Civil War- What Would You Do?

The whole premise of your thread is that firing on insurrectionists is one...

 

Federal order. The premise of the thread was that you would be in the state's national guard.

 

Let's wake up George Washington and tell him that. Stupid rebel!

 

What about people like George Washington?

 

Washington rebeled against tyranny.

The South rebeled against the idea of freedom for slaves.

 

You've made your obsession about slaves clear. This is an open ended thread that could have endless reasons for the federal engagement. You've made your point that in all cases, you choose federal government.

Not sure what else you have to discuss

 

I think this is sort of a mixed bag, correct in part but not without exception. One would hope that individual rational mind would play a major controlling part in a person's decisions, but it's true that passions get out of control and people become illogical. You can see that in our political conflicts right now- not only people but news and what we used to call journalists turning a blind eye to facts in order to push an ideology. However there is a huge difference between following orders from what you consider honorable command, and what you consider corrupt and dishonorable command. I believe that in the environment of today, the people have a lot less respect for the governments at all levels than existed in the historic past. There is also a vast difference between firebombing the homeland of a deadly enemy knowing that non-combatants will die- and doing the same to your own countrymen.

N Korea is an example. It is possible that war may be necessary, and with the density of that small nation and the intensity of the strike required to neutralize it, millions of Korean civilians could be killed. The idea that we must not vigorously attack the actual combatants because non-combatants would also be killed is to surrender- and that is unacceptable. Those non-combatants are the resource that has allowed the brutal dictatorships to thrive for 60 years in N Korea, lacking the will to organize resistance, lacking the courage to overthrow or eliminate that reign of terror and thus putting the world (and our non-combatants) at risk too.... So my sympathy for them is limited. It would have been so for the Japanese and German populations as well. If you allow your own leaders to put your family in mortal danger through their actions and do nothing- you support them, regardless of your military status.

There have been times in history when military personnel have refused to follow illegal orders, but those are exception. However, there are people today who absolutely believe that the prime directive is the constitution, and will hold faith with that against any force. The most notable of these is the Oath-keepers organization. Most are ex-military, police and others who have in some way pledged allegiance to the constitution, and again to place that above all others. We should all be oath-keepers.

 

Once you're under federal orders, you're regular Army, just like the poor bastards that were called up to go to Iraq. That's the contract you sign, and the oath you take. If you can't honor it, find another job.

 

True. But this goes back to the OP and unlawful orders. Remember the oath consists of LAWFUL orders handed down

 

They wouldn't send you to your own State.

 

The same reason they started the last civil war - they don't believe in the Constitution.

 

Tell you what, you go and dig him up, tell him that and see what he says. Get back to us when you get an answer.

 

I text my family and say go live with Great Aunt Matilda cause the poo is about to hit the fan where you be and save up a lot of money when you get there because we are going to be getting some cheap land when this is over....then I gear up.

Seriously.

 

You took an oath to protect & defend the Constitution and to protect the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Did you take that oath seriously? Therein lies your answer!

 

Perhaps you could elaborate on your point to clarify what you are saying
But just taking your comment at face value...

I was Speaking of ordinary people
In response to an original posting that seemed to reference the decisions and actions of ordinary people

I observe that George Washington was far from an ordinary person

The point I am making here is that "Leaders". Base their leadership decisions on a nuanced and complicated evaluation of the situation.... where as followers tend to have a more simplistic section matrix centering on factors such loyalty, peer pressure, etc

 

Thank you for this retarded deflection.

 

The OP is open ended. It's not "ordinary people" and "not so ordinary people". Whatever the hell that means

 

Why did you say this? Reread...
smh

 

Why don't you cite the whole oath. You skipped a part that the OP is referring to. Also, look what I've underlined. If an unlawful federal order is given, your post becomes irrelevant.

 

Like I said, you would be deployed to another State by the Feds. You wouldn't be sent to suppress an insurrection in your own State for precisely the reason that your post addresses - it creates a conflict of interest for the soldiers.

You would be sent to kill other peoples families.

 

You're reserving the fact that the order is LAWFUL. This is open ended for lawful AND unlawful orders. Please, respectfully, re-read.

 

And who are you to determine what is and isn't lawful? What is unlawful about the Federal government asserting their Constitutional authority? Kennedy did it.

 

You are arguing that any order you don't like is unlawful.

Like I have said all along, righties don't believe in the Constitution. That is the core of your objection.

If you want to overthrow the Federal government, you should just say so.

 

That would be a horrible idea. That would leave even less of a personal reason for either side to actually wage a war in a civil manner, and yes, there is a civil manner to war and an uncivil manner.

Uncivil includes plain clothed geurillas, Mass IED production, slaughtering the other side to instill fear, well after they've surrendered.

I'm not sure if you understand this yet, but if something like that would happen in the Appalachia's or Rocky's, you wouldn't put it down with outside troops. Imagine ISIS and the Nazi's having a baby in the sense of combat styles. You would have thousands of people doing nothing more than planting IED's constantly. You would also have thousands of people taking potshots from random hillsides, slowing down convoy speeds and general combat effectiveness. Air support is a two sworded edge in a civil war, you'll be bombing your own country if the government wins and what use is a raised state? It's not, it's a massive liability. The single most important intersection of railroad tracks in the US resides in a small village in Appalachia. If a rebel force destroyed it, it would cause widespread economic damage and shortages in materials.

Be weary of what you say, all it takes is one man with a broken life and a flame, suddenly the world turns upside down. History has proven that time and time again.

 

If you came here to troll, mission accomplished. I'm obviously not the one to determine if an order is lawful. That's not what I asked nor insinuated. My contract of enlistment clearly states to obey lawful orders. Not every order.