Will US Soldiers Take Our Guns? "A Critical Decision"

[Eugene V. Debs]

As promised-- a reply to the rest of your post--

When the constitution was written all of the states were slave states, and the Yankees didn't want to count free blacks and indians either. Either way it would have given the largely agrarian areas equal representation to the industrial areas, and that is what they wanted to avoid.

So?

Lincoln even offered a constitutional amendment making slavery permanent and irevocable in the south if the south would agree to pay his tariffs and stop insisting that new states choose their own position on admission. He didn't give a rats ass about slaves beyond their affect on control of congress and use as a propaganda tool.

You're talking to more of a Stevens/Sumner fan than a Lincoln fan, so yeah, you aren't exactly exploding any myths for me about Lincoln here.

And as for treating them as property, the Union army continued to treat blacks captured during the war as contraband property until the end of the war, never mind the emancipation proclamation.

Okay, and after the war slavery was abolished and you can't tell me that the Radical Republicans did not make earnest efforts to give the newly freed slaves equality under the law during the early Reconstruction period.

Actually technological, scientific, and social progress, not to mention economic growth that was phenominal by todays standards was occurring under the previous system,

Yeah, and the industrial and banking interests largely responsible for that progress were the victors of the Civil War.

And contrary to wiping out fuedalism, that is exactly what Lincoln wanted to perpetuate.

'Splain, Lucy.

Lincoln inherited the Whig mantle from Henry Clay, who was the ideological successor to Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton is noteable among the founders for wanting to keep the English system (fuedalist poltical system/mercantilist economic system) but without the English themselves. The Whigs had had little success until they formed the Republican party by joining with several other unsuccessful parties.

Yes, I was just having this discussion with Chambered Round in another thread (the Rick Santorum thread)-- I'm fully aware of the GOP's Whig, and by extension, Federalist roots, and that the Federalists were arguably counterrevolutionaries. None of this changes the fact that the Civil War established industrial/capitalist supremacy over the agrarian/semi-feudal interests.

There is no legitimate excercise of power on the basis of majority rule. Majority rule is not a good principle on which to base anything. I reject any idea that majority rule is good, or anything other than a semi organized and easily manipulated mob.

What other principle would you suggest for large groups of people with differing interests making decisions that affect all of them? Consensus model? Good luck with that. Pretend we're not talking about a state, but rather a large organization based on free association.

The proximate cause of the rebellion was the imposition, and threat of imposition of onerous tariffs, and the direct threat of the use of military force against states or municipalities that refused to pay. Pretty much what started the first American revolution.

Was not. Sorry, but I'm gonna stick with the 1860 Presidential election as being the proximate cause, and I really don't have anything to add to that argument at this time.

Maybe, maybe not. But it's a lot easier to get to the mayors office, or Harrisburg with torches and pitchforks than it is to travel to Washington DC. The idea is that it is easier to affect change and get redress closer to home and dealing with smaller government bodies. The more large and remote the harder it is for us, as individuals, to affect.

I also favor decentralized government-- don't let my support of the Union during a specific historical period make you think otherwise-- that's based on particular circumstances unique to the time, and I do not extrapolate from that a broader principle that centralized government is superior to decentralized government.

In any event, if a political subdivision aims to be just as, if not more oppressive, than the larger government it is seceding from, then I do not view that government as being any more legitimate than the government it dissolved its bonds with. For instance, if NY, NJ, or MA seceded from the US so they could impose stricter gun laws, or SC, MS, or AL seceded from the US so they could knock down the barrier between church and state, then fuck them states, in my opinion, and fuck their hypocritical claims of "freedom". Just like fuck the CSA and their defense of "liberty" to maintain their cherished "peculiar institution" and continue White Supremacy. You can talk about tariffs all you like, but slavery WAS an issue in the Civil War. Yes, Lincoln was willing to compromise on it, but the South was not.

But there is another idea that people often miss. If you want to opress yourself, go ahead. If the people of NJ want 100% tax, and total care from the government then the people of NJ can do that to an extent. To themselves. But they have no right to tell their neighbors that they must participate as well. Probably because they were the existing political entities, the founders decided that the states were the appropriate place to concetrate most of the power. Except for Hamilton, the rat bastard.

This is not a sustainable argument, and as an anarcho-cappie I expect you to recognize that. At what level does the collective cease to have authority over the individual? How many square miles should the appropriate unit be measured in? Or should we use population? Or a combination of the two. And don't speak to me of the US Constitution as it is clearly a counterrevolutionary document from any anarchist perspective and is, in any case, obviously not a morally-justified structure of government from an anarcho-cappie view.

