Re: OU/NAC ship designations

Brian Burger wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Bruce S. R. Lee wrote:
> 
> > As far as the NAC navy goes, the advantage of "CSN" is that you can
get a
> > large amount of 1st (U.S.) Civil War 'surplus' buckles, buttons etc
in the
> > re-enactor market for the first CSN - the Confederate States Navy.
Good if
> > you want to turn up at a Con in costume to play.
> >
> > just a thought
> >
> > Bruce S. R. Lee
> >
> Maybe HMS would be better -- I don't know that I want my Power of
choice
> to be identified with the Confederate States of America...not only did
> they pick a fight they couldn't win, they had some idealogical
oddities
> I'm not comfortable with. :)
> 
> Of course, one reason I'm an NAC fan is that I like the idea of a
Canadian
> invasion of the US...
> 
> Brian (burger00@camosun.bc.ca)

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.