From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu Mar 1 19:36:31 2001 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA23695 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 19:36:31 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id TAA17853 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 19:40:54 -0600 Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 19:40:54 -0600 Message-Id: <200103020140.TAA17853@lists.io.com> From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #2090 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Thursday, March 1 2001 Volume 01 : Number 2090 In this digest: Re: IN> Heaven, Hell, and the Civil War Re: IN> Heaven, Hell, and the Civil War IN> Re: Cross-Dressing Archangels IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 1 (Heaven) Who would Marc have supported? (WAS: Re: IN> Heaven, Hell, and the Civil War) Re: Who would Marc have supported? (WAS: Re: IN> Heaven, Hell, and the Civil War) Re: Who would Marc have supported? (WAS: Re: IN> Heaven, Hell, and the Civil War) IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) IN> Jesus Christ Vapula and the Civil War Re: Who would Marc have supported? (WAS: Re: IN> Heaven, Hell, and the Civil War) Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 1 (Heaven) Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) Re: IN> The Choir Angels: Wacae IN> Well, I was wrong about one thing ... Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) Re: IN> Well, I was wrong about one thing ... Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) Re: IN> Re: Cross-Dressing Archangels Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 1 (Heaven) Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 1 (Heaven) Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 13:24:08 -0800 From: "Sean McCarthy" Subject: Re: IN> Heaven, Hell, and the Civil War Prodigal said: > > Dominic: North > > I would argue for him remaining Neutral, and arguing that the Truth of the > South's cause would be proved by their victory or defeat in their attempt to > separate from the North. I have to disagree here. Michael, as far as I know, is the big supporter of proving your Truth through action. Dominic and Michael are very different takes on the whole Seraph phenomenon... Sean ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 13:47:24 -0800 (PST) From: "There's no gravity, the world just sucks." Subject: Re: IN> Heaven, Hell, and the Civil War > From: "There's no gravity, the world just sucks." > > > > > > That's exactly why he wouldn't support the North, either, since the > Northern > > > textile industry was based for the most part (IIRC) on Southern cotton. > > > > I can't see an Archangel as being quite so petulant. Slavery is pretty > much > > the opposite of everything the Word of Trade stands for, > > And more than one Norther textile company financed the creation of > plantations in the South to produce cotton, which investment in slavery > could under no circumstances gain Marc's support. I disagree. But then I tend to think of Marc as being more pragmatic than this. Supporting the North in the war vs the South in no way implies support of everything the North does, did, and might do. It's a question of incremental improvements - ending slavery is Good, so putting off nit-picking of the side that's going to be ending it can be put off for a later date. If Heaven never supported any side that wasn't 100% pure, down to every store and factory owner, then they'd never get anything done. - --JT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 17:05:49 -0500 From: Jonathan Walton Subject: IN> Re: Cross-Dressing Archangels > Eli's > mission on Earth as revealed when he appears for a sold out tour as > Ziggy Stardust... > > Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls... give it up for the Archangel > Michael "Freddy" Mercury!!!!! And Eli and Michael do a version of "Under Pressure" together? This I gotta see! Later. Jonathan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:55:19 From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 1 (Heaven) Fascinating, as Mr. Spock would say. Some people have questioned my designations of which Superiors would choose which side (if any) in the Civil War. It's interesting to see that many people had Superiors choosing sides that I had listed as neutral. As I said, I listed any Superior whom I didn't see as having a compelling interest one way or another as neutral. To specify: HEAVEN Blandine: North. I do not believe Blandine is required to support *every* dream that comes down the pike. If one set of dreams involves Freedom from Slavery, and the other involves The Triumph of a Country Whose Social and Economic Foundation Is Based on Slavery, I believe Blandine would support the former. David: Neutral. Now, David's one of my favorites and all that, but he is also the person who a) believes humans need to grow stronger through terrible adversity, and b) thinks skinheads have redeeming social value. He has also supported the building of civilizations for millennia, many of whom have included slavery. He may well see slavery, like many other human failings, as one of the things humanity will either grow out of or use to grow stronger. Dominic: North. This was easy; it says in the core rules and in Superiors 1 that Dominic supports just laws and opposes unjust ones. Eli: Neutral. The Word of Creation was not affected either way. Gabriel: North. Another no-brainer; "punishes the cruel." Janus: Neutral. Okay, I like the Underground Railroad idea, but Janus's Word will flourish during *any* war, no matter who's fighting or who wins. Jean: Neutral. The North was more industrialized, but both sides came up with some wartime inventions. Jordi: Neutral. What does he care what humans do? He'd probably rather see them enslave each other than domesticate animals. Laurence: Neutral. This one was hard, because Laurence is all about honor, but according to more or less reliable sources the South believed it was acting honorably. Many of their leaders were as intense about honor as even Laurence could wish. (And if you can use this argument for Hitler ...!) My view is that Laurence chose his and his Servitors' actions in this war according to whether or not he detected 1) honor or 1) demonic influence. Which may have eventually tipped the scales toward the North. Marc: Neutral. Another difficult one. I agree that slavery is opposed to Marc's word, but I also think that Trade is like the Wind; it will be upheld during any war no matter who is fighting or who wins. Michael: Neutral; much heroism on both sides and LOTS of Tethers Novalis: Neutral. Someone mentioned that Novalis was against slavery; where did you see this? I have never thought she took an interest in human politics at all except where it involved the presence or absence of war or violence. Yves: And HERE I changed my mind. Yves knows the destinies of countries as well as individuals. He supported the North, but quietly, wanting to leave room for as much free will as possible. Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 17:02:54 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Who would Marc have supported? (WAS: Re: IN> Heaven, Hell, and the Civil War) From: "There's no gravity, the world just sucks." > It's a question of > incremental improvements - ending slavery is Good, so putting off nit-picking > of the side that's going to be ending it can be put off for a later date. There was more going on in the North than just the investment in Southern plantations that would have led toward Marc choosing neutrality. In the early years of the 19th century children between the ages of 7 and 12 years made up one-third of the workforce in U.S. factories.* And the conditions in these factories were anything but uniformly good. The fact that both sides of the CW indulged in widespread abuses of Trade's dissonance conditions is why I can't see him as taking an official stance other than neutrality. *Taken from http://www.encarta.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 15:11:30 -0800 (PST) From: "There's no gravity, the world just sucks." Subject: Re: Who would Marc have supported? (WAS: Re: IN> Heaven, Hell, and the Civil War) > From: "There's no gravity, the world just sucks." > > It's a question of > > incremental improvements - ending slavery is Good, so putting off > nit-picking > > of the side that's going to be ending it can be put off for a later date. > > There was more going on in the North than just the investment in Southern > plantations that would have led toward Marc choosing neutrality. I disagree, for the same reasons I've been using. But hey, everyone runs the Archangels differently. - --JT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 17:15:52 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: Who would Marc have supported? (WAS: Re: IN> Heaven, Hell, and the Civil War) From: "There's no gravity, the world just sucks." > > > > There was more going on in the North than just the investment in Southern > > plantations that would have led toward Marc choosing neutrality. > > I disagree, for the same reasons I've been using. It was the conditions in the Northern meat-packing plants that gave us Sinclair's _The Jungle_, remember? ;;;) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 23:16:21 From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) HELL Basically, everyone was neutraland enjoying the show/Essence/influx of souls, except: Andrealphus: South. (Does anyone really need this explained? If so, please contact me off the list.) Beleth: South. Slavery is a prime breeding ground for fear, despair and nightmares. The victims don't even have to be asleep. Kronos: As with Yves, and for the same reason, I believe Kronos supported the South -- a Southern victory would move the South toward its Fate and push the remaining United States further from its Destiny. Lilith: Publicly neutral; privately helping the North. She's committed to her Word, but she's not stupid enough to face off openly against Andrealphus, Beleth *and* Kronos. Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 17:57:34 -0800 From: "Glenn Brown" Subject: IN> Jesus Christ Vapula and the Civil War This is an interesting idea. But I notice you didn't give Vapula's reaction to Christ's coming down from the Upper Heavens. I wonder how he'd react.... Vapula: Well, *that's* certainly an anticlimax! When I heard someone had come down from the Upper Heavens, I was really excited. What new Truths about the Universe would now be revealed, I wondered. And what did we get? A rehash of a paradigm that's two thousand year old! Talk about being unoriginal; Jesus couldn't even come up with some new Servitor Attunements, so he had to borrow them from Yves and Eli! Well, maybe not. I know that's probably not how *your* version of Vapula is going to react ;-) But I think if you want your Jesus to be taken seriously, you really should give him more power than you did. After all, if Jesus' arrival isn't immediately followed by a major adjustment of the balance of power in Heaven's favor, then even the angels will find it anticlimactic. And it doesn't seem to me that your Jesus has the sort of power needed. Maybe you could give Jesus the power to perform Interventions, perhaps on a 666 roll of 333? If Jesus' coming down meant that Angels now get twice as many favorable Interventions as the Demons, that would indeed make Jesus' arrival a meaningful event in the War. And speaking of Vapula, I wonder if he might not have been on the North's side during the American Civil War. As someone has pointed out while discussing Marc and the Civil War, the North was far more developed industrially than the South. And Vapula is described in canon as being strongly supportive of the Industrial Revolution. And though it's been some years since I studied the matter, don't some economic historians believe that the slave economy discouraged the South's technological development? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 15:21:52 -0800 (PST) From: "There's no gravity, the world just sucks." Subject: Re: Who would Marc have supported? (WAS: Re: IN> Heaven, Hell, and the Civil War) > From: "There's no gravity, the world just sucks." > > > There was more going on in the North than just the investment in > Southern > > > plantations that would have led toward Marc choosing neutrality. > > > > I disagree, for the same reasons I've been using. > > It was the conditions in the Northern meat-packing plants that gave us > Sinclair's _The Jungle_, remember? ;;;) Ayep. But I already laid out why that doesn't modify my take. - --JT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 18:32:56 -0500 From: "Shadow" Subject: Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 1 (Heaven) Fair Warning: I'm a Southerner. And quite proud of it. > Clarification of my opinions, Part 1 (Heaven)> HEAVEN > Blandine: North. I do not believe Blandine is required to support *every* > dream that comes down the pike. If one set of dreams involves Freedom from > Slavery, and the other involves The Triumph of a Country Whose Social and > Economic Foundation Is Based on Slavery, I believe Blandine would support > the former. The North was more like: The Dream of Making Everyone Else Do As We Say. And the South was more like: Defending My Home From Barbarous Invaders. The North did not enter into the War of Northern Aggression because of some high holy quest to rid the world of slavery. Were there yankees that fought for that reason? I'm sure there were. But did Lincoln start the whole mess for it? No. He said point blank that his only purpose was to keep the Union together. If he could do so with Slavery fine. If he had to abolish it, fine. (I'm paraphrasing). It wasn't until 64 that the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect, and even then, slaves in states that had not succeeded remained slaves. The issue was about whether the individual States had th right to tell the Federal Gov't to blow it out it's nose. The North wanted to use the Fed to open up the south to the exploitation of factories by eliminating slavery. The South resisted, attempted to peaceably succeed, and the North reacted. Slavery entered into it in that it was the issue around which the war over who had the power (State or Federal gov't) was fought. Was the Confederacy blameless? No. The institution of slavery was unethical. But the South was not evil. Nor were most people who fought for the South fighting over slavery. They were fighting for the right to determine their own destiny at a local level. Painting the North as valiant heroes, especialy considering the murderous savages like Sherman is an injustice. > David: Neutral. Now, David's one of my favorites and all that, but he is > also the person who a) believes humans need to grow stronger through > terrible adversity, and b) thinks skinheads have redeeming social value. He > has also supported the building of civilizations for millennia, many of whom > have included slavery. He may well see slavery, like many other human > failings, as one of the things humanity will either grow out of or use to > grow stronger. I can quite easily see David as supporting the South. The South was very much a rural/agrarian culture where family and close knit social bonds were of high importance. But I can see him sitting it out as well. > Dominic: North. This was easy; it says in the core rules and in Superiors > 1 that Dominic supports just laws and opposes unjust ones. Was slavery unjust? No question. But the attempts of the North to use violence to enforce their viewpoint is bullying, not justice. Further, once the 'Reconstruction' Era began, many of the punishments imposed on the citizens of the South were certainly not just. > Gabriel: North. Another no-brainer; "punishes the cruel." Neutral. While some, even many, slave owners were cruel, the argument can be made they were no worse than many of the factory owners of the North. Additionaly, the common soldier was no more cruel then you or I. He was fighting to defend his home from barbarous invaders. Hardly cruel. Further, the POW camps on -both- sides were so horrendous as to make those of North Viet Nam look like summer camp. Oh, and... Hello, Sherman? You know, burned a swath of farming land clear down to Atlanta, raping and pillaging as he went in an orgy of death and destruction that surely had Saminga and Baal cackling with glee. If you want one of history's greatest war criminals, look no futher then the North and it's General Sherman. There was plenty of cruelty to go around. Gabriel was certainly busy smiting both sides. > Janus: Neutral. Okay, I like the Underground Railroad idea, but Janus's > Word will flourish during *any* war, no