We're talking principles of government here, not merely historical accident, and there is no justification based on universal principles alone that make it okay for a political subdivision to oppress someone, but not the larger political unit.

Lincoln was very clear about his intentions in his speeches and campaign materials well before he was elected. His associates in congress had been trying repeatedly to accomplish the same things, and a chief executive who wouldn't veto them would allow them to accomplish their goals.

Has nothing to do with when the issues you cited actually occurred. You said before the war, I say afterwards. That was the contested issue.

No, the government should not. Other people, and especially the blacks themselves should take action to support their right to vote to include both peaceful, and if nessecary violent means. And the 15th amendment wasn't ratified until 1870 so that can hardly be used aa a justification for the murder or hundreds of thousands of southerners. Blacks didn't even have a Federally protected right to vote in the Union until 6 years after the slaughter of my countrymen was finished.

If the government can use force to defend Liberty then they will (and do) just charactize every use force as such a use. The government does not use force without us being told that it is in defense of Liberty, or to protect the people, or fight crime or some other laudable and noble cause that in reality has nothing what so ever to do with it.

That's fair enough from an anarchist perspective, but that analysis does not work even from a minarchist perspective, which, nowadays, is where I'm comin from.

People is the south did not fight and die to maintain slavery.

That's not what many prominent Southern newspaper editors, landholders and politicians thought-- many of them were truly convinced they were fighting to preserve the institution of slavery. Indeed they helped support guerilla warfare in Kansas by pro-slavery settlers against anti-slavery settlers over five years before the war started. Yes, I realize the violence was not one-sided, but the fact that a bloody guerilla conflict was raging within US territory over 5 years before the South seceded should be evidence that slavery was no small causus belli in the Civil War to come. Hell, violence even broke out on the Senate floor over the issue of Bleeding Kansas with Sen. Preston Brooks bludgeoning the fuck out of Abolitionist Sen. Charles Sumner for insulting his cousin in a speech against slavery.

So slavery may not be a big issue to neo-Confederates, modern-day CSA apologists or anarcho-capitalists, but it was certainly a major issue to both Northerners and Southerners back then-- and both sides repeatedly made it clear they were willing to go to war over abolition of/preservation of the institution, tariffs notwithstanding.

Von Mises, and Rothbard, definately. Konkin, not so much. A lot of newer authors too. Of course all the old ones: Bastiat, Molinari, Locke, etc, etc, etc.

Familiar with Von Mises. Really like the essays I've read by Rothbard-- respect him even when I disagree with him. Konkin's kinda got a nice criminal/revolutionary cache with his support for "gray" and black marketeering. Heard of Molinari but don't know much about him, Bastiat never heard of. Locke an anarcho-capitalist? Nah, he was definitely a minarchist-- a classical liberal. While Rothbard definitely acknowledged the influence of the classical liberals, and cast himself as a continuation of that tradition, anarcho-capitalism is clearly a theoretical step beyond what the classical liberals/radicals had envisioned.

I'm sure we'll have many long, intellectually-exhausting debates here, as I've generally found anarcho-capitalists to be quite sharp and master debaters

To return the favor, and let you know where I'm coming from, I was formerly a card-carrying minarchist Libertarian, then a card-carrying Wobbly anarcho-syndicalist, then I started classifying myself with the much broader term "libertarian socialist". Nowadays I really don't call myself shit, as I've become way too cynical over the years, but I tend to lean towards minarchism politically and libertarian socialism (specifically I like elements of anarcho-syndicalism, market socialism, and mutualism) economically. But, really, I'm just a cynic, so I tend to focus on practicality more often than principle nowadays-- not that I've abandoned principle entirely, but I'm much less likely to defend certain principles to the death, in the face of obvious impracticality, than I once was. And, quite honestly, I'm much less likely to fight for my political principles nowadays-- staying true to my friends and family is good enough.

So, yeah, I can dig where you're coming from ideologically on a lot of stuff, though obviously we differ on some very key points.

Had some more thoughts on your statements about hipocrisy.

Dude, you're overthinking it. Sorry, but if you consider yourself under an occupation government and actively support that government (not just talking about passive shit like paying taxes, or going to war if drafted) then you are either a hypocrite or an idiot, or both-- or just plain ol' full of shit/talking out your ass. If you call the US Civil War the War of Northern Aggression, then you have no business flying a US flag of the "occupation government" outside your house, nor do you have any business aggressively supporting occupations in foreign lands by that same "foreign occupier".

