In the Time of a Second Civil War, who would you support?

[MadBasstid]

I don't really want anybody to be my government, at least not the type of government we have in America now, so I think I would support succession if it was the will of the people, but I wouldn't be fighting for either government so much as for less government control in general.

I would advocate for a peaceful solution- there is no reason for succession to become a war. If people want to have their own smaller government, why not? We can still work together.Of course, human beings aren't rational, so it wouldn't play out quite that well...

I think the peace movement in response to a threat of Civil War II would be pretty large, & could use Occupy & other activist networks to mobilize. More importantly, money can always change hands... so I think it's really unlikely that this would be resolved with violence.

The South is rather dependent on the North so I'd wager succession would probably crash their economy, at least temporarily.

I think countries could easily become smaller soon enough, with technology growing & everything, if we can overcome our over-use of resources & innovate new ones. Provided this planet isn't hit by an astroid.

[MadBasstid]

Of course you have sources for those claims right?

Yep.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/chicago_the_new_capital_of_segregation.html
http://www.wbez.org/series/race-out-loud/chicagos-segregation-seen-time-lapse-cta-red-line-100540

http://carlie1230.tripod.com/

Let me tell ya about racism in Chicago. People here still won't go into neighborhoods where people of a different race live; you can walk across a neighborhood & it will change from white to black and suddenly the cops will be pulling you over. Services like trash pick-up vary from neighborhood to neighborhood. In the 1800s, we had gangs of Irish who would get drunk & go around fuckin' up black people whenever the South won a victory. Langston Hughes is said to have been beaten up in a Chicago neighborhood (not sure if that's true), & Martin Luther King had a brick thrown at his head when he came here. & Our black mayor, the great Harold Washington- let's just say he didn't get a rubber-stamp city council like other Bosses. Racism is alive & well in the North & always has been.

[The Elven Imperium]

I don't really want anybody to be my government, at least not the type of government we have in America now, so I think I would support succession if it was the will of the people, but I wouldn't be fighting for either government so much as for less government control in general.

I would advocate for a peaceful solution- there is no reason for succession to become a war. If people want to have their own smaller government, why not? We can still work together.Of course, human beings aren't rational, so it wouldn't play out quite that well...

I think the peace movement in response to a threat of Civil War II would be pretty large, & could use Occupy & other activist networks to mobilize. More importantly, money can always change hands... so I think it's really unlikely that this would be resolved with violence.

The South is rather dependent on the North so I'd wager succession would probably crash their economy, at least temporarily.

I think countries could easily become smaller soon enough, with technology growing & everything, if we can overcome our over-use of resources & innovate new ones. Provided this planet isn't hit by an astroid.

I admire your stance on peace. I want peace as well.
But succession is an attack on the sovereignty of my country. An attack no less evil in my eyes then an invasion by a foreign power or terrorists.
So in the short and sweet. If States started to declare succession and started to break away from the United States. I would completely support military action to keep them in the Union (Like the Federal government did in 1861). I would probably reenlisted in the Army to defend my country.

[Serrland]

Yep.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/chicago_the_new_capital_of_segregation.html
http://www.wbez.org/series/race-out-loud/chicagos-segregation-seen-time-lapse-cta-red-line-100540

http://carlie1230.tripod.com/

Let me tell ya about racism in Chicago. People here still won't go into neighborhoods where people of a different race live; you can walk across a neighborhood & it will change from white to black and suddenly the cops will be pulling you over. Services like trash pick-up vary from neighborhood to neighborhood. In the 1800s, we had gangs of Irish who would get drunk & go around fuckin' up black people whenever the South won a victory. Langston Hughes is said to have been beaten up in a Chicago neighborhood (not sure if that's true), & Martin Luther King had a brick thrown at his head when he came here. & Our black mayor, the great Harold Washington- let's just say he didn't get a rubber-stamp city council like other Bosses. Racism is alive & well in the North & always has been.

lololololol

[Seleucas]

I don't really want anybody to be my government, at least not the type of government we have in America now, so I think I would support succession if it was the will of the people, but I wouldn't be fighting for either government so much as for less government control in general.

I would advocate for a peaceful solution- there is no reason for succession to become a war. If people want to have their own smaller government, why not? We can still work together.Of course, human beings aren't rational, so it wouldn't play out quite that well...

