| Author | Message | ||
     Reepicheep |
Yes, I meant secession. Thank you. | ||
| Nukeblue |
on maybe a related note... a guy at my local shop today said the gov is ordering up massive amounts of 5.56. he talked to some major manufacturers and all their ammo for 2013 is called for  so it looks like the shortages may continue. people might want to check out the "reloading .223" thread | ||
| Fb1 |
The Northern leadership wasn't concerned with slavery in the beginning; they only wanted to preserve the Union. Change the ending to "they only wanted to continue their aggression and domination against the South. Preserve the Union, boss? Yeah, whatever." and I could agree with your statement. Sean, have you read Wolfie's original post on this thread? I'm curious what YOU would do. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
would the military turn on 'civilians' have, would, and will again when they control the information, they can bend it all they want. | ||
| Kenm123t |
remember Vickie Weaver? | ||
| Seanp |
Well, the South had a chance to break away, if they had won the war. If they knew that eventually they would abolish slavery anyway, they should have just ridden it out and gone along with the Union. Instead, they seceded, knowing that Lincoln would not let it stand. The Confederates thought they could win the war - they were woefully wrong. So they had a chance, and blew it. I don't feel sorry for that at all, considering the end result was a stronger United States than we had before, and without the scourge of owning other human beings like owning horses. Regarding the original question, it would all depend on the circumstances. There's no way to say that yes I would turn on my fellow Americans, or no, I would not. That's why, in my first response in the thread, I mentioned that it was always an interesting discussion that I had with my students when I taught history. Like so many "what ifs" in life, there's no way to know for sure what one would do unless actually confronted with the situation. | ||
| Fb1 |
Sean, you're good with words; you should run for office. I'm going to leave it alone; I've typed and nuked several responses but can't seem to speak my mind without being snarky and cynical (see above). You, in my opinion, seem to view America past and present through a Yankee filter. I, however, do not. Peace (and thanks for your service). FB | ||
| Seanp |
I was raised in CT, but spent about a third of my life in the South, went to grad school in the south, and have traveled many Civil War battlefields. But yeah, I definitely side with the North when it comes to teaching or discussing the Civil War. But I'll always listen to the other side!  | ||
| Hughlysses |
Sean- just remember, as noted Civil War author put it, all those seacoast mansions in New England were built from profits made from slave-trading ships owned by New Englanders. The North profited from slavery for a long time before they turned against it. The United States is indeed stronger because they won the war. OTOH that victory ensured a stronger Federal government with more power that is causing many of the problems that have us worried now. | ||
| Aesquire |
Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter was much better than I feared it would be. Alas, it has little value to this thread. The "War Of Northern Aggression" AKA the "Civil War" AKA the "War Between The States" was not a simple one issue thing. A lot of it had to do with northern industrialists not wanting the South to industrialize, and getting tariffs put on machine tools to keep their monopoly. A lot had to do with the South having an unfair advantage in heavy stoop labor agriculture, that was starting to go away with new sources of cotton from India and Egypt. The end of slavery was coming, since the old plantation system was doomed in the long run. I don't know how long it would have been before that stain on humanity went away, but it was going to be unprofitable to keep slaves in only a few decades by the time the Civil War started. Unfortunately, modern "education" doesn't have time to explore the real factors, and oversimplifies most history into cliche and buzz words. Face it, your father's high school history text is far better than the one you used, and nothing at all like the one your children are stuck with. That, in the long run, is the greatest danger to your freedom. Ignorant people are easily lied to, and they are being lied to, in abundance. ( note there is a difference between ignorant & stupid. Ignorance can be cured. ) Lincoln DID use what we would consider tyrannical means to oppress opposition. The "film maker" in jail who was blamed by the current President for non-existant protests in Libya and the murders in Bengazi is perhaps worse than what happened back in Lincoln's day. For Obama to truly channel the worst of Lincoln, expect the head of the NRA and Right wing talk show hosts to be imprisoned. I doubt that's going to happen. ( although there is a movement to buy radio syndicates and dump the most vocal critics of the leftist way by leftist rich folk.... ) Me, I'm just waiting for the confiscation law to be passed in the dark of night here in NY and the door kicking to begin. | ||
| Blake |
FB, Reading your commentary one would get the impression that the Union started the war and were the only aggressors or "slaughterers" of their fellow man. Greedy white slave owners started the war, on account of they were fighting for states' rights, namely the right to own humans as if they were cattle. Did Lincoln overstep? Absolutely. That says nothing about the righteousness of either side's cause or culpability. War is hell. That's not news. The integrity, honor and justice of a warring party is well-indicated by how they treat their prisoners of war. Care to compare/contrast the two sides in that light? Andersonville? | ||
