Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 4 of 6  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Author Message
BrockPaine
Post subject: Re: AU Confederate Navy, maybe for SB?Posted: May 4th, 2011, 1:16 pm
Offline
Posts: 248
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 1:20 pm
You demand we depart your thread with political discussion, and then you jam in your erroneous political views in an attempt to get in the rhetorical "last word". Sir, if you wished to be honest to your own request, then you would have been best not to reply with an argument!
Quote:
A man with a single steam-powered tractor could out plow a dozen slaves with mules... so why pay for the slaves?
You are incorrectly presuming that the steam-powered tractor can carry out the full range of actions necessary for agricultural production. Yes, a steam tractor can out-plow, but farming is not composed entirely of "plowing".


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Carthaginian
Post subject: Re: AU Confederate Navy, maybe for SB?Posted: May 4th, 2011, 4:39 pm
Offline
Posts: 587
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 7:25 pm
Location: Daphne, Alabama, C.S.A.
As a man who has spent MANY hours on a tractor, I am well aware of what is required of farming.
My views are not erroneous- they take something more into account than just 'slavery is evil and the south had slavery.' They ignore the technology and science that was coming into agriculture in the late 1800s, and automatically assume that the South would have disdained the less expensive, more efficient ways in favor off maintaining an expensive, massively dangerous institution. People assume that slavery was so entrenched that the South would have never gotten away from it; it is, as I said, because the South didn't meet the mitigating circumstance of victory.

P.S. labourers - What part of the Europe?
Quote:
You cannot argue that slavery would magically 'become uneconomical" when I can cite the exact same "economic arguments" for slavery repeated in the modern day - albeit in regard to illegal Mexican labourers.
LOL... actually, what you are suggesting is WAGE SLAVERY- a far more efficient system, as it is what the North used to beat the South. :roll: Wage slavery > Chattel slavery, because the 'employer' has less expense as opposed to the 'owner.' Chattel slavery was hideously inefficient- a 10% profit margin on slave labor vs a 40% (lowball figure) for most paid labor enterprises. What, if any, reason do you have to continue with the inefficient system once you begin developing the mechanical aids which replace the necessary laborers? There is no reason- in fact, the 'reason' dictates a switch to wage-slavery.

Breaking ground is the longest and most tedious part of farming with a mule. Planting can be done over a larger area in a shorter period of time, and so can picking. Breaking ground, however, can only proceed at a finite rate due to availability of rather expensive equipment and necessity of time and distance which the animal can work over.
Planting/harvesting goes VERY quickly compared to breaking ground. Even hand-harvesting something like maize (you have no idea how bad I wanted to type corn) is much faster... I know as I have done it.
Mechanical breaking, however, inverts this and makes breaking ground much faster. 3 men, 3 stokers and a blacksmith + assistant on standby can now break more ground in a day than an equal number of men and mules can break in several. The best part is that only two of these men are actually 'skilled labor'- the blacksmith and apprentice. The other two men are men who need only limited teaching and can be hired and released as necessary- and they replace dozens of men who required a great deal more skill (plowing with a mule is an art, and novices need a lot of teaching). The beginnings of internal combustion tractors by 1900 makes the necessary teaching for operators even lower- you pull the 'go handle' and drive with the contours of the land.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
BrockPaine
Post subject: Re: AU Confederate Navy, maybe for SB?Posted: May 4th, 2011, 10:57 pm
Offline
Posts: 248
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 1:20 pm
Still seeking the rhetorical last word, I see. Well, fine. I've better things to do than trade jabs with yet another Confederate apologist. You can have your "non-political" thread back.
Carthaginian wrote:
P.S. labourers - What part of the Europe?
Bleeding Kansas. Used to live within a few miles of the spot where John Brown and his sons started the war.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colosseum
Post subject: Re: AU Confederate Navy, maybe for SB?Posted: May 12th, 2011, 7:58 pm
Offline
Posts: 5218
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact: Website
Carthaginian's posts are really interesting. Perhaps if the other side chose to debate instead of throwing names around like "Confederate apologist" etc this might become an even more interesting thread?

