Civil War- What Would You Do?

i would side with the army that has the moral highground.

for example, if my state wanted to allow slavery, racial oppression, I would have no choice but to fight against my state

 

LOL pretty selective there, how about something like letting in armed foreign gangsters/Cartels and the states and cities that protect them?

 

Finally someone gives me a straight answer.

That's a bold move. I myself have trouble deciding whether or not I could shoot and kill my family members in war. You have one moral dilemma in the fact that one would disagree with their state's choice, and then you have the other of going to war with your brother.

It's a toughie.

 

why are you even thinking about such things?

lots of time on your hands i guess

 

It's an opinion thread. If you're done contributing you don't need to stick around. I enjoy these tough questions and responses.

 

I also enjoy reviewing responses to better understand the poster. Such as someone that chooses federal government over family/friends. Or someone that chooses their home state over the feds. Or someone that defies everyone! It's all interesting. Thanks for stopping by

 

I don't think there would be a straight up civil war, like the cast time. I think if anything did happen it would start with the collapse of the economy and federal government, which could happen if Trump is left to his own devices. The states would then likely form their own nations, and I am sure you would get a lot of fighting over territory.

 

He said hypothetical, do try to stay on topic .

 

False dichotomy.

I would go ahead and fulfill my orders but at the same time I would give secrets and armaments to my people in my home state. And I'd intentionally be a terrible shot. And I would magically become awful at capturing and detaining people. They'd all manage to escape from me. I'm so clumsy!

 

Jerry Brown and the loony left in California have declared war against the current federal government and are waging a war of obstructionism against the current federal government.

What's really confusing is that the left in California are using "states rights" as an argument for obstructionism against the current federal government.

The last time Democrats used states rights as an argument was back in 1860 when the Democrats refused the outcome of a Presidential election.

 

Simple OP question, lots of spitting and hissing in response, but I'll get to that in a minute

Straight up answer, hypothetically, as someone who loves my family, friends and the Constitution in that order, with "federal government" nowhere on the "love list?" No brainer, would support and defend my family, friends and state, even if I had moral disagreements with its policies. WHATEVER my state was doing couldn't possibly be as bad as what Washington does every day.

More context needed as well. In 1860, the presence of the federal government was not nearly as pervasive, expansive and expensive in people's lives as it is now. Many Southerners thought they and their states had been duped into the Constitution and certain of its aspects, and perceived no benefit whatsoever from the federal government, just detriment and restriction. Antifederalism, a term we never hear today, was still a very real, common political stance, and had little to do with slavery. Liars who want to make the CW "all about slavery" will constantly and KNOWINGLY omit that in their cherrypicking and quote mining, but these are basic facts of American history that are very hard to hide... from intelligent people.

Ask a normal person whether they would choose allegiance to their family and friends or a far away central government? You'll likely get a straight answer, it's a simple question. Ask a LW/Complex the same question, and you will get a hissing rage (Q.E.D. this thread). Why is that I wonder? Why would a hypothetical of whether to choose family and friends or central government induce such rage? Cognitive dissonance? Shame? Hmmm.

 

That's what National Guardsmen did in Alabama in 1964.

 

It's a really tough choice. You have morals.vs.family.vs.duty.vs.homeland.

 

The best possible answer right here. Thank you for posting

 

Brother against brother. It's happened before.

 

you have a duty to the US Constitution.

thats it

 

That's a very simplistic answer. But thank you for your input, once again. You're on the Federal Government over Family side. To each their own

 

But you've already said that you support California session. In your heart, aren't you already a traitor to the United States?

 

Why not just admit the theoretical question is more complicated than you care to address rather than attacking the OPer?

 

if my family supported human slavery, racial oppression, they are NO longer my family.

 

if my state suddenly supported discrimination, my family would leave the state and move to a place that respected human rights.

and then we might help the Feds go into my former state and bring back justice.

 

What in the OP mentions slavery.

It could be any number of things, that's why it's open ended. You clearly stated that no matter what, you'd chose your constitution first. So what if the war was based off something really stupid?

I don't know why you keep bringing up slavery, that's not the topic.

 

The "founding fathers" rebelled against the government in war, including preserving a slave nation with many of those leaders slave owners themselves. So, weren't they EXACTLY as much "traitors" as were the Confederates? What is the difference? The Confederates declared independence from a government elsewhere telling them what to do (DC/federal government) no different than the American revolutionaries were fighting against a government elsewhere telling them what to dos.

Never mentioned is that the Confederacy was, like the American revolutionaries, fighting against high taxes aimed specifically at them. The Federal government has imposed extremely high tariffs (taxes) against the exporting of commodities specifically from the South, for which the Northern states were imposing high taxes specifically targeting Southern states to pay for the Northern States and disproportionate to the population pay for the Federal government, the exact way the British government was imposing high tariffs on American colonialists.

How were the American revolutionaries different from the Confederates? Is the only difference that they won - and winners are always in the right by virtue of winning and losers always in the wrong by virtue of losing?

 

i am saying that if my state was clearly in the wrong, such as supporting slavery or racial oppression or ethnic cleansing or genocide, I would have no choice but help the Feds do what is right.

and my family would be with me as we support human rights and not evil

 

That's not what you said. You said there's the constitution, and that's it.

Which means no matter what you would take the federal government. Your family does not appreciate that.

But hey, you've given your answer and I appreciate your time. No need to respond as your point is proven.