No one is going to arrest you for not flying the flag or for not actively voicing your support for this or that war. Hell, no one's even going to discriminate against you for not putting up a flagpole with the Stars and Stripes. If that were the case, it might be different. But how many Irish Republicans fly the Union Jack and supported the Falklands War? How many Palestinians fly the Israeli flag?

If I understand your statements correctly, then it leads me to think that you believe that we should all stop obeying illegal or unconstitutional laws such as the NFA, GCA, FOPA, income tax, or even bans on carrying in local parks, and rise up violently against those who come to enforce them or else shut up and stop complaining and stop trying to change them. I'm sure that can't be what you mean, but it seems to be.

You do not understand my statements correctly. There's a big-ass difference between doing shit so you don't go to jail and doing shit when no one's forcing you to.

[Halftrack]

You do not understand my statements correctly. There's a big-ass difference between doing shit so you don't go to jail and doing shit when no one's forcing you to.

Good point. I'm southern born and raised, and I generally identify with most things Southern. For better or worse, the North won. The war is over. Time to move on.

Yeah, Bahstonians and Noo Yawkas generally piss me off as much as Bubba and Jim Bob irritate most Yankees.

AFAIC, we're all now in the same boat. This country is messed up. The question is, how much longer will it exist in its present form, and will anything be done to turn it around?

I think once those of us who still work and pay taxes have been tapped out and the underclass (whatever that is) gets really ugly about not getting as much gubmint cheese, we could be looking at class warfare before the feds step on us.

It could be in their best interest to have us go at each other and trim down the ranks before they take any action. Armed insurrection would no doubt be very costly for both parties.

[Capt Quahog]

alex jones, etc. all have some interesting things to say from time to time. too bad they continually blow any credibility they might have

I agree with you completely. As the old adage goes . . . "Out of the mouth of idiots and lunatics comes threads of truth".

Through his maniac ranting and raving, Alex Jones presents some very compelling issues. Problem is, Jones even gives we. of the "Tin Foil Hat Community" a bad name.

A long time girlfriend was a Clinical Psychologist and used to describe guys like Alex Jones as people with "Racing Thoughts". They have great difficulty trying to frame or structure thinking so the random data can be rendered down into cohesive transferable information.

From time to time, I try to listen to Alex Jones but the guy gives me a headache after about 10-minutes. Too much unprocessed muddled wordage which appears to be several strings of data all tangled into a polyglot of nonsense.

Had some guy at a recent gun show inform me that concentration camps were already being set up inside the United States and they were guarded by one-hundred thousand foreign soldiers. When I asked this character where the camps were and who were the troops? . . . he answered . . ."Everywhere and they are Russian soldiers". My question then was . . . how he knew that they were Russian soldiers? . . . His reply . . "By the Russian uniforms". "Have you seen the Russian soldiers wearing these distinctive recognizable uniforms?", I ask. His retort . . "No . . .but I it's all over the Internet and Alex Jones said so". Honest to God!

Told him not to worry . . . as we American citizens out gun the bastards by at least a thousand to one.

That reminds me . . . I need to pick up another roll as the tin foil hat at this point needs to be reinforced and probably enlarged.

[PirateSteve]

I'm chiming in on this post a little late, but as a United States Sailor, I want to answer the originial question:

If I am ordered to take, under force or threat of force, any legally owned private property, including firearms, I must inform the person issuing the order that because it is an illegal order, I cannot follow it. Under the UCMJ, no member of the US military is obligated to follow any unlawful order. If that order was given, it would violate both the US Constitution as well as Posse Comitatus. Therefore, not only would I not follow the unlawful order given, I would refuse to pass it on to those to whom I'm responsible to lead.

[Adam-12]

Okay, and after the war slavery was abolished and you can't tell me that the Radical Republicans did not make earnest efforts to give the newly freed slaves equality under the law during the early Reconstruction period.

Equal rights? No. They did give blacks the vote, but they also basically forced them at gunpoint to vote Republican. They simultaneously denied the vote to former Confederates, meaning most Southern whites. While Southerners may not have taken kindly to former slaves voting, the combination of that AND disenfranchising Southern whites led directly to the violent intimidation of black voters, in organizations like the Ku Klux Klan.

And yes, I'm specifically blaming Lincoln's political corruption of the South for the rise of the KKK. So I'm also indirectly blaming him for every lynching from that day to this.

[DaveM55]

I'm chiming in on this post a little late, but as a United States Sailor, I want to answer the originial question:

If I am ordered to take, under force or threat of force, any legally owned private property, including firearms, I must inform the person issuing the order that because it is an illegal order, I cannot follow it. Under the UCMJ, no member of the US military is obligated to follow any unlawful order. If that order was given, it would violate both the US Constitution as well as Posse Comitatus. Therefore, not only would I not follow the unlawful order given, I would refuse to pass it on to those to whom I'm responsible to lead.

