Don't Blame the RRs

[TomDiehl]

Again, trying to take things out of historic context. Even the second sentence answers why the government had to step in. If left completely to private enterprise, the first transcontinental railroad never would have been completed by 1869, connecting the settled east and west coasts as the government felt necessary, if nothing else, for defense reasons.

I am sure, insofar as defense was concerned, invasion was imminent, no doubt from the King of Hawaii who was a notorious threat to California.

Wow, a "student of history" that doesn't know about Mexico of that time period. All he can come up with is a rather lame reference to King Kamehameha.

If you know "about Mexico" in that time period, you would know that in 1862, France was in the process of invading Mexico and any alleged threat by Mexico to California at that point existed only in the mind of a Trains forum poster in 2006. An actual student of history might guess that being invaded by a major European power was a "distraction" to the Mexicans.

However, I see the conversation once again descend to the "lame" stage, and I am sure the usual "feeble-minded" and "weak-minded" epithets are not far behind as the standard level of discourse of TomDiehl threads.

Suffice it to say we disagree.

Yes, we do disagree. If France had successfully invaded Mexico, I guess you're saying they would have no desire to expand into what was the western US. Mexico (or whatever the French would have renamed it) just might make a good staging ground for the invasion. And that doesn't just exist in my mind.

[TomDiehl]

The reasoning does not explain why we did not build a railroad to Alaska, if the reasoning were true, or to Hawaii, since anything ridiculous passes here as a justification.

Maybe you should tell us how good our relations were with Canada in this time period. So good that they'd let the US build a railroad across their territory from Washington to Alaska? The reason is, the government owned the land for the transcontinental, they didn't own Canada.

[MichaelSol]

Again, trying to take things out of historic context. Even the second sentence answers why the government had to step in. If left completely to private enterprise, the first transcontinental railroad never would have been completed by 1869, connecting the settled east and west coasts as the government felt necessary, if nothing else, for defense reasons.

I am sure, insofar as defense was concerned, invasion was imminent, no doubt from the King of Hawaii who was a notorious threat to California.

Wow, a "student of history" that doesn't know about Mexico of that time period. All he can come up with is a rather lame reference to King Kamehameha.

If you know "about Mexico" in that time period, you would know that in 1862, France was in the process of invading Mexico and any alleged threat by Mexico to California at that point existed only in the mind of a Trains forum poster in 2006. An actual student of history might guess that being invaded by a major European power was a "distraction" to the Mexicans.

However, I see the conversation once again descend to the "lame" stage, and I am sure the usual "feeble-minded" and "weak-minded" epithets are not far behind as the standard level of discourse of TomDiehl threads.

Suffice it to say we disagree.

Yes, we do disagree. If France had successfully invaded Mexico, I guess you're saying they would have no desire to expand into what was the western US. Mexico (or whatever the French would have renamed it) just might make a good staging ground for the invasion. And that doesn't just exist in my mind.

Oh good grief, something "might make a good staging ground for an invasion"  -- by France?

So you give away a bunch of public land to enrich a bunch of Congressman (a 100% dividend was declared to stockholders, Congressmen who happened to receive "free stock" from Oakes Ames) to stave off an invasion by an ally.

This isn't history. This is pure speculation of the rankest kind.

[Murphy Siding]

     Wow!  I had to go back to the first page to see what the thread had been about.  I don't even know what it's about now.  When France finishes taking over Mexico, and then invades California, I hope Hawaii comes in on our side.

[TomDiehl]

Again, trying to take things out of historic context. Even the second sentence answers why the government had to step in. If left completely to private enterprise, the first transcontinental railroad never would have been completed by 1869, connecting the settled east and west coasts as the government felt necessary, if nothing else, for defense reasons.

I am sure, insofar as defense was concerned, invasion was imminent, no doubt from the King of Hawaii who was a notorious threat to California.

Wow, a "student of history" that doesn't know about Mexico of that time period. All he can come up with is a rather lame reference to King Kamehameha.

If you know "about Mexico" in that time period, you would know that in 1862, France was in the process of invading Mexico and any alleged threat by Mexico to California at that point existed only in the mind of a Trains forum poster in 2006. An actual student of history might guess that being invaded by a major European power was a "distraction" to the Mexicans.

However, I see the conversation once again descend to the "lame" stage, and I am sure the usual "feeble-minded" and "weak-minded" epithets are not far behind as the standard level of discourse of TomDiehl threads.

Suffice it to say we disagree.

Yes, we do disagree. If France had successfully invaded Mexico, I guess you're saying they would have no desire to expand into what was the western US. Mexico (or whatever the French would have renamed it) just might make a good staging ground for the invasion. And that doesn't just exist in my mind.

Oh good grief, something "might make a good staging ground for an invasion"  -- by France?

So you give away a bunch of public land to enrich a bunch of Congressman (a 100% dividend was declared to stockholders, Congressmen who happened to receive "free stock" from Oakes Ames) to stave off an invasion by an ally.

