RE: OU/NAC ship designations

> ----------
> From: 	John D. Hamill[SMTP:finnmaccool@earthlink.net]
> That's the part of the whole NAC thing that is so hard to swallow,
> that
> just Canada and the UK could quell a country with the population and
> military resources of the US. Even if the majority of the military
> were
> still loyal to Gen. Parham, (which is hard to believe, given the still
> large portion of regionalism in America) you still have huge amounts
> of
> National Guard units that wouldn't be along with all those military
> vets
> with the training and personal weaponry to make an invasion a VERY
> difficult process. I would really like to see Jon or someone else
> write
> something that would attempt to justify this.
> 
> Now Brian, don't start the "the South couldn't win-oh yes it could"
> war
> on this list. Besides, if you look at the history of the Civil War,
> there were several points in the war where the issue was very much up
> in
> the air. It's hard to find a war where the people's personalities were
> so important to the outcome. It might look like a foregone conclusion
> today, but a few times, if Lincoln had not been the man he was the
> North
> would have sued for peace.
> 
Sorry but I haven't read the FT timeline, but I thought that the NAC has
more likely absorbed the remnants of the USA after the Secon Civil War
rather than an invasion. (And wasn't the success of the North over South
more a case of political survival for Lincoln than the military victory.
IIRC the North were on the verge of sueing for peace at a number of
stages.)

Owen Glover
IT Services