by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .38394041424344. . .240241»

Confederation the south wrote:They only supported us to take a whack at the union and even made a deal that if the south won a major strategic victory (Gettysburg) they would join in the war

They never made that deal, it was hoped for, but the South never won any grand strategic victories.

Confederation the south

Masonwoods wrote:They never made that deal, it was hoped for, but the South never won any grand strategic victories.

The deal was made by Judah p Benjamin but the south never did win a strategic victory

Confederation the south wrote:The deal was made by Judah p Benjamin but the south never did win a strategic victory

I doubt that. Britain was dependent on American food shipments, which Lincoln promised to cut off if they declared war. It had very little to gain for so much risk. France would never move without British support, so I doubt they made that deal as well.

I’m sure your “source” says otherwise.

Confederation the south

Masonwoods wrote:

I doubt that. Britain was dependent on American food shipments, which Lincoln promised to cut off if they declared war. It had very little to gain for so much risk. France would never move without British support, so I doubt they made that deal as well. 

I’m sure your “source” says otherwise.

This is something from your sources the brits had a large textile industry that depended on southern cotton and with the anaconda plan made the people working in these mills began to starve the same for France. only with France they were also trying to install a Mexican regime under an Austrian royal

Confederation the south wrote:This something from your sources the brits had a large textile industry that depended on southern cotton and with the anaconda plan made the people working in these mills began to starve the same for France. only with France they were also trying to install a Mexican regime under an Austrian royal

You’re right, Britain did require southern cotton. However, once the war started they switched to Indian cotton which was about the same price but a more stable supply, being under British control.

Confederation the south

Masonwoods wrote:

You’re right, Britain did require southern cotton. However, once the war started they switched to Indian cotton which was about the same price but a more stable supply, being under British control.

They didn't have a complete substitute to southern cotton

Confederation the south wrote:They didn't have a complete substitute to southern cotton

Yes they did, it’s called Indian cotton. The majority of British factories had switched over completely by 1863. Virtually all of them by 1865.

Confederation the south

Masonwoods wrote:
Yes they did, it’s called Indian cotton. The majority of British factories had switched over completely by 1863. Virtually all of them by 1865.

But not right away see right away it was in there best interest to enter the war

Confederation the south wrote:But not right away see right away it was in there best interest to enter the war

Except they were still entirely dependent on imports of food from Union territories.

Piss off the confederacy? You lose an easily replaceable economic resource.

Piss of the Union? You lose a necessary resource for your own survival.

Recession while alive versus prosperity with food shortages? I know which deal I’d make.

Confederation the south

Masonwoods wrote:

Except they were still entirely dependent on imports of food from Union territories.

Piss off the confederacy? You lose an easily replaceable economic resource.

Piss of the Union? You lose a necessary resource for your own survival.

Recession while alive versus prosperity with food shortages? I know which deal I’d make.

But not what they'd make

Post self-deleted by Confederation the south.

Masonwoods wrote:Nah, I’m happy the South lost, as are most Germans about Germany losing.

are you a Actual Southerner or are you mixed with Carpetbagger ? I Don't Believe any German is Happy that their grandpa got shot by an American Bullet. if you can find a German who's Father or Grandfather was Killed by the "Allies" and is actually Happy about it then you should start searching the Pot of Gold at the end of the Rainbow.

Masonwoods wrote:The sheer irony of you complaining about the establishment winning when it was the incumbent party (Democrats) and the southern aristocracy which started the war. The “establishment” lost the Civil War.

As for your modern war hypothesis, the idea of a unified New York versus a unified Georgia type war is never going to happen again. Southern and Northern cities alike overwhelmingly vote Democratic and Southern and Northern rural areas overwhelmingly vote Republican. The idea of a regional civil war is dead, it’d be urban versus rural.

1 : the Democrats and Republican Parties are two Wings of the same Mangey Bird. the Aristocrats in the South had a disagreement with the Aristocrats in the North, so both sides sent the Regular people to fight each other. all Nations work this Way.

2 : it doesn't matter what Party is Power if the People rose up against Either Party they would face the same Reprisals I laid out, as I said both Parties are two wings of the same mangey Bird

3 : the war would start out as Rural vs Urban, but as towns and Cities get Conquered new Factions would eventually rise, Rural Georgia could starve Atlanta out and occupy it while Rural New York could be dominated by the Urban Population and States could reorganize, although Cities would probably descend into a Free For All allowing the Rural Militias Easy pickings

4: or in case of a "Texit" where the majority of a state wants to leave the Union those who don't (Austin) wouldn't have an choice and would probably go under martial law
and if one state goes some others will want to leave as well and the Feds wouldn't like that. so even if the Secessionists didn't form a Federation they would probably at least be allied against the Feds.