This isn't history. This is pure speculation of the rankest kind.

If you review the quotes above, it's you that started the "what-if" part of this discussion. "Defense" isn't just about the possibility of invasion by a foreign country.

You seem to forget, imperialism was more than alive and well in the 1800's.

[Anonymous]

The reasoning does not explain why we did not build a railroad to Alaska, if the reasoning were true, or to Hawaii, since anything ridiculous passes here as a justification.

Maybe you should tell us how good our relations were with Canada in this time period. So good that they'd let the US build a railroad across their territory from Washington to Alaska? The reason is, the government owned the land for the transcontinental, they didn't own Canada.

Ummmm, I think the US did build a highway up the whole of Western Canada, if I'm not mistaken!

Does this mean that we really did own Canada?

[Murphy Siding]

The reasoning does not explain why we did not build a railroad to Alaska, if the reasoning were true, or to Hawaii, since anything ridiculous passes here as a justification.

Maybe you should tell us how good our relations were with Canada in this time period. So good that they'd let the US build a railroad across their territory from Washington to Alaska? The reason is, the government owned the land for the transcontinental, they didn't own Canada.

Ummmm, I think the US did build a highway up the whole of Western Canada, if I'm not mistaken!

Does this mean that we really did own Canada?

     Wasn't that sort of a *road grant* sort of project?  The U.S. built the road, and pretty much *gave* it to Canada.  Now Dave, according to your theory ,those darn Canadians got an advantage over the private, non-road grant countries that tried to build roads later, without government financing.

[Limitedclear]

The reasoning does not explain why we did not build a railroad to Alaska, if the reasoning were true, or to Hawaii, since anything ridiculous passes here as a justification.

Maybe you should tell us how good our relations were with Canada in this time period. So good that they'd let the US build a railroad across their territory from Washington to Alaska? The reason is, the government owned the land for the transcontinental, they didn't own Canada.

Ummmm, I think the US did build a highway up the whole of Western Canada, if I'm not mistaken!

Does this mean that we really did own Canada?

     Wasn't that sort of a *road grant* sort of project?  The U.S. built the road, and pretty much *gave* it to Canada.  Now Dave, according to your theory ,those darn Canadians got an advantage over the private, non-road grant countries that tried to build roads later, without government financing.

LOL, logic, what logic???

LC

[Murphy Siding]

The reasoning does not explain why we did not build a railroad to Alaska, if the reasoning were true, or to Hawaii, since anything ridiculous passes here as a justification.

Maybe you should tell us how good our relations were with Canada in this time period. So good that they'd let the US build a railroad across their territory from Washington to Alaska? The reason is, the government owned the land for the transcontinental, they didn't own Canada.

Ummmm, I think the US did build a highway up the whole of Western Canada, if I'm not mistaken!

Does this mean that we really did own Canada?

     Wasn't that sort of a *road grant* sort of project?  The U.S. built the road, and pretty much *gave* it to Canada.  Now Dave, according to your theory ,those darn Canadians got an advantage over the private, non-road grant countries that tried to build roads later, without government financing.

LOL, logic, what logic???

LC

     Laugh if you wish.  When France gets done mopping up Mexico and finally does invade California, the U.S. and Hawaii will need to have Canada on our side.  I sure hope there's no capacity issues on the AlCan Highway due to deferred maintenance!

[TomDiehl]

The reasoning does not explain why we did not build a railroad to Alaska, if the reasoning were true, or to Hawaii, since anything ridiculous passes here as a justification.

Maybe you should tell us how good our relations were with Canada in this time period. So good that they'd let the US build a railroad across their territory from Washington to Alaska? The reason is, the government owned the land for the transcontinental, they didn't own Canada.

Ummmm, I think the US did build a highway up the whole of Western Canada, if I'm not mistaken!

Does this mean that we really did own Canada?

In the 1860's??????

[Limitedclear]

The reasoning does not explain why we did not build a railroad to Alaska, if the reasoning were true, or to Hawaii, since anything ridiculous passes here as a justification.

Maybe you should tell us how good our relations were with Canada in this time period. So good that they'd let the US build a railroad across their territory from Washington to Alaska? The reason is, the government owned the land for the transcontinental, they didn't own Canada.

Ummmm, I think the US did build a highway up the whole of Western Canada, if I'm not mistaken!

Does this mean that we really did own Canada?

     Wasn't that sort of a *road grant* sort of project?  The U.S. built the road, and pretty much *gave* it to Canada.  Now Dave, according to your theory ,those darn Canadians got an advantage over the private, non-road grant countries that tried to build roads later, without government financing.

LOL, logic, what logic???

LC

     Laugh if you wish.  When France gets done mopping up Mexico and finally does invade California, the U.S. and Hawaii will need to have Canada on our side.  I sure hope there's no capacity issues on the AlCan Highway due to deferred maintenance!

Hell, let those crazy french chicks come on down...