I think the peace movement in response to a threat of Civil War II would be pretty large, & could use Occupy & other activist networks to mobilize. More importantly, money can always change hands... so I think it's really unlikely that this would be resolved with violence.

The South is rather dependent on the North so I'd wager succession would probably crash their economy, at least temporarily.

I think countries could easily become smaller soon enough, with technology growing & everything, if we can overcome our over-use of resources & innovate new ones. Provided this planet isn't hit by an astroid.

I would definitely prefer a peaceful secession to one in which violence is required, by an enormous margin. I dislike violence, and even if I would prefer to break up the Union I do not want to do it in a bloody way. Better that the transition be as peaceable as possible. (Furthermore, while I would like such a new government to have free trade and free commerce with every nation, I think it is most important to have free trade with whatever part of the US remains in the Union. I simply do not want any involvement with the Federal government, whether it intends to help or hinder.)

However, if there was a civil war, and Washington tried to control the seceding states, I would find it tragic if there was a violent reprisal but I don't think that would make it unjustifiable.

[The Grand Duchy of Marinia]

National sovereignty is an arbitrary idea, and is only enforceable by strength. In the grand scheme of things, nations rise, crumble, fall, re-form, fall again, evolve, rise, and fall again in an endless cycle. Sometimes the falls are quiet, sometimes they are violent. There is literally nothing keeping the United States together as a nation beyond self interest, tradition, and military might. If things were to change, and it became better for people to dissolve the Union and develop another system of government rather thank keep a corrupt, decrepit system on life support, they will do so. This is inevitable because, at some point, the government will become totalitarian, tyrannical, or ineffectual and it will no longer be in the best interests of the people to keep the system around. This is what happens when human nature marries entropy. The Roman Republic fell when it became corrupt and ineffective, the Roman Empire fell when her government became weak and her citizens ceased to care.
In order for a nation to remain strong, there has to exist within it a singularity of purpose, a common goal. Not that everyone has to tow the line and do what the powers that be tell them to do, but there needs to be a mutual agreement on basic issues like what goals that nation has, what will it's standards of human rights will be, etc. There also needs to be leadership that is able to clearly communicate to the people what those goals and standards will be.
If a nation is unable to unite on these things, if her leaders cloud the air and cause confusion, division, and strife, then the nation is no longer a nation. It is inevitable that there will be a clash of cultures, of values, of strength, of leadership, of ideas, and only the strongest will win. Periodically, such clashes are necessary to clear the air and make room for re-birth. This is not the tired old maxim of the crazed Jeffersonians that "the tree of liberty must sometimes be watered by the blood of patriots" but the creed of nature, that in order for life to exist, death must also exist. And so it must also be for governments and nations.
SO, I guess what I am saying is that if civil war were to erupt, it is because the old system needs to either evolve or die. It has become useless as a tool for uniting the people and giving them the means of success; indeed, the very specter of civil war is an indication of how ineffective the leadership has become and how much we need new ideas, new leadership, new goals. If civil war breaks out in America, it will not be because of racism or abortion or socialism or war or republicans or democrats or any other political mcguffin, but because the government as a whole has stopped uniting and leading the people. It will be because the government has actively sought out and fostered division and strife among the people in order to ensure their own power and re-election.

[Genivaria]

I'd be selling weapons to both sides.

[Confederate Socialist States of America]

If we can't bring down the Police State... WE'LL JUST LEAVE IT!!!




"Death to [Federal] Fascism. FREEDOM TO THE PEOPLE!!!
-Stjepan Filipović

[Confederate Socialist States of America]

If we can't bring down the Police State... WE'LL JUST LEAVE IT!!!

"Death to [Federal] Fascism. FREEDOM TO THE PEOPLE!!!
-Stjepan Filipović

[Zathganastan]

If we can't bring down the Police State... WE'LL JUST LEAVE IT!!!

(Image)


"Death to [Federal] Fascism. FREEDOM TO THE PEOPLE!!!
-Stjepan Filipović

Feel free to leave the country at anytime but the land and everything else isn't yours to take.

[The Elven Imperium]

If we can't bring down the Police State... WE'LL JUST LEAVE IT!!!

(Image)


"Death to [Federal] Fascism. FREEDOM TO THE PEOPLE!!!
-Stjepan Filipović

I hope your ready to fight like those guys your using as a symbol. And I hope your ready to lose like they did as well. To hell with succession. Love live the United States.

