Posted on 02/20/2009 8:49:17 AM PST by Islander7
They did in New Orleans. That was the dry run. The people turned in their guns, or they were searched, beaten, and taken away.
That’s why he keeps sending whole National Guard units over seas.
Half of Oregon’s, half of Montana’s. Don’t know for sure of others but I’m sure there a lot of them getting deployed.
The Constitution requires that Congress authorize any such use.
But then it also guarantees each state a republican form of government, something impossible unless the Founders envisioned possible use of the military against a particular state or its people.
It discusses suspending habeas corpus in time of invasion or insurrection. This implies that the people, or a group of them, might revolt and have to be suppressed.
While president, George Washington led a large federal army to suppress rebellion in western PA.
present
Civil War II ping.
Should CW2 come, one of the first acts should be to mount a commando raid and break into that vault in Hawaii and liberate his birth certificate. I believe that will show that he is a usurper, and further undercut his legitimacy.
glad to see our troops getting practical experience - might come in handy soon.
The Civil War was an instrument through which the federal gov’t, using force, destroyed the power and sovereignty of the states.
Bammy might be looking to complete the job.
Make THEM change their name. They’re the socialists.
They can be the USSA.
Man... this sounds like Taiwan and China - they BOTH claim to BE CHINA.
Republic of China - Taiwan
People’s Republic of China - Mainland China
That would be a decisive action -
show that the guy that started it all wasn’t legitimately in power in the first place.
If someone could hack/shut-down his Blackberry, he'd be like a marionette with no strings.
Where are the pictures of General Grant and the Union Army? Were General Grant and General Lee, classmates at West Point?/Just Asking - seoul62.......
Nope. Lee was a good deal older, born 1807 and graduated 1829. Grant was born in 1822 and graduated WP in 1843.
Welcome to Free Republic.
You make some good points.
The colonies rebelled against King George III over many things including unfair taxation, and simply wanted to be allowed to be left alone and on their own. Plus they won.
The South was fighting for states rights, but it was misplaced over defending slavery. Not really as good analogy to now. So I'd rather not see us talking about Grant and Lee.
I'd rather see us talking about Washington vs Cornwallis - Yorktown, Saratoga, Trenton, Crossing the Delaware. Only this time we won't need the french to help us win - expect they would be supporting zero, which would be good for our side. The french are excellent at training folks on the proper way to discard an unused weapon and surrender.
Lee - Class of 1829, Grant - Class of 1843.
Thank you for the information. I hope we do not have to fight another Civil War./Just Asking - seoul62.......
Folks, here are comments from a very good friend with insight. Ahhhh, but consider the states that are currently providing the bulk of the troops to Federal Authority – they are the very states that provide most of the cannon fodder. People aren’t so easily led around by their noses anymore in this age of instant communication. The South, you will recall, was isolated, almost totally agrarian, lacked infrastructure, and was broke from day one. Loyalties will not break along the Mason Dixon Line, not even close. There won’t be a single consolidated region in revolt. There will pockets and bubbles and territories. States will split up in terms of loyalties. Look at southern Missouri and southern Illinois. Look at northern California and northern Louisiana. This is potentially a battle of red vs. blue, rural vs. urban. If it becomes a war, it can’t be a war of fronts and armies in maneuver. There could be an inter-military fight between those still loyal to the current power structure vs. those like us. We would win out on that one from force of numbers. After all, where would the bulk of loyalty of armed civilians lie? Yes, with the cause of overthrow of tyranny. Therfore, I see it as more of a coup. The people of St. Louis aren’t going to march on Potosi, MO to conquer hinterland territory for BO.
The biggest difference between this current crisis and the so-called Civil War (actually it should be called our Second Revolutionary War) is WILL! There is no overbearing will on the part of troops of the Federal Authority to fight their families in the hinterlands. It would be time to try a Ghandi-type move. March out there unarmed before them. They will NOT shoot! They took their oaths of loyalty to the Constitution and the officer corp will see BO for what he is.
The most likely scenario if things worsen is a military coup, a rule by martial law for a while, and a leader who wants to restore Constitutional law and will eventually step down or stand for election, not unlike George Washington. He will be the second Father of our Country. The bulk of the upper echelon officer corps are men of honor, not power grabbers – those are the politicians.
And, we pray, much of the military will defect to our side. If not all. Intact brigades.
Aye
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.