matter who's fighting or who wins. I think Janus would support the North. Much of the fight was about change. The north wanted it. The South did not. > Yves: And HERE I changed my mind. Yves knows the destinies of countries as > well as individuals. He supported the North, but quietly, wanting to leave > room for as much free will as possible. I'm sorry, but claiming that the Northern victory in a war of aggression is a victory for Destiny is...well, I don't think either way this would have been a victory for Destiny. It is this same interventionist mindset and then inflicting of punishments after the victory that led to the wonders of WWII, Korea, Viet Nam and the current bullying America is known far and wide for. > Janet Anderson Mark Pearson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 15:30:10 -0800 (PST) From: "There's no gravity, the world just sucks." Subject: Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) > HELL > Kronos: As with Yves, and for the same reason, I believe Kronos supported > the South -- a Southern victory would move the South toward its Fate and > push the remaining United States further from its Destiny. Wider than that. The Civil War was considered by many to be the "great test of Democracy". A Southern victory (and the resulting breakup of the US) would have been a major defeat for the proponents of popular government around the world, and would have invigorated the opponents of the Democratic philosophy. A Southern victory would move the whole _world_ towards Fate. ObSF: Turtledove's _How Few Remain_ and the _The Great War_ trilogy. Of course, in In Nomine reality, there really is, as Bismarck once quipped, a special Providence protecting fools, children, and the United States... at least in the ACW. - --JT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 18:34:06 -0500 From: "William J. Keith" Subject: Re: IN> The Choir Angels: Wacae >Scratch all the other Wacae despite being so short is my FAVORITE choir >angel. > >He's a slap in the face of everyone sympathetic to the Grigori and I only >wish they had murdered him instead of his disbanding. Golly, that's a bit... violent. One presumes they would have Outcast him instead; indeed, an excellent reason for the Outcasting of the Choir might have been that Wacae himself had been growing Dissonant, to the point of becoming an Outcast on his own. After that, the entire Choir would be flawed, and the only Just course of action would be to Outcast them deliberately. >I wonder if no new Grigori can be created without their choir angel and >that's why their numbers are so depleted. It's because no Archangel would buck Heavenly Law by making any more, most of them were killed in the initial years of the Exile, and the rest have been dying off since. That's why their numbers are so depleted. >Good show Alex. >-Charlemagne William ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 23:35:11 From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: IN> Well, I was wrong about one thing ... My husband and I had a bet. I bet there wouldn't be anyone on this list who'd support the South. He bet there would. Educational ... Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 18:42:27 -0500 From: "Shadow" Subject: Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) > Beleth: South. Slavery is a prime breeding ground for fear, despair and > nightmares. The victims don't even have to be asleep. No more so then the crowded, filthy, crime ridden cities. And the factories of the North. > Kronos: As with Yves, and for the same reason, I believe Kronos supported > the South -- a Southern victory would move the South toward its Fate and > push the remaining United States further from its Destiny. How so? Suppose the South gave up slavery of it's own free will within twenty years? Done of it's own accord as it was becoming increasingly less feasible economicaly, is it not possible that in the long run relations between races might be less strained? The South would have allowed the north to carry on as they deemed fit. Further, a victory for the CSA would have resulted in England, France and Germany (the world powers at the time) recognizing them as a nation and putting further diplomatic pressure on them to do away with Slavery. They were not fighting an aggressive war. They simply wanted to be left alone to make their own decisions. Further, a Northern loss might have taught the United States to mind it's own business instead of attempting to bully other nations about as we do now. Let's speculate further and take a peek at WWI. With a US and a CS, it's possible that the Treaty of Versaille might not have been so crippling to the German economy, that a more fair and balanced peace could have been achieved, and no World War II would have engulfed the planet in misery. Again, I'm not an apologist for slavery. Attempting to 'own' another human is wrong. Would the world be different now then it is? Certainly. Would it be worse? Not necessarily. I suppose it all depends on what you think the CSA's Fate would have been, and the same for the USA. > Janet Anderson Mark Pearson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 17:38:28 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Well, I was wrong about one thing ... From: "Janet Anderson" > My husband and I had a bet. I bet there wouldn't be anyone on this list > who'd support the South. He bet there would. Educational ... Sounds like he counted on people looking past the stereotypes, then. ;;;) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 17:40:56 -0600 From: "Prodigal" Subject: Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) From: "Shadow" > > Let's speculate further and take a peek at WWI. With a US and a CS, it's > possible that the Treaty of Versaille might not have been so crippling to > the German economy, that a more fair and balanced peace could have been > achieved, and no World War II would have engulfed the planet in misery. I have to disagree with you here - the only thing that I see being different about the Treaty of Versailles in a world where the CSA stayed independant would be two American chief executives arguing for less strict terms, rather than just the one... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 23:47:30 -0000 From: "Fallen Seraph" Subject: Re: IN> Re: Cross-Dressing Archangels >And Eli and Michael do a version of "Under Pressure" together? > LOL. Very apt, given their relationships with Dominic... - -FallenSeraph ^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^ And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the Dragon; and the Dragon and his angels fought, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. Rev 12:7-8 _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 16:50:14 -0700 From: "Ben Glickler" Subject: Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 1 (Heaven) > The issue was about whether the individual States had th right to tell the > Federal Gov't to blow it out it's nose. The North wanted to use the Fed to > open up the south to the exploitation of factories by eliminating slavery. > The South resisted, attempted to peaceably succeed, and the North reacted. Well, the first shots were fired by Southern soldiers. For example, nobody calls the Revolutionary War the War of British Aggression; the Americans started it by taking up arms against the British. Certainly, the war was fought over State's Rights -- the problem is, the right in question was the right to keep slavery legal. (Many say it was over the right to maintain the Southern lifestyle against Northern influences. A few logical steps are all it takes to realize that the Southern lifestyle was based on the plantation system, and the plantation system was based on slavery. It's also worth noting that slavery figured very prominently when voting on whether to admit states, further proof of the important, if not primary, role it played in the Civil War.) Baal would rather like Sherman. If he were still alive, the Demon Prince of Rapine would've loved him, too. Laurence would probably like Lee, as would Michael. Malphas would probably not like the Civil War. Remember that the Northern States had been clashing with the Southern States over slavery for decades; the war would end the question and the divisiveness decisively. Malphas would want a Southern victory, because confederacies never remain intact. We'd have a dozen third-world nations littering the southern United States. Baal would want a Northern victory. Order, rules, these are important. Besides, if Baal supported the South, the war would've ended quickly with Rebel troops hanging out in Philadelphia. Supporting the North, with its inferior command and poor strategy, would prolong the war for years. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 16:55:50 -0700 From: "Ben Glickler" Subject: Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) > simply wanted to be left alone to make their own decisions. Further, a > Northern loss might have taught the United States to mind it's own business > instead of attempting to bully other nations about as we do now. Let's be realistic. If the United States wasn't "bullying" nations around, we'd have England, France, the Soviet Union, or Germany (either a Kaiser or Hitler) doing the bullying instead. Which would you prefer? You can be idealistic and say "none", but that's naive. Er. This is off-topic, too, I guess. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 15:59:25 -0800 (PST) From: "There's no gravity, the world just sucks." Subject: Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) > > Kronos: As with Yves, and for the same reason, I believe Kronos supported > > the South -- a Southern victory would move the South toward its Fate and > > push the remaining United States further from its Destiny. > > The South would have allowed the > north to carry on as they deemed fit. Further, a victory for the CSA would > have resulted in England, France and Germany (the world powers at the time) > recognizing them as a nation and putting further diplomatic pressure on them > to do away with Slavery. They were not fighting an aggressive war. They > simply wanted to be left alone to make their own decisions. Further, a > Northern loss might have taught the United States to mind it's own business > instead of attempting to bully other nations about as we do now. Not really. The only way the North would have given up on getting the South back into the Union would have been through foreigners (England and France, not Germany) putting pressure on them by diplomatically recognizing the South. Had this happened, it would have absolutely _enraged_ the North; foreign intervention in America? How dare they! And if the North is annoyed at Britain and France, that puts them in the same camp as... our friend, the Kaiser. Whoops! Far from "teaching the US a lesson", a Northern defeat would leave the US itching, waiting, fidgiting with the anticipation of paying back that defeat. This is Not At All A Good Thing. > Let's speculate further and take a peek at WWI. With a US and a CS, it's > possible that the Treaty of Versaille might not have been so crippling to > the German