| Hughlysses |
Andersonville? Yea, what? Andersonville happened because Grant stopped the exchange of prisoners and the Confederacy didn't have the resources to support their own people and troops, much less POWs. The death rate among the guards at Andersonville was the same as the death rate among the troops. From the wikipedia article (emphasis added):
| ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Interesting stuff. From this distance I expect my perspective is different, but it appears to me that todays state of affairs is a vastly different situation to that of the war of secession. As others have pointed out it looks to be a conflict of rural/producers vs urban/consumers there are no geographic boundaries in this case. It's a socio/economic problem, not a war anyone can "win". If it degrades into open conflict there will only be losers. If you want an example look at Zimbabwe/Rhodesia a once prosperous nation driven into the ground. What happens when the have-nots have grabbed everything from the haves? They can't/won't produce by themselves, so who's going to do it? Hopefully your politicians will have enough sense to get you all back on an even keel. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
there is a distinct States Rights vs Federal lining up against ObamaCare and Gun Control. Several states have already said they will neither implement one, the other, or both. At what point a state decides to kick out the Medicaid / Medicare architecture - then the rest of the Federal Dominoes fall quickly - the final nail being that states declare that they will neither tax, collect, nor forward funds at a national level deciding to provide for their own states, and allowing corporations safe haven from Federal tax mandates..... *if states and cities can ignore federal law for immigration .... what makes you think they cant / wont for taxation ? only a matter of time, but rest assured - we get an internal hot conflict, internments, executions and deportations; they have been training for it for entirely too long | ||
| Fb1 |
Blake - I tried to gracefully bow out of this conversation last night - I can't afford the time it takes to type out my thoughts on such a complex issue as this. Slavery is wrong. Slavery was wrong. We all agree on that. Speaking only for myself (and noting for the record that I'm not a "native-born" Rebel, although my father was), my respect of the South and her people, both past and present, does NOT constitute support for slavery. That shouldn't need to be said, but I toss it out for the obstinately obtuse. The events that led to the Civil War are myriad, enough to fill hundreds of pages of the several books I have on the subject, and went well beyond the issue of slavery. The root of it all was, IMO, northern aggression. We're seeing the very same aggression today. Different era, different actors, same ••••••• greed, avarice, and dogged, demented desire to manipulate and control. The aggression has spread, like cancer, and now extends well beyond the geographical boundaries of the north, but the disease is still the same - it has simply metastasized. We went to war in 1861 to free the slaves (not really, but that's what Sean teaches in his Yankee-biased classes on the Civil War). The cynic in me sees the next civil war being declared to save the children from the Second Amendment. Will Obama overstep his constitutional limits? Hell, he already has, repeatedly, in nearly every aspect of his presidency. But it's OK, apparently - he's "saving" us. From what I don't know, but by God he's saving us, whether we like it or not. Study your Civil War history, amigo; you've accused folks on this thread of being able to "channel" Abraham Lincoln's thoughts on the issue of slavery, in spite of the fact that his thoughts on the matter, written by his own hand, are in the public domain. He was quite clear on the subject. I admit I'm no scholar, but I've read what I've read, written by folks who are. Slavery is wrong. Slavery was wrong. However, the Civil War was about MUCH more than slavery. And the Second Amendment War, if it comes, will be about MUCH more than saving the children. Would YOU fire upon your fellow countrymen? Sean might... FB | ||
| Cowboy |
If there is anoother war it will not be astand up fight. We have learned well from our med east relation that you can do more damage and distrution by use ing terror methods I shudder to think of the things we may see. I think it could be muh worse than a stand up war, there will be more innocent people hurt than military personal. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
OK, so the military are sent in to "quell civil unrest" in the national interest of course. What happens to military personnel who refuse to fire on their own civilian countrymen that they've sworn to protect? Leavenworth? Dishonourable discharge? Firing Squad? Then there's the question of who's a patriot? wrapping yourself in the flag isn't going to help or save you. You're actually quite lucky people in that you have the space & resources to survive outside "The System" should it come to that. I truly hope it doesn't come to that, but remember my friends, my door will always be open for you. | ||
| Chauly |
As I read these posts, I can't help but picture a variation on the introduction that each delegation announces at the party conventions: "The People of the Free State of _______ nominate..." (Message edited by Chauly on January 24, 2013) | ||
| Sifo |
