This is what Civil War in America will Look Like

[buster2209]

Originally Posted by General Geoff

History is written by the victors...

Haha, yes it is.

Anyways, we are getting off the subject.

I posted the article to see what people's thoughts on this article are, not to debate whether it was a seccessionary or civil war or whether wikipedia sucks....

[buster2209]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

If any State tried to secede, the Feds would arrest every State politician who favored secession, throw them in jail, and replace them with acceptable pro-Federal politicians.

It wouldn't come to federal troops firing upon Pa NG troops, because the people who would give the orders to the national Guard would all be in jail. The US Constitution allows for the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus in case of insurrection; Abe Lincoln made use of that to throw his political opponents in jail. It means that the President can arrest anyone and hold them indefinitely without trial or counsel or communication with the outside world. In other countries, we'd call them "hostages". Here, I expect they'd call them "rebels" or "insurgents" under the "domestic contingency operation".

Now we get into the subject of whether the constitution is a freedom document or a blueprint for a large, centrally planned government.....

[General Geoff]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

If any State tried to secede, the Feds would arrest every State politician who favored secession, throw them in jail, and replace them with acceptable pro-Federal politicians.

It wouldn't come to federal troops firing upon Pa NG troops, because the people who would give the orders to the national Guard would all be in jail. The US Constitution allows for the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus in case of insurrection; Abe Lincoln made use of that to throw his political opponents in jail. It means that the President can arrest anyone and hold them indefinitely without trial or counsel or communication with the outside world. In other countries, we'd call them "hostages". Here, I expect they'd call them "rebels" or "insurgents" under the "domestic contingency operation".

Hard to arrest state politicians when the federal agents can't get near them. I'd imagine that if the state government declared its independence from the Union, they would have a fairly strong security perimeter set up to weed out and eject any feds from coming to arrest them.

Leap-frog to the feds then calling in the army, and poof, you have a civil war proper.



The idea is that a single state trying to secede has a very hard, uphill battle. If ten or twenty states all secede at the same time, well, the federal government would be the one with the uphill battle due to thin resource spread.

[1861]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

If any State tried to secede, the Feds would arrest every State politician who favored secession, throw them in jail, and replace them with acceptable pro-Federal politicians.

It wouldn't come to federal troops firing upon Pa NG troops, because the people who would give the orders to the national Guard would all be in jail. The US Constitution allows for the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus in case of insurrection; Abe Lincoln made use of that to throw his political opponents in jail. It means that the President can arrest anyone and hold them indefinitely without trial or counsel or communication with the outside world. In other countries, we'd call them "hostages". Here, I expect they'd call them "rebels" or "insurgents" under the "domestic contingency operation".

That is exactly what happened in Maryland when the last war started . Before they could vote to secede most were arrested and held illegally for the duration .

[1861]

Originally Posted by General Geoff

History is written by the victors...

Sadly that is true .

[ddog101775]

the main thing that annoys me in this article is the fact that this guy thinks that some liberal or conservative can just walk into a nuclear missile silo and obliterate a city.

correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't there a very lengthy and secure process in launching a nuke, that involves direct confirmation from POTUS and cooperation from the TWO guys turning the keys (plus a whole lot of other stuff)? i'm not quite sure what the details of that process are, but i believe it involves SECRET codes sent by POTUS, that are LOCKED in a SAFE until someone (and i believe that's one, and only one person) in the silo unlocks said safe and retrieves those codes, to insure that it is indeed POTUS ordering the launch.

also, this guy seems to think that we're just going to start dropping nukes on our own soil. sorry, but even though we might go to war, i don't think that we will have people willing to start nuking our own soil, and millions of americans, just to win. i just don't see it going THAT far.

[1861]

Originally Posted by ddog101775

the main thing that annoys me in this article is the fact that this guy thinks that some liberal or conservative can just walk into a nuclear missile silo and obliterate a city.

correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't there a very lengthy and secure process in launching a nuke, that involves direct confirmation from POTUS and cooperation from the TWO guys turning the keys (plus a whole lot of other stuff)? i'm not quite sure what the details of that process are, but i believe it involves SECRET codes sent by POTUS, that are LOCKED in a SAFE until someone (and i believe that's one, and only one person) in the silo unlocks said safe and retrieves those codes, to insure that it is indeed POTUS ordering the launch.

also, this guy seems to think that we're just going to start dropping nukes on our own soil. sorry, but even though we might go to war, i don't think that we will have people willing to start nuking our own soil, and millions of americans, just to win. i just don't see it going THAT far.

I imagine they could take most any of us into the controls and we wouldn't have a clue how to fire them .

[General Geoff]

i don't think that we will have people willing to start nuking our own soil, and millions of americans, just to win. i just don't see it going THAT far.

There hasn't been a total war involving a nuclear-capable nation since world war II. Nobody really knows what would happen.

[wa3ra]

A civil war (there's an oxymoron for you!) here would more resemble the Irish Civil war in the early 1920s; several groups cooperating against the 'federal' government, devolving into contingents splintering off from the cooperating groups and fighting each other for control.

Add to that the ne'er-do-wells and gangbangers that see a profit in chaos and mayhem, a few wackos, and foreign interests that want to foment more unrest towards their own ends...

It would be a mess.

The only type of 'civil' war that is worse is the ethnic/religious type; behold what happened to the once beautiful city of Sarajevo.

[knight0334]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

If any State tried to secede, the Feds would arrest every State politician who favored secession, throw them in jail, and replace them with acceptable pro-Federal politicians.

It wouldn't come to federal troops firing upon Pa NG troops, because the people who would give the orders to the national Guard would all be in jail. The US Constitution allows for the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus in case of insurrection; Abe Lincoln made use of that to throw his political opponents in jail. It means that the President can arrest anyone and hold them indefinitely without trial or counsel or communication with the outside world. In other countries, we'd call them "hostages". Here, I expect they'd call them "rebels" or "insurgents" under the "domestic contingency operation".

Remember though, the ability to suspend is detailed as Congressional power via Article I, Section 9. Abe's usage was found unconstitutional after the fact.

But as in Andrew Jackson's, Lincoln's, Bush II, and many others' time - nobody abides by the Constitution..