AH Gurps setting British North America

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

Being as neither man was a traitor, I fail to see any connection.

Lee was clearly a traitor, as was any other rebel officer who betrayed their oaths to the Constitution by swearing to the Confederacy, and unlike the Revolutionary war rebels, he didn't win through in order to become a founder of a new country.

[Rocket Man]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

Being as neither man was a traitor, I fail to see any connection.

Depends on how you look at it, I suppose. Both men did rebel against their legally established national government and fail. And to quote the musical 1776: "Treason is a charge invented by winners as an excuse for hanging the losers."

Coming back to the OP, I remember that Elseworlds issue. If you want a different take on the idea without a Kryptonian, the alternate history "textbook" For Want of a Nail brings out some interesting ideas.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

The use of Lee was mainly to illustrait that the Southeast (especially the Cotton Belt) would have become the politically dominant section of British North America, and any and all progressive movements would have been enthusiastically crush by the allience of the Cotton Lords and the Brits.

What of Egypt and India? King Cotton never panned out in the real world, so why should it in this AH? I agree that there might be a strong cotton interest(not in VA, of course), but why would we assume that it would become and remain so powerful for such a long time?


Using Lee made your argument look clumsy because it was a rather implausible role for the man. Lee's father was a staunch Patriot, and was liable to be hanged along with the rest of them if the British had won. The family likely would have lost everything in defeat.

I rather like the Lincoln-Lee Rebellion in GURPS AH's Cornwallis timeline.
That's an image!:)


It seems possible to me that the British might still have gone forward, albeit more slowly, with some sort of compensated gradual emancipation in North America, as elsewhere.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Rocket Man

Depends on how you look at it, I suppose. Both men did rebel against their legally established national government and fail. And to quote the musical 1776: "Treason is a charge invented by winners as an excuse for hanging the losers."

Coming back to the OP, I remember that Elseworlds issue. If you want a different take on the idea without a Kryptonian, the alternate history "textbook" For Want of a Nail brings out some interesting ideas.

What 'national' government? This goes directly to your understanding of the Union. At the time of ratification by the several states, the Constitution was
widely promoted as establishing a federal, not a national , government.


We can discuss that topic at length in another thread, if you like. I may even convince you.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Lee was clearly a traitor, as was any other rebel officer who betrayed their oaths to the Constitution by swearing to the Confederacy, and unlike the Revolutionary war rebels, he didn't win through in order to become a founder of a new country.

I know you are a squid, so you no doubt are unaware that officers trained at West Point used to take an oath of loyalty to their home states as well as to the Union.

When the compact was broken and several states decided to withdraw from the Union as a consequence, men from the seceding states had to weigh such loyalties. Many sided with their home states. This included men like Lee, who had not supported secession.

This was a decision of conscience and principle- but Arnold switched sides because he was unhappy with missing promotions and honors.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

I know you are a squid, so you no doubt are unaware that officers trained at West Point used to take an oath of loyalty to their home states as well as to the Union.

When the compact was broken and several states decided to withdraw from the Union as a consequence, men from the seceding states had to weigh such loyalties. Many sided with their home states. This included men like Lee, who had not supported secession.

Traitors come up with all sorts of justifications for their treason, doesn't change the fact that they broke their oaths and that they lost.

Now, if they had won it wouldn't matter, since they'd have gone on to be celebrated as the founders of their Slaver Nation, but since they lost they are traitors to our Constitution and the land of the free.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Traitors come up with all sorts of justifications for their treason, doesn't change the fact that they broke their oaths and that they lost.

Now, if they had won it wouldn't matter, since they'd have gone on to be celebrated as the founders of their Slaver Nation, but since they lost they are traitors to our Constitution and the land of the free.

Do you also consider the founding fathers traitors to England?
There has to be a point beyond which rebellion is required without bandying about the baggage laden term.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Traitors come up with all sorts of justifications for their treason, doesn't change the fact that they broke their oaths and that they lost.

Now, if they had won it wouldn't matter, since they'd have gone on to be celebrated as the founders of their Slaver Nation, but since they lost they are traitors to our Constitution and the land of the free.

Ah, but wouldn't they have broken their oaths to their home states, if they'd sided with the federal gov't?

I think that you are oversimplifying a tragic and complex time in American history so that you can have a simple good vs evil conflict.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Do you also consider the founding fathers traitors to England?
There has to be a point beyond which rebellion is required without bandying about the baggage laden term.

I think Ze's position is that might makes right, so you are only a 'traitor' if you lose. He can clarify this.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Do you also consider the founding fathers traitors to England?
There has to be a point beyond which rebellion is required without bandying about the baggage laden term.

Originally Posted by combatmedic

I think Ze's position is that might makes right, so you are only a 'traitor' if you lose. He can clarify this.

Treason is defined by the nation you belong to, the founding fathers would've been traitors to England if we'd lost and they stayed English citizens, but since we won they became heroes to the new nation they belonged too.
Though keep in mind few of the founding fathers actually had actively sworn oaths as military officers to England.

In other words, if you aren't a member of a nation you can't be a traitor to that nation, so by the very action of winning a war of independence it stops being treason, but the losing of a war of independence leaves it as treason.

It's not so much that might makes right, as it is that treason equates with failure to establish a new government.