Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ty:
Could a person be an entrepenuer in an Alliance gov't?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahetc:
Your Michael Moore history is just too funny, Tash.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JOHNNYREB:
Really, if Alabama dropped off the map, would anyone know or care? Would anyone be willing to die to be sure that it didn't?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JOHNNYREB:


The North was torn. Should we fight for abolition, Should we fight to keep the Union together, Should we fight for "Northern rights," Should we fight to establish a centralized Republic, Should we fight to end the aristocracy that is growing in the South in the form of Cavaliers? Should we fight to avenge Fort Sumter? Even the least ambivalence would cause someone to decide that none of these things were worth dying for. Really, if Alabama dropped off the map, would anyone know or care? Would anyone be willing to die to be sure that it didn't? Has anyone actually met a cavalier, and how does that effect my salary at the factory?

The South, by contrast, knew why they were fighting. They were being invaded.

---

Quote:

---

When the south seceeded, it did so to declare independence and form its own government, by and for its own people. The union army invaded to disallow that to maintain the steady flow of agricultural products.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Drakon:
Thanks for your kind words. Now on to your exceptions.

First, I realize that this is a liberal (in the classic sense) representative republic. And agree with your complaint against pure democracy. I was trying to simplify it for an already long post. My point still holds. Even in a representative republic, the losing side does not up and dissolve the entire nation when it does not get its way.

---

Quote:

---

You claim that it was "greed, power and control" that motivated the Whigs and the Republicans in the mid 19th century. While I doubt that there were not some who were so motivated, there was also a desire to live up to the ideals we told everyone we were about. To prove that our nation could govern itself, without the imposition of an aristocracy. If the South had won, it would prove the experiment a failure, with dire consequences for the rest of history, not only to us, but to the rest of the world as well.

---

Quote:

---

While it may have been barbaric, judging from this far removed age, at the time I am sure they were veiwed differently. There is a tendency in history to decry our ancestors as barbarians, and complain about them taking actions we never would have. But we do not have the advantage of living in their times. We stand on their shoulders, not the other way around.

---

Quote:

---

As for dealings with Mexico, it should be pointed out in the case of Texas, that it was a nation of its own, and fought for its own independence from Mexico, before joining the Union. Granted many of the leaders of that rebellion were Americans prior to becoming Texans, but they still fought and died for their nation, just as our ancestors fought the British.

The rebellion of Texas and its subsequent annexation into the US 10 years later, led to the Mexican American war. It should be noted that there were several attempts to purchase the land from Mexico prior to this. Mexico rebuffed, there was a disagreement and it was settled by a force of arms.

It should also be noted that when the first Americans arrived in Texas, and California shortly after Mexico gained its independence, they were welcomed with open arms.

Additionally, the terms that concluded the war required the US to pay 15 million dollars for the land. This was with American troops in Mexico City, dictating the terms. Why, if the Americans were so greedy and controlling they did not annex the entire country?

As for California, it should be remembered that the Mexican American war was fought and they lost. And the territory was ceeded to the US in exchange for peace.

---

Quote:

---

And as far as the Indian wars are concern, you are going to have that kind of friction any time you have a clash of cultures so disparate as was evident between the native Americans and the European immigrants. The tools and technology, as well as numbers were on the side of the Europeans. It may be sad and regrettable, but that is life.

---

Quote:

---

As to the disposable immigrant laborers, it should be pointed out that these were NOT slaves. No one was pressing them into leaving China, or Europe. They came here because as bad as things were here, they were far worse back there. (This is also why we never had an aristocracy here, all the aristocrats stayed home.

---

Quote:

---

As to Canandain invasions, I am not sure which incidents you are talking about. The war of 1812, we were at war with England, of which Canada was still a province of England. As to the Oregon territory, it was jointly occupied by both American and Birtish explorers and settlers bu terms of an 181 treaty, and the boarder was peacably settled by treaty in 1846.

---

Quote:

---

Whether Lincoln's leaving of the garrison was a ploy or not, does not relieve the rebels of the responsibility for firing the first shot. It may have been a baited trap, but the rebels bit. That insured there would be no peaceful secession, not the leaving of the garrison, but the rebel attack on that garrison.