Confederation the south and The ghost of general lee

Damn, Y'all argue a lot.

The ghost of general lee

The ghost of general lee

Dixie Florida wrote:Damn, Y'all argue a lot.

Agreed, this is by far the most unread posts I've seen logging in here.

The ghost of general lee

Black Men wrote:I am a reporter.

A reporter? For what organization?

Confederation the south

Confederate-amurica

Confederation the south wrote:william mahone the actual general made headlines in Missouri

Oh the civil war general?

The ghost of general lee wrote:I belive you region has been raided. Kinda weird they made a recruitment telegram the factbook entry tho.

I’ll just let them there. Europeia is a nice region after all

The ghost of general lee

Hey guys I just noticed that Masonwoods and Black Men were both ejected from the region. Now I might not agree with everything they said, but they did have a righ to say there mind. We shouldn't just up and ban everybody who disagrees with us, it just makes Dixie look bad. We should allow people too publicly disagree with the confederate cause as long as they remain respectful, it will foster intelligent debate that is rather sorley lacking on most of nationstates.

Confederate Farmers and The free dixie states

The ghost of general lee wrote:Hey guys I just noticed that Masonwoods and Black Men were both ejected from the region. Now I might not agree with everything they said, but they did have a righ to say there mind. We shouldn't just up and ban everybody who disagrees with us, it just makes Dixie look bad. We should allow people too publicly disagree with the confederate cause as long as they remain respectful, it will foster intelligent debate that is rather sorley lacking on most of nationstates.

*Their minds
And from what I've gathered it had nothing to do with their disagreeing, but harassment via telegrams. I'm gathering evidence from the parties involved, and Masonwoods has been unbanned apparently.

Let's not jump to conclusions.

The ghost of general lee

Dixie wrote:*Their minds
And from what I've gathered it had nothing to do with their disagreeing, but harassment via telegrams. I'm gathering evidence from the parties involved, and Masonwoods has been unbanned apparently.

Let's not jump to conclusions.

Yea Confederation of the south told me that Masonwoods was harassing him. (I dont know exactly what was said, but I trust confederation on this.) Black Men messaged me and said that he didnt know who Masonwoods was and had not telegraphed anyone except myself. (He was answering my reporter question, guy said he cant specify who hes working for.) Should we let him back in?

Dixie Florida wrote:Damn, Y'all argue a lot.

I am Passionate about the subject

The ghost of general lee wrote:Yea Confederation of the south told me that Masonwoods was harassing him. (I dont know exactly what was said, but I trust confederation on this.) Black Men messaged me and said that he didnt know who Masonwoods was and had not telegraphed anyone except myself. (He was answering my reporter question, guy said he cant specify who hes working for.) Should we let him back in?

I doubt it. Based on the telegrams, he was being disingenuous and attempting to troll. Probably should have guessed it earlier based on his suspicious timing for founding, arrival and name.

The ghost of general lee wrote:Yea Confederation of the south told me that Masonwoods was harassing him. (I dont know exactly what was said, but I trust confederation on this.) Black Men messaged me and said that he didnt know who Masonwoods was and had not telegraphed anyone except myself. (He was answering my reporter question, guy said he cant specify who hes working for.) Should we let him back in?

I'd say only let him back in if he's willing to be more transparent. I don't claim to be an expert on the matter. But I'm pretty sure reporters usually don't try hiding who they work for. That seems a bit suspect.

Dixie Florida wrote:I'd say only let him back in if he's willing to be more transparent. I don't claim to be an expert on the matter. But I'm pretty sure reporters usually don't try hiding who they work for. That seems a bit suspect.

Unless he's a Yankee spy sent here by some sorta lefty rag
To do a pice on us.
Or worse! He could be a Reporter in the sense that he reports things to the Mods
And they took a interest in this region.

Confederation of American-States wrote:Unless he's a Yankee spy sent here by some sorta lefty rag
To do a pice on us.
Or worse! He could be a Reporter in the sense that he reports things to the Mods
And they took a interest in this region.

Dixie wrote:I doubt it. Based on the telegrams, he was being disingenuous and attempting to troll. Probably should have guessed it earlier based on his suspicious timing for founding, arrival and name.

turns out he is a Raider

Confederation of American-States wrote: turns out he is a Raider

It was more than a little obvious.

He seems a little butthurt about being banjected too.

Edit: But he telegrammed me to apologize... I don't get it.

«12. . .38394041424344. . .240241»

Advertisement