Confederate layouts?

I can find only one reference to a confederate or southern-themed train set on the web. Apparently it is out of stock. Any suggestions? Mag issues? I am
new to this. Thanks!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 15:42:34 -0800, I said, "Pick a card, any card"

Just a thought here but why not create a fictional railroad from around the turn of the 20th Century that reflects how you think things would be had the South won?
Endless possibilities. -- Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 08:55:29 +0800, Ray Haddad wrote:

Yep. Squadrons of slaves, guarded by drooling illiterates, dragging palace cars full of the planter elite (or plantar warts?) 10 or 15 miles until the next gauge change.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 02:07:00 -0800, I said, "Pick a card, any card"

Is that your world? What a shame. -- Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ray Haddad wrote:

It was a slave supported society that fought a war to keep their slaves so this is a valid extrapolation.
guarded by drooling illiterates, No comment. They were not then and are not now all that way,
> dragging No they had steam engines.

Valid point. Neither the average person or the the slaves would have ever got near the "Good" cars.

A valid point. With very few exceptions southern railroads ran from one town to another and ended at the edge of town. There were very few direct interchanges. Having to transfer goods from one railroad to another across town by wagon was very common.
A coordinated connected railway system that allowed the Union to move an army from one theater of war to another in a matter of days was one big Union advantage. That they had no generals who could or would fight was the reason the war lasted so long.
So sorry to say although the statement was over the top, as it is a valid extension of the way things were, it is a valid portrait of what might have been if the south had won the war.
It does ignore the question of whether an already decaying society could have survived in a world that was rapidly moving away from slavery.
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 05:24:08 GMT, Bill Dixon wrote:

Thus the "dragging" and "drooling" - excessively hierarchical societies have about the same effect as inbreeding, and sooner or later a lot of the steam engines would be rapidly turning into leaking rusting junk, just like the society and its leadership.
We now have our national wealth increasingly concentrated in the upper [measured by wealth] few percentiles of our population. Maybe we deserve Karl Rove.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Dixon wrote:

The South seceded to keep their slaves - this was morally wrong. The North started the war for economic reasons - this was legally wrong.
Even Abe Lincoln, as a lawyer, believed that a state which had freely joined the union had a right to leave, as did most of the judicial.
No, I'm not a supporter of a slaveholding south, just a history buff.
BTW, I know the South fired the first shots at Fort Sumter. This was after the North refused to remove their troops from South Carolina territory.
Which reminds me, the Civil War was responsible for changing "these united States" to "this United States".
None of which is pertinent to model railroading, so I'll drop it at this point.
--
It's turtles, all the way down

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
read the "correct" history gentlemen. not the history that your teachers and the north wrote for you to learn. Fact one: the war was not fought over slavery: fact two: the north needed sympathy for there cause so in july 1863 Licoln gave his speech in Gettysburg. this did nothing for freeing the slaves up north. Fact three: most slaves were treated better than most poor whites were. Fact four: the majority of the slaves stayed with there ex slave owners after the war because they knew where there bread was buttered. fact five : the north invaded the south after the south suceeded from the union. The constitution provided for the states rights to suceed from the union and it was all about the greedy north taxing the hell out of the southern ports as a ploy to get the south to export cotton from New York so the north could get the proffits. Read and learn the history from a nutreal source that has the facts strait.
Bill Dixon wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 02:53:48 -0500, E. T. Atkins wrote:

A real nut, alright. You got the rest of those books from the Lincoln Library about how the Jews of Europe just went on vacation and disappeared?
(That's the George Lincoln Rockwell library, naz.. - er, uh, 'natch)

Keep on droolin' on your sheet, Bubba, and by the way: spelling counts.
--
Steve

". . . Just sing about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Caple wrote:

Steve, you're pretty good at slinging insults but I haven't seen you produce any historic info. Perhaps you have none. I suggest you read a book called "The Causes of the Civil War", I don't recall the author.
--
It's turtles, all the way down

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A good honest history of the US Civil War and the causes for it is James M McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom" (named for a song used by both sides during the civil war).
Comrade Spelling Challenged ("E.T Atkins") is maybe 20-25% correct in his list of "5 facts".
Take an example: Comrade Atkins says "This [Emancipation proclamation] did nothing to free the slaves up north". Correct - the specific proclamation only freed slaves (without compensation to the owners) in states that on 1 jan 1863 (not july 1863) were in rebellion against the union. In other words - the proclamation did not apply to slave states that had stayed within the union.
What applied to states that had stayed within the union was that the US congress on April 10th 1862 had promised compensation to any owner who voluntarily freed his slaves, on April 16th 1862 had banned slavery in the District of Columbia, and on June 19th 1862 had banned slavery in areas not yet organized into states (ie the territories).
Of course, most of the states which stayed within the union had a ban on slavery _before_ the start of the civil war. So the slaves not freed by the proclamation was slaves in some of of the border states that stayed in the union (Maryland, Missouri, Delawere and Kentucky, plus union-occupied parts of New Orleans and Virginia, and the part of NW Virginia which was about to become West Virginia).
Slaves in Maryland, Missouri and West Virginia were emancipated by separate state actions. The last slaves freed were in the border states of Kentucky and Delawere - on the ratification (on December 6th 1865) of the 13th Amendment to the US constitution, which banned slavery in all states and territories.
So Atkins is correct in saying that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in the rebel states, but incorrect in his inference that it was all done by a bunch of cynical damnyankees who freed slaves in the south but didn't care one whit about slavery within the union.
He is also confused about dates and battles. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued after the union turned back an invasion of Maryland during the bitterly fought battle of Antietam in 1862, it was not part of the famous speech Lincoln gave at Gettysburg in 1863.
He is _partially_ correct in saying that the war was not about slavery. Or rather - was not _exclusively_ about slavery.
For some people, especially in the south, it was about states right. As for whether states had the right to seceede from the union - could very well be. For all practical purposes, it matters little. The civil war was fought, and it gave the results it gave.
As for whether slaves were treated so well in the south and the former slaves staying with their former owners after the war "because they know what side their bread was buttered on" - I am not sure - is there a polite way of saying "utter bullshit" ?
Enough ? Maybe time to talk about model trains again ?
Grin, Stein
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I certainly hope so. Roger Aultman
Stein R wrote:

Enough ? Maybe time to talk about model trains again ?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tell me, oh, tell me........pulllleeeeeeezzzzze!
Where in the Constitution does it say that a state has the right to secede from the union?
No dancing.
I want the exact article and section.
Give it a whack.
Buck
instead replied:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Buck wrote:

Nowhere, obviously, or you wouldn't have asked the question :-).
But you might want to know that the Articles of Confederation spoke of "perpetual union." When the Constitution was being written, several of the delegates insisted that "perpetual" be removed in case their states wanted out at a later date. So the constitution does say so, albeit by omission.
Also note that most legal authorities at the time held the opinion that secession was a legal option for a state. Unless a book I read was lying, even Lincoln defended that position in a trial before the war.
My response is not intended to provoke a long thread of tirades, just to point out the relevant history. So this is the end of my participation in this thread.
--
It's turtles, all the way down

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It doesn't, of course, as you already know. But many people - at least all libertarians and strict constructionists - would point out that nowhere in the constitution does it say that a state *doesn't* have the right to secede from the union.
The constitution wasn't intended to outline what the states and people can or cannot do. Its intention was to outline only what the federal government specifically can and cannot do, and states that all other matters not specifically enumerated in the document are left to the states and the people respectively.
Of course that truth was tossed in the garbage long ago, and Abraham Lincoln had a great deal to do with that. Most all people today, regardless of their political stripes, can see the truth of this is quickly and name something that they feel the federal government has no business being involved in.
BTW, there is no question at all that Texas has the right to secede from the union. It is in the Texas constitution.
But, back to trains. Just for kicks I ordered an On30 Confederate train set the other day. It looks really cool. The boxcar with the picture of Robert E. Lee appeals to my anti-federalist streak.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ity is my recollection that Texas also 'has the right' to split into five states.
Buck

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes. IIRC there were some nut bags out by the Davis Mountains that seceded some time ago. The State said they could not secede and locked them up. Seceding as fun as it might be is not so easy these days. Bruce

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 03:48:02 GMT, Spender wrote:

. . . doing WHAT to his horse?
Oh, sorry, that was Stonewall Jackson I was thinking of - Lee probably wasn't a bible thumping racist pervo, just on the side of them.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Actually Robert E. Lee believed that slavery was immoral.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 09:00:23 GMT, Spender wrote:

Like I said, just fought on their side. Too bad - we could have traded that putz McClellan (who wasn't all that disapproving of slavery) for him and had the war over a couple years and a couple hundred thousand dead sooner.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.