---

Quote:

---

The state's right thing is mostly a dodge. The issue was tarrifs, which the Constitution gave power to Congress to set. Slavery was also settled in the Constitution as well. The latter was perceived to be threatened, because the split between Whigs and Republicans was over the issue of slavery. And the growing fear that a national referendum on the issue would win in favor of the abolishionists. (With all the economic fallout for southern agriculture that would entail.)

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps it would have been better if the war was not fought. But it was, and it was the rebels who fired first. Here in the 21st century, it is very easy to look back at our ancestors and call them barbarians and such, but they did create the world we live in today. And it is a better world than it could have been.

---

Quote:

---

I disagree about the peaceful secession leading to a peaceful continent however. The disparate cultures between north and south, between east and west, would have led to friction, just as it led to friction between native and immigrant. Without a federal structure, I can see each nation state feuding with its neighbors, and I am not alone in that assesment, as the Federalist Papers will show.

---

Quote:

---

Plus, worse of all, there might not have been the purchase of Alaska from the Russians. There was a nightmare just waiting to happen.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Drakon:
Again, I think you are looking at it through 21st century western eyes. There are still cultures that think nothing of gassing an entire town, or feeding political prisoners into industrial plastics shredders. And after a while you realize that if you leave them alone, you can live. You cause problems, you die. People will choose life over death almost all the time.

There is no mention as to the tactics used by the Browncoats.

Wars suck, a lot of bad things happen in war.

---

Quote:

---

I don't think they are blood drinking baby killers either, at least not intentionally. My main objection to the Alliance is it won't work. No matter what the best intentions are, there is a severe information problem inherent in any command economy like that. Add to the fact you have an aristocracy, and people "knowing their place" it just furthers the blindness to problems as well as solutions, and makes the decision loop a lot longer.

But whether you starve because the Alliance forgot the food shipment, or intended to starve you out, is irrelevant. Bodies don't ask how they got cold.

---

Quote:

---

Posted by Drakon:
There is no mention as to the tactics used by the Browncoats.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Drakon:

Even in a representative republic, the losing side does not up and dissolve the entire nation when it does not get its way.

"my kind of stupid"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaythryn:

In Bushwhacked the Alliance commander mentions that he hasn't seen that type of torture (the survivor of the Revers attack split his tongue down the center) since the war. I doubt he’s talking about the Alliance, so there‘s a little hint about some Browncoat tactics. Just because most of the Browncoats we’ve seen have been pretty decent doesn’t mean they all were, or even most of them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by blackstar:
Well, unfortunate as it might seem, we don't know what may have incited the use of chem/bio weapons. The Browncoats may have easily used terrorist attacks against Alliance targets, thus the use of bioweapons. The target may have been an enemy camp, but one misguided shot into civvies... I hate to refer to the Browncoats as terrorists, but I think that it is far more likely that Indie troops would use such tactics than not.

Oh, my God! WHO'S FLYING THIS THING!!! Oh, right, that would be me...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ty:
WHEW!!!!
Browncoats, you have all outdone yourselves in your educated and well written responses to this thread. Many thanks and much appreciation to all who have participated.
...do you think this thread can be shut down now?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Archer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ty:
WHEW!!!!
Browncoats, you have all outdone yourselves in your educated and well written responses to this thread. Many thanks and much appreciation to all who have participated.
...do you think this thread can be shut down now?

---

Oh, certainly. If Drakon wishes to carry on the dialogue we've established, feel free to email me at archero@SoftHome.net

(Inside secret... discussions of the war lead to the discussions of the parallels of the series with the War of Northern Aggression and its attendant aftermath, and that always fills up a thread in a great gobbin' hurry.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahetc:

And so long as we're sure Alabama's not going anywhere.

Sarah

---

Quote:

---

Does anybody remember why we have a state called Maine? Because Missouri would have put too many slave holders in Senate. Texas entered the Union as a slave holding state, so California had to enter as a free state. The reason that the South "took their ball and went home," is that they couldn't get a fair shake.

---

Quote:

---

3) I don't really have much to add. I take it your are a Texican however.

---

Quote:

---

9) Rum, or vodka.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Drakon:

After a certain point, there is just too much death.

"my kind of stupid"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Veteran:
First I have to say that this thread has been very educational and a lot of fun to read. My hat is off to everyone especially Drakon and Archer. I'd like to sit quietly at that corner of the bar while you two discuss history and politics someday.

---