I was just laughing at the thought of FM being capable of anything remotely resembling logic...

The thought of it makes me LOL...

LC

[vsmith]

[Anonymous]

The reasoning does not explain why we did not build a railroad to Alaska, if the reasoning were true, or to Hawaii, since anything ridiculous passes here as a justification.

Maybe you should tell us how good our relations were with Canada in this time period. So good that they'd let the US build a railroad across their territory from Washington to Alaska? The reason is, the government owned the land for the transcontinental, they didn't own Canada.

Ummmm, I think the US did build a highway up the whole of Western Canada, if I'm not mistaken!

Does this mean that we really did own Canada?

     Wasn't that sort of a *road grant* sort of project?  The U.S. built the road, and pretty much *gave* it to Canada.  Now Dave, according to your theory ,those darn Canadians got an advantage over the private, non-road grant countries that tried to build roads later, without government financing.

You must be on drugs, 'cause there's no way to parse that level of nonsense.

The Alcan was built by US troops to benefit transportation between Alaska and the lower 48, not to benefit Canada.  The Alcan to this day is more of a benefit to the US than to Canada.  Ownership is irrelevent, since it is open access, like all such roads.  And all roads are built with government financing, so that last quip is nonsensical.

Oh, and Tom - this was in the 1940's, not the 1860's.

 

[TomDiehl]

Oh, and Tom - this was in the 1940's, not the 1860's.

 

 

Exactly my point.

[zardoz]

And Now For Something Completely Different:

[oltmannd]

And Now For Something Completely Different:

I wish.  But, you can always dream.....

[Murphy Siding]

Oh, and Tom - this was in the 1940's, not the 1860's.

 

 

Exactly my point.

Lou: Who's on first?

Bud: Yes!

Lou:What's on second?

Bud: Exactly!!

Maybe it's time to head to Niagra Falls?

 

[oltmannd]

Oh, and Tom - this was in the 1940's, not the 1860's.

 

 

Exactly my point.

Lou: Who's on first?

Bud: Yes!

Lou:What's on second?

Bud: Exactly!!

Maybe it's time to head to Niagra Falls?

 

"I don't know"

"Third base!"

[Murphy Siding]

Oh, and Tom - this was in the 1940's, not the 1860's.

 

 

Exactly my point.

Lou: Who's on first?

Bud: Yes!

Lou:What's on second?

Bud: Exactly!!

Maybe it's time to head to Niagra Falls?

 

"I don't know"

"Third base!"

     Exactly my point!

[wallyworld]

I learned alot. The French may or may not invade us from Mexico. My sodbusting forebears prematurely settled the West and should have invested in wagon wheels instead.. We may or may not own Canada.Wheat farmers in Montana are p----d off. Everything in the known universe may or may not be subsidized and \or corrupt and is also either a bargain or may be a boondoggle.

[Murphy Siding]

    But what about the "french chics"?

[vsmith]

I forgot what this topic was originally about...

[Limitedclear]

    But what about the "french chics"?

Yeah, don't you guys know the Foreign Legion always brings french chics???

Boy, maybe FM and Mikey will star in a new film. The updated version of Abbot and Costello join the Foreign Legion...

It'll be a fight over the DM&E construction...

FOFLMAO....(my sides are hurting already)

LC

 

[Anonymous]

I learned alot. The French may or may not invade us from Mexico. My sodbusting forebears prematurely settled the West and should have invested in wagon wheels instead.. We may or may not own Canada.Wheat farmers in Montana are p----d off. Everything in the known universe may or may not be subsidized and \or corrupt and is also either a bargain or may be a boondoggle.

Exactly my point

[Anonymous]

....(my sides are hurting already)

That's what happens when you don't read the fine print on your prescription meds.......

Doctor to LC - "Like I've told you before, it's an ANALGESIC, not an ANAL GESIC!"

[Limitedclear]

....(my sides are hurting already)

That's what happens when you don't read the fine print on your prescription meds.......

Doctor to LC - "Like I've told you before, it's an ANALGESIC, not an ANAL GESIC!"

Lame, FM, even for you. But whaddya want from an Econogeek...

LOL...

LC

[vsmith]

Methinks it time for

 

 

 

 

[Murphy Siding]

Methinks it time for

     Methinks it's time to have my eyeglass prescription updated.  What exactly is that a picture of?

 

 

 

 

[Anonymous]

Methinks it time for

     Methinks it's time to have my eyeglass prescription updated.  What exactly is that a picture of?

What?  You don't recognize the South Park kids when you see 'em?

[Murphy Siding]

Methinks it time for

     Methinks it's time to have my eyeglass prescription updated.  What exactly is that a picture of?

What?  You don't recognize the South Park kids when you see 'em?

 

Actually, no.  If you remember, I got myself in trouble once before over something to do with South Park.  I think it had something to do with you and Iron Ken.  I simply don't watch television. (shrugs)  Chances are, I'm not missing anything.  I thought the tiny picture was Homer Simpson anyway.