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
BrockPaine
Post subject: Re: AU Confederate Navy, maybe for SB?Posted: May 12th, 2011, 8:31 pm
Offline
Posts: 248
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 1:20 pm
Colosseum wrote:
Carthaginian's posts are really interesting. Perhaps if the other side chose to debate instead of throwing names around like "Confederate apologist" etc this might become an even more interesting thread?
Carthaginian demanded that we stop debating the South's politics in his thread, and invited people to leave if they didn't agree. If Carthaginian is interested in a serious debate on the issue, then I will reconsider my participation in this thread. However, my feeling up til this point is that people are interested neither in facts nor in debate, just justifying the choices necessary to make this AU.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Carthaginian
Post subject: Re: AU Confederate Navy, maybe for SB?Posted: May 13th, 2011, 5:19 am
Offline
Posts: 587
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 7:25 pm
Location: Daphne, Alabama, C.S.A.
Colosseum wrote:
Carthaginian's posts are really interesting. Perhaps if the other side chose to debate instead of throwing names around like "Confederate apologist" etc this might become an even more interesting thread?
Colosseum,
I appreciate your support, but I do not know if this thread particular will go very far thanks to BrockPaine.
It seems that people can cook up all kinds of wild and mythical AU's and any form of justification for them, and it is ok... but I search for an at least factually-based way to work in a modest attempt at a Confederate fleet and suddenly it is unreasonable.

I am continuing the fleet, but I do not know if I will keep posting in this thread. The ships I have drawn need some alteration- due to my incorrect estimation of the deck heights at the time and the way it will impact my Springsharp designs. All but the John Lowe will need to be totally reworked, 'from the keel up' so to speak. There are a few completely new ones that might actually be ready before I get them straightened out. When these ships are redrawn, I will try to get them completely to Shipbucket standards and begin a new thread in the Alternate Universe forums.

I will say that posts about social conscience will be utterly ignored in the future thread- I might accept a civilly-worded PM on the matters, but the thread will be for ships and only for ships. I will accept inquiries into the politics of my nation as they affect the military development... but nothing beyond that.

BrockPaine,
Personally, I detest slavery- but there are many social institutions which I am not fond of in my nation. I change what I can and endure what I cannot. It is this way in the U.S.A. now; it was that way in the Confederacy and the United States then- and it was in every nation prior to their formation and will be in every nation yet unborn.

The rest has been said in PM- family history, reason for my views on the Confederacy, and so forth.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
WhyMe
Post subject: Re: AU Confederate Navy, maybe for SB?Posted: May 13th, 2011, 6:41 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1616
Joined: November 12th, 2010, 4:27 pm
Location: California, USA
Contact: Website
Carthaginian wrote:
I am continuing the fleet
I like your AU because it's not too mainstream (which some may call "less realistic") but not at all impossible [ img ]
Just keep the ships coming [ img ]

_________________
Worklist: Portuguese Navy and Barnegat class seaplane tenders


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Carthaginian
Post subject: Re: AU Confederate Navy, maybe for SB?Posted: May 13th, 2011, 7:20 am
Offline
Posts: 587
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 7:25 pm
Location: Daphne, Alabama, C.S.A.
They will keep coming... I assure you- perhaps not here, but somewhere on the boards.

South Carolina will probably remain 'as-is' with a very cramped 8' interior height on each deck.
Georgia will only take some moderate tweeking to get her drawing and her Springsharp synced back up. I'm debating on 10' decks on all ships from 1880 onward, with the very cramped 8' decks predominating prior to then- as I am 6'3" 225lbs myself, that does seem almost a torturous environment... though I'm sure that my 5'9" 145lbs & 5'7" 130lbs grandfathers* wouldn't feel as claustrophobic in there.
The Biscayne and Chatahoochee will probably require some massive reconstruction... especially as Chatahoochee will need her gun mounts completely reconsidered (I used the wrong kind in SS) and this will make for a major reworking of the ship. David White will get some tuning and a bit of an up-gunning to go with her re-working.

I even have a few immediate post-war designs prepared, and am hoping to get some design advice from one of the more talented artists currently doing some sailing vessels. I'd like to have these ships ready (at least without rigging/sails) soon.

*heights & weights are given of the men 'in their prime' while they were in uniform for the Second World War


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Gollevainen
Post subject: Re: AU Confederate Navy, maybe for SB?Posted: May 13th, 2011, 8:05 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4714
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:10 am
Location: Finland
Contact: Website
This has been good AU, thougth I would want to see it on SB scale ;)

Usually most AU scennarios (or "what if" scenarios more correctly) demands some sort of twisting and bending of political reality and most of the time demands stepping into polarised path that migth ignite someone with opposing opinions to come depating those issues. This shouldn't be the goal with the discussion over these sort of AUs. The depate and possible critisism should focus on the ships and the navy build around that scenario, not the political or ideological disputes that its background story migth raise.

This certainly isen't the first case this sort of thing has happened. So I would suggest all to remember that this is drawing forum, not political forum, Thank you.

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eltf177
Post subject: Re: AU Confederate Navy, maybe for SB?Posted: May 13th, 2011, 10:26 am
Offline
Posts: 503
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 5:03 pm
Thank you for continuing this, I find your designs quite interesting.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 4 of 6  [ 53 posts ]  Return to “Non-Shipbucket Drawings” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]