Originally posted by Mercenary2007
reply to post by Armour For Victor
Fast forward to today. if we had states declaring secession from the U.S. you better believe the federal government would send in federal troops to
stop it. they will do anything to keep their power. they will do anything to keep the states in line and ultimately the people.
Now i have a question for you. Lincoln is credited with freeing the slaves right. my question is did he actually free the slaves or enslave us all?
First I agree with Jam here. This resolution, as emotional as it is -- is simply paper. There are legal ways of filing grievances over the 9th/10th
amendments. To top that off, it's not a binding resolution. With that said, I think this is a testing of the water for support before true
resolutions/suits are made. Will the legislature support it, and more importantly, the people of that state. Additionally, reaction of the federal
government (testing backlash) can be a goal. If not, then all this is lip service to appease a very vocal minority.
As for a Civil War today. I'm not so sure of that in a hypothetical situation.
Today -- I haven't met a person that disagrees that the government is the problem. Day by day resentment grows for the Federal government. I've
seen people get more restless and more resentful of the Fed year by year. They have no faith in their government, nor should they.
Back then, you had a polarized view that was segmented into two separate geographical locations. Technically, the south WAS right and justified to
succeed -- but not at the same time. They claimed states rights, over another states rights in regards to slavery. The focal point being the
Fugitive Slave law.
This time it is different. This is the Fed encroaching on the states and individual rights and it's not geographically centered.
What would the government use for propaganda to go to war with itself today? Slavery is gone, but infringement upon states rights AND individual
rights still remain on the table today.
Only this time instead of State vs State, it would be States and people vs Fed.
America is war weary. We've had non stop war with someone, somewhere, or some ideology for the past couple generations. We're tired of it. We
can't even get people to support the ongoing wars currently abroad, imagine the Fed trying to spin something in your back yard against you and your
rights personally.
It can be peaceful revolution reaffirming their rights for the people. Although the Fed would backlash to be certain, it also has global political
implications to consider. The world is a much smaller place than it was in the 1800's, and from what I gather there is a large resentment of the Fed
abroad for it's policies especially those not constitutional to begin with, but not directed towards the people.
I also find it difficult to believe that all of the US military will fire upon United States citizens reaffirming their constitutional rights, whom
they've sworn to both protect. Even communist soldiers have a problem with running over their own people in tanks. I could be wrong, but I think
the military would collapse internally fighting each other before that happened.
My answer to your Lincoln question is slightly different than you expect. The southern states were unified against the north. It was a brilliant
political move to offer freedom for slaves and use that as a focal point to rally the north behind. It tore the south apart from the inside out as
slavery was integral to their labor effort. No labor = Lost war.
Had the issue NOT have been slavery to rally the people behind, I don't think the United States would be 50 states today.
Lincoln opened the gateway for a large fed -- but no one stepped through it until later.
We all know damn well the fat ass Rockefellers or any NWO stooge sitting the White House or Capital
Building aren't going to lift a lazy fat finger. They are completely dependent on hoping some mindless brainwashed pscyho with a gun will do it for
them by believing they are stopping the 'terrorists'.
