. In Aces & Eights at the beginning of the campaign the Confederate states exist, but without Texas which is an Independent Republic, and an uneasy truce is in effect, and peace negotiations are underway between the North and the South. In real life, the Union won and the confederacy collapsed, but not nearly as quickly as people perceive, ...for example, Texas was Confederate and didn't actually rejoin the Union until 1909. The Union pretty much packed up and went home after the war, except for a wave of settlers known as carpetbaggers who moved south and set up shop in the vacuum that was the former Confederate states.
But here's a thing, even though the slaves were free in the South and for a time enjoyed their newfound freedoms, with a former slave actually becoming the Lieutenant Governor of Louisiana in 1868, Louisiana enjoyed having two more black governors until of course, the carpetbaggers from the North and the Southern Democrats together slowly introduced new laws into the former Southern States that promoted segregation and divided the population into two classes, master and servant, landowner and sharecropper, People who maintained all of their rights, and people who had very limited rights. This would progressively get worse until the 1920's and 1930's when the Klu Klux Clan (A Northen political organization founded in Indiana by the way) would openly terrorize people of color in the North, South, and West as well. This was only partially corrected after WWII and especially during the 1960's when the civil rights movement threatened to destabilize the entire Federal government, and the Fed had to step in to reiterate and fully support Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.
I'm glad Shane has grown in Wisdom and will no longer promote advocating for slavery in his games over other forms of governing. I'm sad though because he is reducing the places in the RPG world where one can experiment in a sandbox, and see actual results of implementing policies that for example promote racism in particular and slavery in general. RPGs are supposed to be a place where one can explore the finer details of ideologies and concepts, in order to better understand the implications of the concepts in practice, as well as to come up with better solutions for the future.
On a side note, I'm also Ill at ease with this current politically correct environment that is putting pressure on people to erase history, with them pulling down and removing statues across the South of famous civil war generals (who were tremendously great leaders, by the way) as well as Southern political leaders that promoted slavery because they are uncomfortable and believe having such statues in prominent places sends the wrong message to the public. If these politically correct but absolutely retarded liberals ultimately succeed in this goal of whitewashing history, there will be no evidence remaining that there was a problem with slavery in the first place. Something the southern apologists and pro-slavery people would like very much, I'm sure.
Finally, the actual politically correct solution would be to leave the existing monuments in place, and just put up even more statues and monuments in prominent places of more progressive southern leaders that promoted liberty, justice, and freedom for all, like for example a statue of Oscar Dunn, who was a former slave, and who became a Union Admiral by first stealing a Confederate warship, enlisting in the United States Navy, then using it as a flagship to capture or sink other Confederate warships, as well as to capture Confederate merchant ships. Then after the war, he became the First Lieutenant Governor of Louisiana.
Also, the politically correct liberals that are running around the south and are busy tearing down statues and defacing monuments are demonstrating that even though they won the war, and freedom for their peoples, they are not yet healed and united as a people. Is it that they can only truly feel free if they are allowed to continue hating on others, and openly demonstrating their hostility? This nation divided cannot stand, and yet, ...why are they are still divided and not taking their rightful place as leaders, but insist instead on being rebels and promoting unlawful and damaging actions to existing property, showing a disrespect for history, and inciting themselves and others to resort to violence. Lo, behold... the slave is now the master, see how he wields the whip! In doing so, ...even though he is now free,and can throw away the whip entirely, he chooses not to. Is he any better than his former master?