Playing at War: Identity and Memory in Civil War Video Games

Playing at War: Identity and Memory in Civil War Video Games edited by Patrick A. Lewis and James Hill (Welborn III. Baton Rouge. LSU Press, 2024)

This collection of fifteen scholarly essays examining Civil War-era video games caught my eye as I was (and still am) an avid player of Civil War computer games on the PC.

The Civil War has long been retold through letters, monuments, fiction, film, and re-enactments. From these grew video games ranging from late-1980s tactical titles (Gettysburg: The Turning Point, Decisive Battles of the American Civil War, North & South – an arcade style game that was a particular childhood favourite of mine) and 1990s series (John Tiller’s Battleground, Sierra’s Robert E. Lee: Civil War General, Sid Meier’s Gettysburg! and Antietam!) to later strategy games (Forge of Freedom, Ultimate General: Civil War, Grand Tactician – which I still play regularly today) and first-person shooters (The History Channel: Civil War – A Nation Divided, War of Rights).

The volume also treats related titles such as The Oregon Trail, Freedom!, and Red Dead Redemption 2.

The essay authors apply critical memory studies to show how these games reflect and shape public understandings of the era, including martial identity, race, slavery, gender, and colonialism. They all, on the whole, seem to expect that players take these games seriously and either assume or are guided to believe these games are an accurate representation of the Civil War in its totality. I am not entirely convinced that I accept that premise. Nonetheless, there are some interesting discussions in the essays.

Katherine L. Brackett’s essay, for example, analyses how manuals for Gettysburg! and Robert E. Lee: Civil War General appealed to emotion over strict accuracy. There is a lot of discussion in various essays of the Lost Cause ideology and an ‘even handed’ approach in some games. Other chapters address the erasure of United States Coloured Troops and Indigenous perspectives in almost all the games referenced.

It’s safe to say the overarching theme throughout most of the essays is a seam of either disapproval or disappointment that Civil War computer games have not done enough to centre the roles of African-American troops, indigenous peoples and women. Which is ironic in that one of essays deals in detail with the experience of MECC (makers of the educational Oregon Trail) when they tried to create just such an educational game for schools. It was called Freedom and players took on the role of a runaway slave in the Antebellum South trying to escape bondage via the Underground Railroad and reach freedom in the North or Canada. MECC thought they were sensitive in developing the game and relied heavily on the input of African-American reenactors of the Underground Railroad. The backlash was quick, with MECC being accused of ‘nintendo-izing’ slavery and presenting offensive imagery and slang to schools. As much as the essayists wish for better representation in computer games, those that have genuinely and sincerely tried have been sorely punished and ultimately games are created for commercial returns.

On the whole I felt the essayists were missing the role of these games as a gateway through which children and young adults could be inspired to an interest in the Civil War and encouraged to seek out more information. The treatment of these games as the total experience and exposure of children to the Civil War perhaps surprisingly left most the essayists with a bad taste. Perhaps they should play Civil War games a little bit more and worry a little bit less…

Ryan Diamond