Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

killing peaceful secessionists

78 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

If I understand the OP correctly, the question can be simplified to one distinct meaning:

How many military individuals here would be willing to fire on peacefully protesting civilians wishing to secede, in order to preserve the Union?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

way to dodge the intent of the response in favor of verbal gymnastics. you stated that no one would bother secessionists if they simply went about their way. i gave an example of otherwise. care to duck again or take a real swipe at it?

And no one will bother them if they go about their business and don't break the law.

If the break the law, then they will be arrested. No military personnel will open fire on them, they will simply go to jail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If I understand the OP correctly, the question can be simplified to one distinct meaning:

How many military individuals here would be willing to fire on peacefully protesting civilians wishing to secede, in order to preserve the Union?

very succint. my thanks sir. i could even expand that to willingness to fire on other military personnel seeking to ensure a peaceful secession if we want to look down that rabbit hole

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

zero i would hope. It is their right to peacefully protest and freedom of speech protects them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

And no one will bother them if they go about their business and don't break the law.

If the break the law, then they will be arrested. No military personnel will open fire on them, they will simply go to jail.

and if the "law" they break is unconstitutional, they are wrongly imprisoned. hence another reason for the idea of secession... hence the very reason that secession conditions were included with the signing of the constitution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

explain to me where my own hypothetical is wrong

Well, to start with most Americans are so unconcerned with the government that they dont vote, so I have a hard time believing that 80% of a state could agree on anything, much less something as big as secession.

Simply saying, "but what if people were completely different than they are" doesnt make it an argument.

I suppose you cant technically be "wrong" about a hypothetical, but if you're going to make a completely implausible hypothetical at least make it on an interesting subject. A better one would be- "If Hurricane Sandy was actually a disease and instead of raining on people it turned them into zombies, should the rest of the country try to take back the North Eastern US or just quarantine the area and nuke it. And if so does that count as seceding"

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Well, to start with most Americans are so unconcerned with the government that they dont vote, so I have a hard time believing that 80% of a state could agree on anything, much less something as big as secession.

Simply saying, "but what if people were completely different than they are" doesnt make it an argument.

I suppose you cant technically be "wrong" about a hypothetical, but if you're going to make a completely implausible hypothetical at least make it on an interesting subject. A better one would be- "If Hurricane Sandy was actually a disease and instead of raining on people it turned them into zombies, should the rest of the country try to take back the North Eastern US or just quarantine the area and nuke it. And if so does that count as seceding"

i guess you're right. it's so implausible that it's never happened before.... or ever will again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

zero i would hope. It is their right to peacefully protest and freedom of speech protects them.

Now let's add slightly to that...

Let's say there are enough of those peaceful protesters that the desire of the state to secede was actually the majority opinion, and secession was actually plausible...

What level of force is then acceptable to ensure the continuity of the Union? Or, if that's the majority, should the US just let them go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

and if the "law" they break is unconstitutional, they are wrongly imprisoned. hence another reason for the idea of secession... hence the very reason that secession conditions were included with the signing of the constitution

If they were unconstitutional, then seccession might be the right move, although it would not be peaceful under any circumstances.

The basic flaw in it though is that the vast majority of people don't understand the constitution well enough to determine if something is or is not constutional. Take taxes for example. As Justice Roberts said, congress has the right to require individuals to pay taxes. There is no serious legal opposition to that right. Yet we still see some individuals contest the government's right to collect taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

i guess you're right. it's so implausible that it's never happened before.... or ever will again

Yeah, I sure remember SC peacefully seceding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If I understand the OP correctly, the question can be simplified to one distinct meaning:

How many military individuals here would be willing to fire on peacefully protesting civilians wishing to secede, in order to preserve the Union?

Yours is a much easier question to answer as the OP added to many caveats. :)

I doubt many military members would be willing to fire on "peacefully" protesting civilians under any circumstances. If they were given orders to do so, most would likely follow those orders, but I don't think most officers would give those orders. But if state governments were to participate in seccession, then the police perhaps with military backing, would move in to arrest those state officials, and at that point, it would likely turn into a non peaceful movement.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

One thing I do like about this discussion, is that it adds a touch of modern thought and tangibility to just how chaotic the events of 1860 must have been... We're just talking about secession... They did it... Imagine how 'bad' things were, or how 'bad' they felt things were to actually go through with what followed...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites