I love my state and I’d be inclined to side with it, but I think Irish is right in that it would also depend on where my state wanted to go. I mean, what if we were to become nothing more than Canada lite? Not trying to make a joke or anything, but if you were a conservative minded soul, this would probably be a real problem.
If there was any seceding going on in the great state of Michigan, I’m pretty sure our upper peninsula would look to become their own state. Yoopers are just…different. lol
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’d like to think I’d side with whomever I thought was just.[/quote]
I think that this is close to what most people would do.
This whole topic makes me think of what Mark Levin talks about in his book; that mobility is a key ingredient to freedom. Federalism is what should be providing the US with a fifty state laboratory for just about everything from social programs to fiscal policy. The great thing about mobility and a true federalist government, is that you can move to whichever state suits you best. If you’re a gun totin’ conservative minded individual, then Texas might be right up your alley. For the bed wetting liberals among us (you know who you are. lol), then maybe Massachusetts is more suited for you.
Sorry if this is slightly off topic, but I think we creep closer to the states working for Washington, instead of the federal government working for the states as was intended by our fore fathers. I think that if we as a nation want to avoid any talk of secession among the states, we need to reassert the authority of the states to govern themselves, and limit the feds to their constitutional role.
Tell him to read Grant’s personal memoirs.
[/quote]
I’ve read all there is to read on that war. They are equal in their genius, even if it came in different forms.[/quote]
Difficult to make comparisons on such things. Perhaps someone who’s also studied the campaigns of numerous great captains throughout history like: Epamindondas, Xenophon, Alexander, Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Sertorius, Julius Caesar, Gustavus Adolphus, Marlborough, Prince Eugene of Savoy, Frederick the Great, Napoleon, Rommel, Guderian, Von Manstein etc might be a better judge of these things. Who knows?[/quote]
Absolutely it is. It’s hard to grade them against each other when, like in boxing, styles make fights, if you will.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
This is purely hypothetical, but it came up in a discussion with my brother, a high schooler who’s learning about the Civil War for the first time.
He said that Robert E. Lee was a genius, he just fought “for the wrong side.” I had to agree with him, but I threw in there that he should judge him lightly for fighting for the South, because fighting against one’s home could be exceedingly hard (as history shows.)
So, if your state seceded, who would you fight for? Would you join the fight to “preserve the union?” Would there have to be some other cause for you to fight for in order to have you turn on your home? If you disagreed with the cause your state was seceding over, would you still fight with them (as Lee did?)
In reality, is fighting for something so abstract as “preserving the union” really something you’d lay down your life for? It was for Union soldiers- their letters are rife with references to that being the reason they were doing what they were doing.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
This is purely hypothetical, but it came up in a discussion with my brother, a high schooler who’s learning about the Civil War for the first time.
He said that Robert E. Lee was a genius, he just fought “for the wrong side.” I had to agree with him, but I threw in there that he should judge him lightly for fighting for the South, because fighting against one’s home could be exceedingly hard (as history shows.)
So, if your state seceded, who would you fight for? Would you join the fight to “preserve the union?” Would there have to be some other cause for you to fight for in order to have you turn on your home? If you disagreed with the cause your state was seceding over, would you still fight with them (as Lee did?)
In reality, is fighting for something so abstract as “preserving the union” really something you’d lay down your life for? It was for Union soldiers- their letters are rife with references to that being the reason they were doing what they were doing.
I’m genuinely curious.[/quote]
You are a tool.
Why should people have to die to be free?[/quote]
Insightful, well thought out comment… as per usual.
I am not american, but it cant hurt to see this from an europeen perspective.
If my country where to join EU( god forbid ), I would like for my country to be able to go out of that
union without the threat of being invaded by EU. I know that EU and USA is not completly the same thing, but they are similar enough. The problem with a “super” state above all the states in a union/federation is
that its takes power further away from the people. If a state have more autonomy from Brussel or DC, its
citizens have more influence over theire own lifes, becuase its easyer to influence a government thats closer to you than it is to influence the bureacrats and politicians in Brussel or the federalgovernment in DC thats far away and bigger. So summa sumarum I would probably side with my state( norway ).
Because son, once and awhile some jackass pushes people too far, and instead of being a pacifist. Men, brave men, have to stand up, take their guns off their mantles and stand in their front lawn and blow the brains out of any comer of injustice.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
This is purely hypothetical, but it came up in a discussion with my brother, a high schooler who’s learning about the Civil War for the first time.
He said that Robert E. Lee was a genius, he just fought “for the wrong side.” I had to agree with him, but I threw in there that he should judge him lightly for fighting for the South, because fighting against one’s home could be exceedingly hard (as history shows.)
So, if your state seceded, who would you fight for? Would you join the fight to “preserve the union?” Would there have to be some other cause for you to fight for in order to have you turn on your home? If you disagreed with the cause your state was seceding over, would you still fight with them (as Lee did?)
In reality, is fighting for something so abstract as “preserving the union” really something you’d lay down your life for? It was for Union soldiers- their letters are rife with references to that being the reason they were doing what they were doing.
I’m genuinely curious.[/quote]
You are a tool.
Why should people have to die to be free?[/quote]
Insightful, well thought out comment… as per usual.
[/quote]
My sarcasm meter is flagging wildly.
It was indeed a very well thought out.
Why should people have to die in order to live free? It seems a contradiction to me.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I would side with my self. If my state can secede then so can I.[/quote]
Nothing like a pussy-ass armchair anarchist to derail yet another thread. Thanks for proving my point from the previous conversation.
If we could abstain from giving lifty a hard on by catering to his bullshit, I’d like to continue the thread on it’s true course and not get into a conversation about why he’s a retard.
Because son, once and awhile some jackass pushes people too far, and instead of being a pacifist. Men, brave men, have to stand up, take their guns off their mantles and stand in their front lawn and blow the brains out of any comer of injustice. [/quote]
Yes, but why start with the assumption that there needs to be a war in order that men can be free?
Because son, once and awhile some jackass pushes people too far, and instead of being a pacifist. Men, brave men, have to stand up, take their guns off their mantles and stand in their front lawn and blow the brains out of any comer of injustice. [/quote]
Yes, but why start with the assumption that there needs to be a war in order that men can be free?[/quote]
Start your own fucking thread about this. I don’t want this fantasy land anarchist garbage destroying what had previously been a good thread.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Start your own fucking thread about this. I don’t want this fantasy land anarchist garbage destroying what had previously been a good thread.
[/quote]
Hey moron, what do you think secession ultimately is?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Start your own fucking thread about this. I don’t want this fantasy land anarchist garbage destroying what had previously been a good thread.
[/quote]
Hey moron, what do you think secession ultimately is?
Dumb fuck.[/quote]
What you’re talking about has nothing to do with this thread you cowardly cunt. Now fuck off, go start your own thread about this.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Start your own fucking thread about this. I don’t want this fantasy land anarchist garbage destroying what had previously been a good thread.
[/quote]
Hey moron, what do you think secession ultimately is?
Dumb fuck.[/quote]
What you’re talking about has nothing to do with this thread you cowardly cunt. Now fuck off, go start your own thread about this.[/quote]
Oh but it is. You’re just too stoopid to know any better.
If my state can seceded then I can also secede, too. That is anarchy.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Start your own fucking thread about this. I don’t want this fantasy land anarchist garbage destroying what had previously been a good thread.
[/quote]
Hey moron, what do you think secession ultimately is?
Dumb fuck.[/quote]
What you’re talking about has nothing to do with this thread you cowardly cunt. Now fuck off, go start your own thread about this.[/quote]
Oh but it is. You’re just too stoopid to know any better.
If my state can seceded then I can also secede, too. That is anarchy.[/quote]
Then your hand could succeed from your brain. That’s real anarchy. Hands always doing all the work, profiting the lazy slave driving brain.
[quote]florelius wrote:
I am not american, but it cant hurt to see this from an europeen perspective.
If my country where to join EU( god forbid ), I would like for my country to be able to go out of that
union without the threat of being invaded by EU. I know that EU and USA is not completly the same thing, but they are similar enough. The problem with a “super” state above all the states in a union/federation is
that its takes power further away from the people. If a state have more autonomy from Brussel or DC, its
citizens have more influence over theire own lifes, becuase its easyer to influence a government thats closer to you than it is to influence the bureacrats and politicians in Brussel or the federalgovernment in DC thats far away and bigger. So summa sumarum I would probably side with my state( norway ).
[/quote]
?!?
Y U not know that EU has secession clause?
Methinks we need a throwout clause too, those PIIGS start to become a tad expensive.
Because son, once and awhile some jackass pushes people too far, and instead of being a pacifist. Men, brave men, have to stand up, take their guns off their mantles and stand in their front lawn and blow the brains out of any comer of injustice. [/quote]
Because son, once and awhile some jackass pushes people too far, and instead of being a pacifist. Men, brave men, have to stand up, take their guns off their mantles and stand in their front lawn and blow the brains out of any comer of injustice. [/quote]
Cool.
Now we just need a bunch of brave men.
Anyone?
Bueller?
Bueller?
[/quote]
I would, but I don’t have a mantle. Other than that I would though.
[quote]John S. wrote:
I would side with my state. I believe the ability to Secede is a very good thing, keeps the union in check.[/quote]
Your answer is a bit simplistic, you need to elaborate further.
The ability to secede is actually crippling to a nation, and that’s one of the reasons I’m glad it’s not legal and hugely frowned upon. As thunder said, you can say “revolt” and that’s fair- but not secession. And that extremely weak Federal government you so wish to have is part of the reason that the Confederacy lost the war. I get the feeling that if America had a very weak Federal government, we would not last long as a country in these times.
Beyond that though, think about what you’re saying. You’d side with your state automatically? Even if you were a pro-union East Tennessean in 1860, you’d fight to preserve a system you didn’t like?
Hence my point of the difficulty of the decision. I’ve made clear over the years that I have no use for you bastards outside the northeast, but still, I couldn’t just say I’d follow New Jersey no matter what. If you truly felt you were on the wrong side of history, you’d go anyway?
Sometimes I wonder if guys like Lee felt that way when they resigned their commissions.