[Megaloria]

How about a First Nations coup?

[Farnhamia]

How about a First Nations coup?

What Canadians do isn't really relevant.

[Megaloria]

How about a First Nations coup?

What Canadians do isn't really relevant.

It is if the Americans are too busy fighting to realise what's going on up here. Come on, look at those big, juicy, underpopulated states. Montana, just ripe for the picking.

[Farnhamia]

What Canadians do isn't really relevant.

It is if the Americans are too busy fighting to realise what's going on up here. Come on, look at those big, juicy, underpopulated states. Montana, just ripe for the picking.

That's not a coup, that's an invasion. Nothing like a foreign invasion to make us put aside our quarrels.

[Occupied Deutschland]

What Canadians do isn't really relevant.

It is if the Americans are too busy fighting to realise what's going on up here. Come on, look at those big, juicy, underpopulated states. Montana, just ripe for the picking.

Hey, it might be underpopulated but...
...
There's a lot of cows we can use as shields? I don't know, I guess there isn't much of a comeback for that one (See sig)...

Anywhore, as to the Civil War, I'd be on the side with the guns.

[Megaloria]

It is if the Americans are too busy fighting to realise what's going on up here. Come on, look at those big, juicy, underpopulated states. Montana, just ripe for the picking.

That's not a coup, that's an invasion. Nothing like a foreign invasion to make us put aside our quarrels.

Fine, invasion, whatever. Whatever gets me a route to California without a customs checkpoint.

[Zathganastan]

That's not a coup, that's an invasion. Nothing like a foreign invasion to make us put aside our quarrels.

Fine, invasion, whatever. Whatever gets me a route to California without a customs checkpoint.

Starting a war with a super power is going to be a bit more of an inconvenience then going threw a customs checkpoint.

[Wisconsin9]

Fine, invasion, whatever. Whatever gets me a route to California without a customs checkpoint.

Starting a war with a super power is going to be a bit more of an inconvenience then going threw a customs checkpoint.

Especially when the aggressor has plentiful oil deposits.

[Megaloria]

Fine, invasion, whatever. Whatever gets me a route to California without a customs checkpoint.

Starting a war with a super power is going to be a bit more of an inconvenience then going threw a customs checkpoint.

Fine, we'll go with plan B, which is to convince Washington and Oregon that they're more lke Canada than the USA anyway.

[Zathganastan]

Starting a war with a super power is going to be a bit more of an inconvenience then going threw a customs checkpoint.

Fine, we'll go with plan B, which is to convince Washington and Oregon that they're more lke Canada than the USA anyway.

And then what, they still wouldn't be able to leave the union.

[Greed and Death]

It is if the Americans are too busy fighting to realise what's going on up here. Come on, look at those big, juicy, underpopulated states. Montana, just ripe for the picking.

That's not a coup, that's an invasion. Nothing like a foreign invasion to make us put aside our quarrels.

Canadians are invading, they are bringing their health care!!!
Get the guns!!!

[Mkuki]

I'm always on the side of the federal government. Unless said government is actively suppressing my civil and economic rights, I will always support the legitimate, elected government.

[Seleucas]

National sovereignty is an arbitrary idea, and is only enforceable by strength. In the grand scheme of things, nations rise, crumble, fall, re-form, fall again, evolve, rise, and fall again in an endless cycle. Sometimes the falls are quiet, sometimes they are violent. There is literally nothing keeping the United States together as a nation beyond self interest, tradition, and military might. If things were to change, and it became better for people to dissolve the Union and develop another system of government rather thank keep a corrupt, decrepit system on life support, they will do so. This is inevitable because, at some point, the government will become totalitarian, tyrannical, or ineffectual and it will no longer be in the best interests of the people to keep the system around. This is what happens when human nature marries entropy. The Roman Republic fell when it became corrupt and ineffective, the Roman Empire fell when her government became weak and her citizens ceased to care.
In order for a nation to remain strong, there has to exist within it a singularity of purpose, a common goal. Not that everyone has to tow the line and do what the powers that be tell them to do, but there needs to be a mutual agreement on basic issues like what goals that nation has, what will it's standards of human rights will be, etc. There also needs to be leadership that is able to clearly communicate to the people what those goals and standards will be.
If a nation is unable to unite on these things, if her leaders cloud the air and cause confusion, division, and strife, then the nation is no longer a nation. It is inevitable that there will be a clash of cultures, of values, of strength, of leadership, of ideas, and only the strongest will win. Periodically, such clashes are necessary to clear the air and make room for re-birth. This is not the tired old maxim of the crazed Jeffersonians that "the tree of liberty must sometimes be watered by the blood of patriots" but the creed of nature, that in order for life to exist, death must also exist. And so it must also be for governments and nations.
SO, I guess what I am saying is that if civil war were to erupt, it is because the old system needs to either evolve or die. It has become useless as a tool for uniting the people and giving them the means of success; indeed, the very specter of civil war is an indication of how ineffective the leadership has become and how much we need new ideas, new leadership, new goals. If civil war breaks out in America, it will not be because of racism or abortion or socialism or war or republicans or democrats or any other political mcguffin, but because the government as a whole has stopped uniting and leading the people. It will be because the government has actively sought out and fostered division and strife among the people in order to ensure their own power and re-election.