I have to agree, in a large part with FB1. When looking at the civil war, keep in mind one simple fact. The winner (re?)writes history. You have to do a fair amount of digging with an open mind to really have any understanding of almost any conflict in history. Even recent conflicts such as the Iraq war. There was much more to that than WMDs, but many will insist that it was all about WMDs. OK, so the military are sent in to "quell civil unrest" in the national interest of course. What happens to military personnel who refuse to fire on their own civilian countrymen that they've sworn to protect? Leavenworth? Dishonourable discharge? Firing Squad? There's a pretty good show on TV right now here in the states that deals with that exact subject. It's called Last Resort. Basically the commander of a nuclear sub refused an unlawful order to launch his nuclear weapons against a foreign nation. It the show, they are currently at a standoff with the rogue administration currently in office. Where it goes in the show, I have no idea. In real life it would all depend on the final outcome. Suffice it to say, we aren't talking about what to do with individuals who refuse orders. It will be what to do with the generals and all that they command, including the military compounds and hardware that they will posses. The big question is, how many military leaders will follow an unlawful order to go against our citizens, vs. how many military leaders will follow the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I realise that it's the generals who are theoretically in charge of the bases & their equipment & personnel. However the Nuremberg trials after WWII established beyond doubt that "I was only obeying orders." is not a justifiable defence. So will US service personnel be made aware that they may be bought to trial under international law in such circumstances? Remember the US was instrumental in establishing the rule. | ||
| Sifo |
I though we were discussion those who refuse to follow an order. The Nuremberg trials dealt with those who failed to refuse to follow an unlawful order. Those who follow an unlawful order to fire upon our citizens would be subject to Nuremberg style hearings, as well as the possibility of hearings from US government (depending on which side finds victory). Those choosing to not follow that unlawful order would only be in legal peril from the US government, depending on which side finds victory. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I though we were discussion those who refuse to follow an order. The Nuremberg trials dealt with those who failed to refuse to follow an unlawful order. Semantics, it's the other side of the same coin. Some poor bastards are going to be stuck in a cleft stick, you know it & I know it, so why quibble about the direction you're looking at the problem from. The question remains, will US service personnel, of whatever rank, be made aware of their position & the possible consequences of their actions, whichever way they react. Who establishes what order is unlawful or not? Lawyers must be rubbing their hands together with glee. All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope. Winston Churchill. I sincerely hope there's enough to go round. | ||
| Sifo |
The question remains, will US service personnel, of whatever rank, be made aware of their position & the possible consequences of their actions, whichever way they react. I would hope they are currently aware of their legal position already. To be sure, an illegal order will not come with a foot note stating that following this order may have legal ramifications. Who establishes what order is unlawful or not? We have a Constitution and are supposed to be a nation of laws. Ultimately, one of our courts will decide. Probably a military court. Of course, if the side giving the illegal order wins, all bets are off. | ||
| Chauly |
Perhaps we should ask the people called upon to fire on the Branch Davidians or the Weavers? Presumably they were following "legal" orders to fire on people allegedly "in rebellion", no? | ||
| Buffalobolt |
With the US resuming talks with the UN on the "Global Small Arms Treaty", it may not initially be a question of whether "US Troops" would fire on American citizens. Obama may just ask the UN for help, to avoid that issue all together... | ||
| Fb1 |
Obama may just ask the UN for help, to avoid that issue all together... BINGO! | ||
| Hughlysses |
I haven't dug that far back through this discussion, so this may have already been mentioned, but there is a big parallel at the beginning of the Civil War (name used for standardization purposes). Remember that originally only South Carolina and a few other states seceded after Lincoln's election. A second round of states including Virginia and others only seceded after Lincoln called up troops to put down the "rebellion" in the original states that had seceded. This second round of states seceded because they did not believe the president had this authority and that this act was illegal. As has been stated by others, any present conflict will not be so regional in nature and therefore it's unlikely something like this would occur today. | ||
| Kenm123t |
OK what would Colin Powell do based on his recent statements? | ||
| Cowboy |
Just keep own sucking Obama. | ||
| Bob_thompson |
"Obama may just ask the UN for help, to avoid that issue all together..." Several times today when John Kerry spoke to Congress at his confirmation hearings as secretary of state, he referred to "the new world order". I guess that tells us that he, John Kerry, will just do Obama's bidding for him and take us in that direction. Sad indeed. |
