Re: [DL] Re: What Happened to the Union?

["Mr. Christopher McGlothlin, M.Ed." <sosentinel@adelphia.net>]

At 02:50 PM 5/6/2002, Nyarlathothep132@aol.com wrote:

(As an aside, I got to answer one of my wife's innocent queries with the 
words, "I'm discussuing the Civil War with Nyarlathothep." Priceless.)

>I'm afraid Great Britain, while a Naval superpower, was NOT a military one 
>in the strict land forces sense of the word. Stretched very thin all over 
>the place, it was mostly an "Keep the Indians happy" force rather than a 
>"Put up a fight against an organized military" force.

         This grossly underestimates not only the training, morale, and 
professionalism of the British Army, but mention the ferocity of its foes 
(Zulus, anyone?) as well.

>The CSA, even with Britain's help (or AK-47's, for that matter), could 
>never swamp the Union.

         The good news for the South is, they don't have to. Every day The 
War continues is a victory for the Confederacy, and every time the South 
exploits the Union's weaknesses and snatches up a bit of say, the American 
Southwest, is icing on the cake.
         Hmmmm, the South with AK-47s? That'd make a heckuva book....;-)

>And Britain depended economically on the Union markets and grain production.

         During the timeframe of the real War, this is beyond question, but 
just as the Empire found replacements for Southern cotton, by DL's time the 
Union is no longer quite as indispensible.
         I hear they grow a fair crop or two in Canada, for example.;-)

>There's even a strong pro-Union segment of British politics during the war.

         This is patently wrong. The British ruling aristocracy was 
overwhelmingly sympathethic towards the South, and the working classes 
howled for the return of Confederate cotton to busy the factories that were 
their livelihood.
         Let us also not forget that in DL the entire strata of British 
society is incensed over years of Union threats toward Canada and the St. 
Albans Incident.

>I really don't think it's plausible the British would actually *attack* 
>the Union. It'd be insanity.

         Wars do not always begin with rational means and/or goals 
involved. Indeed, national pride, religion and other "irrational" factors 
have caused at least as many wars as sheer Machiavellian power politics. 
Forgive me for being so blunt, but if all wars began because of rational 
causes, the World Trade Center towers would both still be standing today.

>  Support the CSA economically (gives the British industries a market, 
> after all), but military aid is right out- the British still have to 
> worry about France and Germany, not to mention Russia, as other powers in 
> Europe.

         All these countries are England's b!tches, because none of them 
can make a move outside the Continent the Royal Navy can't check. So as far 
as DL's concerned, they are non-factors. In addition, Napoleon III is on 
very good terms with the Confederacy himself.

>With the Union moving close to Germany and Russia (according to ToT, at 
>least), the British really can't afford World War 1877, no matter how much 
>the [redacted] would want it to happen.

         The British can't afford "World War 1877" any more than they 
could've afforded the Great War, and yet how many Tommies now lie in 
Flanders fields?



Deo Vindice,
Mr. Christopher L. McGlothlin, M.Ed.

Freelance RPG Writer At-Large
Member, Academy of Adventure Gaming Arts & Design
Moderator of the New Gamers Order Listserver
Southern by the Grace of God