I'm of the same mind. The US can certainly exercise physical force to keep itself together, but I don't think that it can morally say that no one should leave for some alternative (considering that the US left its own former political union regardless of the abiding laws at the time.) And, if it cannot muster enough violence to keep itself together, then it will just fall apart. The way that the United States is going right now, I seriously doubt it can last that much longer; it's almost exhausted all of its fiscal and monetary ammunition just to keep things from declining even faster, and when it runs out of steam in trying to hold off the inevitable that will pretty much be it. That's not something that blind optimism or hubris can solve; it's just a matter of the cycle through which political systems go through. Best to accept that and try and find a new start rather than obstinately sticking to the old ways.

[MadBasstid]

I don't really want anybody to be my government, at least not the type of government we have in America now, so I think I would support succession if it was the will of the people, but I wouldn't be fighting for either government so much as for less government control in general.

I would advocate for a peaceful solution- there is no reason for succession to become a war. If people want to have their own smaller government, why not? We can still work together.Of course, human beings aren't rational, so it wouldn't play out quite that well...

I think the peace movement in response to a threat of Civil War II would be pretty large, & could use Occupy & other activist networks to mobilize. More importantly, money can always change hands... so I think it's really unlikely that this would be resolved with violence.

The South is rather dependent on the North so I'd wager succession would probably crash their economy, at least temporarily.

I think countries could easily become smaller soon enough, with technology growing & everything, if we can overcome our over-use of resources & innovate new ones. Provided this planet isn't hit by an astroid.

I admire your stance on peace. I want peace as well.
But succession is an attack on the sovereignty of my country. An attack no less evil in my eyes then an invasion by a foreign power or terrorists.
So in the short and sweet. If States started to declare succession and started to break away from the United States. I would completely support military action to keep them in the Union (Like the Federal government did in 1861). I would probably reenlisted in the Army to defend my country.

Is a teenager saying she wants to move out a "threat" to her parents that requires violent force- even if she is, in reality, not old enough to move out & take care of herself, or needed within the family unit (say, for income)? If she is not threatening her parents with violence, they would not respond with violence- but with words, bribes, threat of nonviolent sanctions (grounding), discussion, negotiations, etc.

Now, if the secessionists decide to go to war with arms, certainly it would be only fair to meet them with arms. But that seems to be unlikely to happen to me.

This also can happen in Civil War situations. See: The Velvet Revolution; the Czech Republic split from Slovakia (formerly Czechoslovakia) without a bloody war. A country can agree to allow a part of it to leave the Union without blood being shed- & the in the modern world, it seems to me unlikely that, if succession were a real & viable option for part of the U.S., that a peaceful solution would not be sought. Negotiations would happen, money would change hands, & we'd find ourselves with two distinct countries that would probably keep working together very closely.

Also, one question your comment raises in my mind is whether one is ethically compelled to recognize the sovereignty of the country in the first place. Is the country being ruled in a way that is oppressive? Are it's policies bad? Does the way that the country is being run threaten your liberty, your money, etc.? Do you simply want to not be ruled by it?

Personally, I didn't ask to be ruled by anyone, & I'm not a big fan of it, so I don't feel a need to be unwaveringly loyal to my government- particularly as I don't support a lot of what they do. I see my duty as being to fight against the injustices perpetuated by the government, & to fight for more freedom from government in general- peacefully, if at all possible.