economy, that a more fair and balanced peace could have been > achieved, and no World War II would have engulfed the planet in misery. See above. A Southern victory in the ACW aligns the South inextricably with Britain and France, which puts the North in with Germany. The North would leap with joy at the chance to join in WWI, which means Britain has to defend Canada... which means that World War I really _IS_ worldwide, on every continent... and also almost certainly leads to a defeat for the Brits and French. This is So Not A Good Thing It's Just Not Even Funny. Fate. It's what's for dinner. - --JT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 19:12:47 -0500 From: "Shadow" Subject: Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 1 (Heaven) > Baal would rather like Sherman. If he were still alive, the Demon Prince of > Rapine would've loved him, too. Laurence would probably like Lee, as would > Michael. Malphas would probably not like the Civil War. Remember that the > Northern States had been clashing with the Southern States over slavery for > decades; the war would end the question and the divisiveness decisively. This I agree with. I meant Belial. Who I think would have rather enjoyed Sherman's wanton use of fire. > Malphas would want a Southern victory, because confederacies never remain > intact. We'd have a dozen third-world nations littering the southern United > States. Baal would want a Northern victory. Order, rules, these are > important. Besides, if Baal supported the South, the war would've ended > quickly with Rebel troops hanging out in Philadelphia. Supporting the > North, with its inferior command and poor strategy, would prolong the war > for years. Or just as likely, we'd have a USA to the north much like the modern one; possibly with even more socialistic leanings. And a CSA with a much more minimalist federal gov't similar to how the USA had operated up until the Secession. That is, leaving it up to the individual states for most things. Though I'm certian Malphus would have done his best to insure the scenario you mention. > Ben Mark Pearson. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 19:15:25 -0500 From: "Shadow" Subject: Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) > > Let's speculate further and take a peek at WWI. With a US and a CS, it's > > possible that the Treaty of Versaille might not have been so crippling to > > the German economy, that a more fair and balanced peace could have been > > achieved, and no World War II would have engulfed the planet in misery. > > I have to disagree with you here - the only thing that I see being different > about the Treaty of Versailles in a world where the CSA stayed independant > would be two American chief executives arguing for less strict terms, rather > than just the one... Granted. Though the two arguing together might well have had more impact (I mean, if the North and the South can agree on something...) :) Mark Pearson. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 19:23:55 -0500 From: "Shadow" Subject: Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) > Fate. It's what's for dinner. More like: Harry Turtledove. It's what's for dinner. Admittedly, Harry's a good writer. But don't take his -novels- as the definitive text of what would have definitely happened. Is it plausible? Sure. he's one of the best at alternate history because it's realistic. But is it -the- way things would have turned out? Not necessarily. My point was, that in it's a bit murky trying to predict a future past like that and that Fate was probably working both sides of the fence as was Destiny. > --JT Mark Pearson. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 19:26:51 -0500 From: "Shadow" Subject: Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) > Let's be realistic. If the United States wasn't "bullying" nations around, > we'd have England, France, the Soviet Union, or Germany (either a Kaiser or > Hitler) doing the bullying instead. Which would you prefer? You can be > idealistic and say "none", but that's naive. That's like saying, "Well, I know joe down the block is a bully, it's better I do it then he does it." What other nations do is their own business, and I'd rather not have the one I lived have it's hands stained with blood, regardless of what all the other 'cool' nations are doing. ObIN: One world gov't's and Superiors? Which Superiors would support a one world gov't or even International Bodies like the UN? Anyone? > Er. This is off-topic, too, I guess. > > Ben I brought it back on. :) Mark Pearson. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 16:21:51 -0800 From: "Sean McCarthy" Subject: Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) Prodigal said: > I have to disagree with you here - the only thing that I see being different > about the Treaty of Versailles in a world where the CSA stayed independant > would be two American chief executives arguing for less strict terms, rather > than just the one... Actually, what I recall from history class is that President Wilson of the USA was strongly in favor of a kinder treatment of the defeated Germany largely because he had seen the Reconstruction's effect on the South and knew what awaited down that road. The other powers involved wanted harsher treatment and the existing Treaty of Versailles represents a compromise between the two points. At that time, the idea of showing mercy to a defeated nation seemed very strange. It is arguable but not provable that if the South had seceded peacefully Wilson would not have been in office...but if we ignore that, it is quite likely he would no more have realized the folly of excessively punishing Germany than any the other Allied leaders did. Bear in mind that Wilson was born in Virginia and his father helped found the southern Presbyterian church. His younger years were during the Reconstruction... That sort of thing leaves an effect on a person. Sean ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 19:50:34 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) The discussion teeteres precariously on the edge of something off-topic and flammagey. Keep your balance, everyone... O:> - --Beth, List Admin http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/listrules.