Civil War- What Would You Do?

I was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania so I would've been a Union State. If I was born in that era with the same political views as I have now, I would have seen the North as antagonizing the South, practically goading them onto the conflict by attempting to enforce Northern morality on them. There were plenty of issues including the controversial one, but it all comes to one thing: Encroachment. The North was encroaching the South.

And if one side could encroach the other, the Union was in very much doubt anyway. This is what makes Lincoln, a terrible president. If I came to this conclusion, as a soldier for the US Army, I would have tendered my resignation. That might seem cowardly to some, but I could not fight for a 'union' that dictated its affairs to the South, while at the same time I wouldn't have had pro-slavery views(so I couldn't fight for the South.)

 

Should any soldier disobey an order during time of insurrection, he will be subject to drum-head court-martial and summary execution without appeal.

The soldier would have to show immediately the order is unlawful, and the commander may still have him shot.

Let's stay in reality, people.

 

For me, an ordinary person is a person who has and can have little impact on the course of events

An as far as whether the OP referenced such people
Here is what the OP said


"You're a junior enlisted soldier (E1-E4) in the Army National Guard (this means, you enlisted to serve your state but could be put on federal orders). You are told by your chain of command that you have been placed on federal orders. Your orders tell you that your home state (I'll use mine, Massachusetts) has not complied with federal demands for 'such and such' reason. You've been ordered to go in and correct the problem. Massachusetts then says they are going to war against the federal government.

You could potentially be ordered to go fight your family and friends, in your HOME state."

It strikes me as disingenuous to pretend this posting could be inferred to refer to George washington

 

Right, I understand what you're saying now. I agree, two different scenarios. Let's think more broad though, what made George, or anyone else who fired a shot, decide to go against what they were ordered? Tyranny? What they thought were unlawful orders or decisions?

 

Sorry, you don't get to resign from the Army. Not that simple. If you were an officer, you could resign your commission. But you can't just quit the Army as enlisted (obviously there are small loopholes for IET soldiers who refuse to train).

 

So, it is a bit af a digression
But leaving aside the "home team" adulation of our founding fathers
The reality is that our founders did not have to rebel against England
I mean... Canada, Australia, new zeal land, Singapore.... etc... really, they did ok

The American revolution reminds me of many divorces... which are prompted by misunderstanding, unrealistic expectations, selfishness, immaturity, etc etc.

George Washington and the other founding fathers could have figured a way to stay loyal to England and not resort to revolution.... just as the confederate states could have found an accommodation that would absolutely have been better than the civil war. There is nothing remotely admirable about getting into a prideful, self righteous snit

 

The Vice President of the Confederacy made their reason for secession as clear as can be:

Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

 

So I think we're both in agreement that there are reasons the states could have reasons to not respond to the federal government. If we break down the law that requires lawful orders, we know there could be areas the states could choose not to obey, and they would be in the right.

 

No, they were not then and won't be now.

 

If I lived in Georgia during the Civil War, as did my family, I would have fled to the North and done my best to encourage my family to flee with me.

I could not live in a nation who's prime purpose was White Supremacy.

 

Sure and thank you for your retarded question.

 

So in the case of the beginning of the Civil War which were the the unlawful orders which we are referring to

And, isn't it true that it is not infrequent for people to allege that this or that or is unlawful. Four instance, currently there are many people that alleged the income taxes are unlawful. Or that the US government has no right to have something like a wildlife refuge And isn't it true that the standard way of dealing with this issue is through the courts rather than starting a Civil War to resolve each of these disputes

 

ARDY, those allegations of unlawfulness or unfairness are often made by people who don't want to accept social constructions or they don't want to be held accountable for bad behavior.

 

Then I would have let myself been 'dishonorably discharged' then to partake in the "bloodshed of my fellow Americans because you can't politically bind the States together." I would've said that right to Lincoln's face. The Civil War needs to be seen as a negative mark on Lincoln's resume. He broke apart the Union, he's responsible.

 

Lincoln addressed his shooting of troops on his side. Most never mention Abe shooting his own men.

 

I believe he has talked extensively about secession =)

 

When you took that oath, you took it to defend the U.S. Constitution, not your State Constitution.

 

yiosthey, you don't understand the oath. The commitment to the state is subordinated to the federal government.

 

Shakes head.

LAWFUL orders. LAWFUL.

Good god

 

Also, for those of you new to the military, the OATH isn't what you are bound to in the military, it's the CONTRACT you sign that says you must obey all LAWFUL orders handed down to you

 

I'm not referring to the civil war from the past. This is now. I don't know why people keep thinking that. Stop focusing on the one instance of federal outreach and reread the OP.

FOR THE RECORD ANGRY LIBERALS, THIS IS NOT A THREAD ABOUT THE CIVIL WAR WE'VE ALREADY HAD. THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL

 

Yes, hypothetical... but attempting to find parallels to the civil war

So, If you are attempting to draw parallels... then you gotta consider the basis for the parallels

Otoh... if you are simply elucidating your own opinion.... that is fine, but you should not start out with the pretense that the civil war somehow relevant to the discussion... as you did do in the thread title and original posting

 

This is open ended. I should have made it more clear that this is a MODERN day scenario and I'm not talking about slave ownership.

 

Everyone in the military is expected to know the difference between a legal order and an illegal order, and are not obligated to follow an unconstitutional or illegal order!

 

Like you, I would like to think that is what I would have done. However, we both have advantage of hindsight and neither of us can say with certainty that if we had gown up in the south in the 1860's, that this is what we would have done.