77 replies to this topic

[thatlookseasy]

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

[Davidson Deac II]

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.

[NanceUSMC]

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...

[twylyght]

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.

and you are correct in that the vast majority of americans haven't even given the constitution a once over, much less a dedicated study. you'll notice i did not mention a protest against the colletion of taxes, but of how those taxes are misappropriated by constitutional standards.

as an aside, i noted that justice roberts did not address that issue while adding his own context regarding constitutional bases for collecting said taxes.

so, the original assertion stands. if the populace had changed to the point of seeking secession peacefully on constitutional grounds, would an order of force by the commander in chef compel you to fire on said secessionists?

[Inimicus]

again, as stated before. not a 50-50 split within the seceeding states.

Doesn't matter if its 60-40 or even 70-30 in favor of separation. If you want a peaceful separation then there will have to be provisions made for making those who want no part of it whole. If you want it to be peaceful then that means buying them out. Otherwise people will defend their homes and farms and businesses by force if necessary and when the separatists respond in kind you can bet Uncle Sam will be there with his F-22s.

The only way this hypothetical would stand a snowballs chance in hell of being both peaceful and successful would be to buy people out.

[Davidson Deac II]

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...

Agreed.

Circumstances would be very different now though than they were back in 1860 though. Back then there was much more of a tendency for people to think of themselves as Virginians or Texans or etc... I can't imagine many military members today putting loyalty to state ahead of loyalty to country.

[mmmbeans]

wait... why are they firing on peaceful protesters again? just because of what they're protesting?

[Inimicus]

you talk as if the people of the federal government exist to serve the government. if this is indeed a "united states" surely the land is rented and not owned by the federal government?

Maybe, but every building, vehicle, weapon, and everything else down to the last grain of propellent belongs to Uncle Sam.


And I doubt he will be in much of a mood to hand any of it over.

[twylyght]

Yeah, I sure remember SC peacefully seceding

secession happened before the battle of ft sumter. at that point it was defending sovereign territory

and just a little factoid - the union armies were commanded by a republican president

[NanceUSMC]

Agreed.

Circumstances would be very different now though than they were back in 1860 though. Back then there was much more of a tendency for people to think of themselves as Virginians or Texans or etc... I can't imagine many military members today putting loyalty to state ahead of loyalty to country.

Agree totally... BUT, over loyalty to country is loyalty to family... And if family were among those protesting, all bets would be off for loyalty to country...

[thatlookseasy]

secession happened before the battle of ft sumter. at that point it was defending sovereign territory

and just a little factoid - the union armies were commanded by a republican president

Well if youre under the impression that SC seceded peacefully during the Civil War than I guess your original hypothetical makes a lot more sense

[twylyght]

Doesn't matter if its 60-40 or even 70-30 in favor of separation. If you want a peaceful separation then there will have to be provisions made for making those who want no part of it whole. If you want it to be peaceful then that means buying them out. Otherwise people will defend their homes and farms and businesses by force if necessary and when the separatists respond in kind you can bet Uncle Sam will be there with his F-22s.

The only way this hypothetical would stand a snowballs chance in hell of being both peaceful and successful would be to buy people out.

i agree.

[NanceUSMC]

wait... why are they firing on peaceful protesters again? just because of what they're protesting?

It was implied by some posters that there would be a number of willing military personnel that would be willing to do so... This thread was an effort to guage just how many military present here would actually obey, or be willing to obey such orders...

[twylyght]

Maybe, but every building, vehicle, weapon, and everything else down to the last grain of propellent belongs to Uncle Sam.


And I doubt he will be in much of a mood to hand any of it over.

if uncle sam is not the people of the US then why don't we just call washington dc the seat of the royal houses?

[twylyght]

Well if youre under the impression that SC seceded peacefully during the Civil War than I guess your original hypothetical makes a lot more sense

don't take my word for it. feel free to google/wiki it yourself