How to Help Students Role-Play Characters They Disagree With
"I don't want to be a Plantation Owner. That makes me feel like I'm agreeing with slavery."
Sarah's concern during our Civil War simulation wasn't just about discomfort. It was about moral identity. She wanted to know how she could role-play a character whose beliefs she found wrong without feeling like she was betraying her own values.
This is one of the most delicate challenges in teaching history through simulation. How do you help students understand perspectives they find morally wrong? How do you maintain engagement when students actively disagree with their assigned roles?
After this week's Civil War experiences, I've learned some strategies that help students navigate this difficult terrain.
The Foundation: Separating Analysis from Agreement
The first step is helping students understand that analyzing a perspective doesn't mean accepting it as correct. I tell my students: "Historians study how people thought, not just what was right and wrong. Understanding why people made bad choices helps us recognize similar patterns today."
During our first day of the Civil War simulation, we had this conversation:
Me: "Who can tell me the difference between understanding and agreeing?"
Emma: "Understanding means you know why someone did something. Agreeing means you think they should have done it."
Marcus: "Like, I can understand why someone might steal food if they're hungry, but that doesn't mean I think stealing is okay."
This distinction gave students permission to engage with Confederate perspectives analytically without feeling like they were endorsing slavery or secession.
Strategy 1: Frame Roles as Historical Investigation
Instead of asking students to "be" Confederate leaders, I frame their roles as historical investigators. Their job isn't to defend the Confederacy but to understand how these systems worked and why people participated in them.
I changed my language from "You are Plantation Owners" to "You're studying what life was like for Plantation Owners and the decisions they faced."
This subtle shift made a huge difference. Students felt like they were examining history rather than defending it.
Strategy 2: Build in Reflection Moments
Throughout the simulation, I create structured opportunities for students to step out of their roles and reflect on what they're learning. After each game turn, we have a brief discussion where students can share their thoughts and feelings.
Questions I ask during these reflection moments:
"What surprised you about the choices your role faced?"
"What made you uncomfortable about this turn?"
"How do you think enslaved people would have felt about the decisions your group just made?"
"What could people in this position have done differently?"
These reflection breaks prevent students from becoming too immersed in perspectives that conflict with their values. They maintain the analytical distance necessary for historical thinking.
Strategy 3: Include Counter-Perspectives
Even though the Civil War simulation focuses on Confederate Florida, I make sure students encounter other perspectives throughout. When we read The Florida Gazette, we discuss how Union supporters or enslaved people would have interpreted the same events differently.
After reading about the Skirmish at the Brick Church on Monday, I asked: "How would this battle look different if we were reading about it from a Union newspaper? What about from the perspective of enslaved people hoping the Union would win?"
Jordan said: "The Union newspaper would probably celebrate any Confederate losses. And enslaved people would be hoping the Union soldiers got closer because that might mean freedom."
These counter-narratives keep students grounded in the broader moral context even while they're playing Confederate roles.
Strategy 4: Focus on Complexity, Not Villains
Rather than presenting Confederate leaders as simply "bad people," I help students understand the complex factors that led ordinary individuals to support unjust systems. This doesn't excuse their choices, but it helps students develop more sophisticated historical thinking.
When discussing why Florida seceded, we explored multiple factors: the economy depended on slavery, people worried about the federal government having too much power, loyalty to the South, and political pressure. Students could see how people with different reasons all ended up supporting the same system.
Kai said: "I bet some soldiers didn't even think much about slavery. They just thought they were protecting Florida from the North."
This led to a powerful discussion about how people can participate in injustice without fully understanding or agreeing with all aspects of the system they're supporting.
Strategy 5: Connect to Present-Day Moral Questions
The most powerful moments came when students connected Civil War moral dilemmas to modern situations. These connections helped them see why studying difficult history matters.
After Tuesday's lesson on the Fugitive Slaves event, Zoe asked: "Do people today ever follow rules they know are wrong just because it's the law?"
That question opened up discussions about how people deal with hard choices in any time period. Students weren't just learning about the 1860s anymore—they were learning to think about right and wrong in complicated situations.
What Not to Do
Through trial and error, I've also learned what doesn't work:
Don't avoid the discomfort. Trying to make students feel completely comfortable with their roles would require sanitizing the history. The discomfort is part of the learning.
Don't lecture about right and wrong. Students already know slavery was wrong. They don't need me to tell them. What they need is help processing how to engage with historical actors who supported it.
Don't force students to defend indefensible positions. There's a difference between understanding Confederate motivations and arguing that secession was justified. I never ask students to make moral arguments for slavery or Confederate victory.
Don't let the simulation become detached from reality. The game mechanics can make it easy to forget we're dealing with real human suffering. I regularly bring students back to the human costs of the decisions being simulated.
The Payoff
By Thursday, something remarkable had happened. Students were engaging deeply with the simulation while maintaining clear moral perspectives. They could analyze Confederate decision-making without identifying with Confederate goals.
Miguel, who started the week asking "Wait, we're the bad guys now?", said this by Thursday: "I understand why soldiers thought they were protecting their homes. That doesn't make slavery okay, but it helps me see why the war was so hard."
That's exactly the kind of thinking we're aiming for—understanding multiple perspectives while knowing what was right and wrong.
Moving Forward
Next week, we'll continue the Civil War simulation with the Battle of Olustee and learn more about how the war affected Florida. Students now have the tools to think about these difficult topics carefully.
They've learned that studying history means dealing with hard questions, that understanding doesn't equal agreement, and that learning about past wrongs helps us recognize similar problems today.
Most importantly, they've discovered they can handle difficult moral questions without losing themselves in the process.
Ready to help your students develop sophisticated moral reasoning through historically accurate simulation? The Civil War simulation includes built-in reflection tools and discussion guides that help students navigate difficult historical perspectives.