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 16:33:05 -0800 (PST) From: "There's no gravity, the world just sucks." Subject: Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) > > > Fate. It's what's for dinner. > > More like: Harry Turtledove. It's what's for dinner. Admittedly, Harry's a > good writer. But don't take his -novels- as the definitive text of what > would have definitely happened. Is it plausible? Sure. he's one of the > best at alternate history because it's realistic. But is it -the- way > things would have turned out? Not necessarily. My point was, that in it's a > bit murky trying to predict a future past like that and that Fate was > probably working both sides of the fence as was Destiny. Might've been. On the other hand, it's hard to come up with a plausible way that the South winning would make the world a better place, and pretty easy to come up with ways that it would make things worse... There might have been some bet-hedging going on, but Destiny's best chance lies with the North, and Fate's with the South. - --JT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 19:48:12 -0500 From: Andrew Dawson Subject: Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) At 11:16 PM 03/01/2001 +0000, Janet Anderson wrote: >Lilith: Publicly neutral; privately helping the North. She's committed to >her Word, but she's not stupid enough to face off openly against >Andrealphus, Beleth *and* Kronos. I don't recall if you stipulated a high brightness setting for this speculation. If you did, then this part about Lilith seems okay. In a darker setting, I'd think that Lilith would support the South because the South was fighting for selfish freedom: the freedom to do what they wanted with other humans and the freedom to secede from the Union and not live under laws formed with the input of the rest of the US. State's Rights, and any other movement designed to take power from the majority and give it to a smaller group seems like Lilith's type of freedom. Thanks, Andy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 20:01:14 -0500 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) And, BTW, whether the world would have been better/worse had the South won the American Civil War is _officially_ as of now Canon Doubt and Uncertainty. (It's just one of those arguements that doesn't have an answer, unless you happen to have a daemonic appointment-keeper that gets exchanged with the one that went down the other trousers of time, a-la Jingo, if I recall my Pterry correctly.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor RPG links; Random name list, Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 19:26:44 -0600 From: Kris Overstreet Subject: Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) At 08:01 PM 3/1/01 -0500, you wrote: >And, BTW, whether the world would have been better/worse had the South >won the American Civil War is _officially_ as of now Canon Doubt and >Uncertainty. (It's just one of those arguements that doesn't have an >answer, unless you happen to have a daemonic appointment-keeper that >gets exchanged with the one that went down the other trousers of time, >a-la Jingo, if I recall my Pterry correctly.) An Imp in service to Fate, perhaps? "Bingly-bingley BEEP! Things to do today: dieDiedIediEDie..." Redneck Kris Overstreet, aka Redneck Gaijin publisher, White Lightning Prod. - www.wlpcomics.com I ***LOATHE*** Microsoft Outlook. Please get Eudora. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 01:35:05 From: "Janet Anderson" Subject: Re: IN> Clarification of my opinions, Part 2 (Hell) >I don't recall if you stipulated a high brightness setting for this >speculation. If you did, then this part about Lilith seems okay. In a >darker setting, I'd think that Lilith would support the South because the >South was fighting for selfish freedom: the freedom to do what they wanted >with other humans and the freedom to secede from the Union and not live >under laws formed with the input of the rest of the US. State's Rights, and >any other movement designed to take power from the majority and give it to >a smaller group seems like Lilith's type of freedom. > >Thanks, >Andy > I generally do high brightness, but I think in this case it doesn't matter: Lilith would support the North whether for selfish or unselfish reasons, because of her Word. She's a demon, so her word can (and in my opinion frequently does) encompass the selfish -- we're talking someone who has the Word of Freedom and uses her powers to effectively enslave -- but the results would be the same. Janet Anderson (I will not answer any further posts that do not have IN content, and if I think they are verging on the personal, I have a Block Sender key and am not afraid to use it.) _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #2090 ******************************** The material here is (C) 2001 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.