I'm with you on that!!!

[DennisH82]

I'm chiming in on this post a little late, but as a United States Sailor, I want to answer the originial question:

If I am ordered to take, under force or threat of force, any legally owned private property, including firearms, I must inform the person issuing the order that because it is an illegal order, I cannot follow it. Under the UCMJ, no member of the US military is obligated to follow any unlawful order. If that order was given, it would violate both the US Constitution as well as Posse Comitatus. Therefore, not only would I not follow the unlawful order given, I would refuse to pass it on to those to whom I'm responsible to lead.

I will second that!

[Eugene V. Debs]

Equal rights? No. They did give blacks the vote, but they also basically forced them at gunpoint to vote Republican.

By "basically" you mean "Ok, well, not really"

They simultaneously denied the vote to former Confederates, meaning most Southern whites.

Denying the franchise to those who levied war against the United States of America-- really, what were they thinking?

While Southerners may not have taken kindly to former slaves voting, the combination of that AND disenfranchising Southern whites led directly to the violent intimidation of black voters, in organizations like the Ku Klux Klan.

Okay, first off-- you can't know that the KKK wouldn't have existed even if the Union Army hadn't engaged in military occupation and denied the franchise to former Confederates. In fact, I'd argue that feelings of white supremacy were strong enough that vigilante and state violence against Blacks would have happened anyways. The fact that it continued after Reconstruction ended and the original Klan was no more should be evidence enough of that. There's plenty of evidence that the white population had no intention of ever allowing the black population equal rights, no matter what the Union did or did not do, and were prepared to use whatever means necessary to ensure white supremacy over the newly freed slaves.

Second-- even if it did contribute to the rise of the Klan, well, so what? That's not the fault of the Republicans or the Union Army that a terrorist organization developed when the Union deprived the right to vote for those who had levied war against the US, and took measures to ensure the political equality of freed slaves that challenged white political, social and economic supremacy. Sometimes bad consequences come from doing the right thing.

I really think they should have given newly freed slaves a "free territory" carved out of parts of Alabama, Mississippi, and Lousiana (and maybe another one carved out of NC, VA and SC) and admitted it/them to the Union as a separate state(s) so that it wasn't a choice of (1) enforce equality through military occupation or (2) end the military occupation and allow white southerners to quickly eliminate the rights of black people in their political jurisdiction.

And yes, I'm specifically blaming Lincoln's political corruption of the South for the rise of the KKK. So I'm also indirectly blaming him for every lynching from that day to this.

Actually you can't lay what happened under Reconstruction on Lincoln-- most of which happened under Radical Republicans after Lincoln's death who wanted to go much further in subjugating the former Confederates and bringing political equality to the freed slaves than Lincoln ever did. Lincoln was a political opportunist and relatively moderate, whereas men like Sumner and Stevens who took over after Lincoln died and cut Johnson off at the balls were true believers on a moral crusade.

[MostlyHarmless]

I'm chiming in on this post a little late, but as a United States Sailor, I want to answer the originial question:

If I am ordered to take, under force or threat of force, any legally owned private property, including firearms, I must inform the person issuing the order that because it is an illegal order, I cannot follow it. Under the UCMJ, no member of the US military is obligated to follow any unlawful order. If that order was given, it would violate both the US Constitution as well as Posse Comitatus. Therefore, not only would I not follow the unlawful order given, I would refuse to pass it on to those to whom I'm responsible to lead.

I think nobody doubts that there will always be soldiers who actually understand the issues and act like you. However, I don't think it matters much if you refuse to obey the order as long as there are enough following it, unless you go one step further and actually step into their way.

Maybe you are willing to go even that far, but do you think that there will be a large number acting like that?


Jan

[DennisH82]

I think nobody doubts that there will always be soldiers who actually understand the issues and act like you. However, I don't think it matters much if you refuse to obey the order as long as there are enough following it, unless you go one step further and actually step into their way.

Maybe you are willing to go even that far, but do you think that there will be a large number acting like that?


Jan

That’s the real question, will enough see their true duty to this country and its citizens. I have a strong feeling that most will. Remembering that all will be armed and that any division in leadership will result in a number or greater issues for the Chain of Command. How does anyone stand in front a formation of Armed Soldiers and tell them to fire on their own people? There will be some but most will only return fire on the tin foil crowd that engages them first. There will be much shedding of blood for those in uniform and it will mostly be with each other unless someone the troops really respect steps up and stops the illegal orders.