Posted on 08/31/2016 5:49:41 AM PDT by Travis McGee
The financial math certainly seems to bear this out.
“Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast:..."
Oh please! You stretch citizens of the same country to include an ocean-distant monarchy and its soldiers and mercenaries and expect me to swallow that? Ludicrous.
THAT was a revolution by unrepresented subjects. You just keep on equivocating and citing other historical events trying to justify the ridiculous statement you made in the first place. A basic not-event description of "civil war" need not include historical events to cling to.
I have long felt that the people of the Union states prefer to call it a "Civil War" because in their own minds it justifies what they did.
It isn't accurate, but neither is much that has been said on the matter.
Again, as I explained before you jumped in, trying describing civil war in its most basic form without resorting to convenient historical events.
Those muslims that he[obama] has brought and is stii bringing over here still have to be accounted for. Except for a few that jumped the gun, he is making them keep a low profile and remain under the radar. I still maintain that he intends to arm them and unleash them upon the population. \I just can’t say when he is going to do it.
The 13 slave holding states declaring independence from the United Kingdom (A Union) are in exactly the same situation as were the 11 slave holding states declaring independence from the United States.
The only difference is that "King George III" won the war in 1865.
Thank you for the ping and thank you for the article.
“Nonetheless, it was a Civil War.”
___
A civil war is an action conducted by citizens of the same country for control of their government. Since the southern states seceded from the Union and formed their own government, “civil” doesn’t accurately describe the war that followed.
I would say that if Trump’s victory exceeds the Democrat margin-of-cheating, they will get the “go” sign shortly thereafter.
I didn’t respond to your historical citation because my original definition was sufficient. I defined and you’re still stuck in providing historical context to ‘demonstrate’.. You’re grasping at nonexistent straws now.
If you read the Oaths of Commissioned and Non Commissioned Officers alike you will notice first and foremost that is states: that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic
That I will obey the President is secondary. This was written in that order intentionally. So let me repeat, if it does hit the fan, I don't think a vast majority of law/military will be going door to door collecting weapons. They will be on the side of freedom.
You neglect that the “Union” never accepted secession and held that the rebelling states were still citizens still subject to their force.
Civil war? My second grade teacher taught us it was the “War between the Americans and Yankees”.
It wouldn't surprise me to see some states secede in the next 5-10 years. However, I take a different track.
I think that it will be the "liberal" states that leave, rather than Texas, etc. I can easily see, for instance, the New England states splitting off on their own (then, failing miserably). Liberals move in herds, have the media on their side ("Hillary says Secession? Brilliant!!!") and are far more self-deluding.
Whereas, Texas, Alabama, etc are populated mostly by conservatives. 5 minutes on FR will convince you that trying to convince conservatives to agree on anything is like herding cats. Add in the media (Texas Secession? Buncha inbred hick redneck bigots, what are THEY thinking?) and the fact that most conservatives are practical - it's usually cheaper and easier to fix something that's broken than smash it into pieces - and I think another "southern revolt", while interesting to consider, fairly unlikely.
M —
IMHO, I would offer that Hillary is not campaigning (or even trying) because she has already been guaranteed the vote count in states that matter. After all it’s not who votes that matters, it’s who counts the votes.
Related: It would appear Steven Coonts (a tad late to the party) read your trilogy and wrote (quickly) a very time-sensitive version of EFAD, set in the present day.
Liberty’s Last Stand is the title
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01B6SEL5E/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
See you next time I am in JAX area.
p.s. Be a good time to prepare documentation that you have sold all the soon-to-be-offending items to in-state, anonymous private parties. “Nope, I don’t own those any more.”
buy this in Kindle version, especially if you are a Texan. Steven Coonts’ latest book - very topical to this thread.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01B6SEL5E/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
You have my respect and admiration. I enjoy your writing and try to find and read all your articles.
I would like your opinion on the following observation.
I am 76 years old and have watched America thread it’s way through many crisis. Including a nuclear exchanges from Russia due to misunderstood war game and the Cuban missile crisis.
I am now living in a country I no longer recognize with the very real possibility that we will elect Hillary, destroy the Supreme Court, and end our Liberty, all with the enthusiastic support of half of the population.
I contend any attempt to regulate or confiscate guns is unnecessary. THEY will have already won. The oppression can happen gradually.
We are too comfortable. We will continue to have our football and beers.
They are cleaver enough that there will never be a hill to be worth defending, to die over.
Unintended Consequences will remain a work of fiction
“This is the way the world ends, not with a bang, but a whimper.”
It’s irrelevant whether the Union accepted secession or not.
Regarding the article “A Candidate’s Death Could Delay or Eliminate the Presidential Election”
Snip:
“The presidential election could be delayed or scrapped altogether if conspiracy theories become predictive and a candidate dies or drops out before Nov. 8.”
“The scenarios have been seriously considered by few outside of the legal community and likely are too morbid for polite discussion in politically mixed company. But prominent law professors have pondered the effects and possible ways to address a late-date vacancy.”
Even here on Free Republic, there is a significant contingent that wants NO discussion of such a possibility, to the point of strongly asking posters to not bring up the topic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.