Potential Civil War?

[vern_humphrey]

Not to mention the fact that fantasizing about killing fellow Americans for political reasons is both unhealthy and unCatholic.

 

[master_catholic]

Not to mention the fact that fantasizing about killing fellow Americans for political reasons is both unhealthy and unCatholic.

Presuming of course that the cause itself is unjust and therefore immoral. Killing be default is wrong, but the Church does provide the possibility of a just war, and when you think about it, even a just civilwar.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Explain how killing our fellow Americans merely because they want to form their own government meets the criteria of Just War?

Let’s take the example of Vermont – there is a small movement there to declare indendence from the United States. Should they succeed, how could we claim that met the criteria for Just War?

Consider Quebec. Now and then they have a ballot issue to declare independence from the rest of Canada. Should they finally do so, would that justify a massacre of all French-speaking Canadians?

 

[VociMike]

Extremely unlikely, IMO. Just who would take up arms on the two sides and give their lives? I think we have a pretty good idea who does take up arms and join the U.S. military, and I can’t see them going after one another. I think it would be a matter of “what if they gave a war and nobody came (on one side)”.

 

[master_catholic]

It was a very contentious issue
Franklin had already started abolitionist societies and the southern delegates made Jefferson remove his anti-slavery language from the declaration to get it passed.
10 years after the revolution Article I section 9 of the Constitution forbade the congress from banning the import of slaves for 10 more years so obviously that was an issue.

Interesting, then perhaps it’ll take just as long (90 years) for an equivilent troublesome issue to erupt into a war.

but what do you think is the current issue that will get worse over time?

Abortion? Gay-Marriage? Liberal PC out of control? Government Corruption? Religious persecusion? Take your pick, it could be any or all.

I’m not sure what you mean

I was just saying that I’m not surprised that most people would think that.

Well they can try……
Obviously a constitution is only as good as the ability of a government to enforce it.

And utlimately if people really want to do it, they will disregard all legal blocking, ethical concerns, and moral concerns to get it done. Who knows if one day we should engage in civil warfare, to save it from becomming what it shouldn’t be!

hardly a laughing matter

No disrespect was intended

Right there in the words. * The Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.*

What do you think that means?

That saying, as I read it, means to me that the states have to operate in some format within the federal government, but that doesn’t mean that they couldn’t enact an act to seceed.

Add to that Article I Section 10 and the question is quite clearly settled

While the language is quite strong in Article 1 Section 10 - you could still interpret that to mean, "you can’t enter into a treaty, alliance, or confederation while you are within the union. So they could think they just have to break away and then form a confederation.

What I guess I need to hear to be at ease with this issue, is an explicit declaration that secession is unlawful, and not some vague constitutional interpretation. If such a statement can’t be found, then the constitution should be amended to include that explicit statement.

If it had already progressed that far there might be a lot of accusations about just who the “true Americans” were.

“true Americans” of course is alwys in the first person

“True Americans” would probably be the title given to modern day Americans whos views are the ones that most closely resemple the views of the founding fathers. Logically, to the degree the views of the people do not correlate to the founding fathers’ views, will be to the degree they are not true Americans (makes sense?)

While not meaning to strip the title of “American citizen” from liberal activists, I think they are the plague of American civilization (and that of the world, for that matter). Our founding fathers’ would be jaw dropped if they knew how far we’ve gone downhill, 232 years latter.

I’m no lawyer but it appears that for a succession to possibly be successful a state must petition the Congress for permission. There then would have to be some sort of negotiation regarding the disposition of federal property and (probably) the guarantee of the rights of those citizens of the State that wished to remain US Citizens.
(This of course raises the question whether Article IV Section 4 and Article I section 8 might also be impediments to succession)

That would be interesting to see that unfold. Sudden massive emigration from secessionist states would really cause some headaches.

 

[master_catholic]

Explain how killing our fellow Americans merely because they want to form their own government meets the criteria of Just War?

Let’s take the example of Vermont – there is a small movement there to declare indendence from the United States. Should they succeed, how could we claim that met the criteria for Just War?

Consider Quebec. Now and then they have a ballot issue to declare independence from the rest of Canada. Should they finally do so, would that justify a massacre of all French-speaking Canadians?

Remember that the Church is very specific when it comes to just war in general. Here’s a quote from the catechisim (my emphasis added)

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

• there must be serious prospects of success;

• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

The two paragraphs in bold are especially important with the 3 examples you’ve brought forth. If no damage will result from secession, or if the problem will be made worse by the use of force, than a just civilwar is not possible.

Now in my Post:

Presuming of course that the cause itself is unjust and therefore immoral. Killing be default is wrong, but the Church does provide the possibility of a just war, and when you think about it, even a just civilwar"

I was thinking of more of a scinario where the government is destroying everything and we should rise up in civil war to tear it down and form a renewed government. We wouldn’t be doing that for political reasons, but for the sake of justice, and for the sake of the survival of our nation.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

Not to mention the fact that fantasizing about killing fellow Americans for political reasons is both unhealthy and unCatholic.

I asked you not to mischaracterize my position. I’m asking you again.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

I have to side with vern humphrey on this, there was a legal right to secede (I think it was Virginia that refused to sign the constitution unless the right to secede was there).

are you claiming a legal right to secede exists today? because if it was legal then, its either legal still or someting (i.e., the civil war) decided that issue. so which is it?

As vern rightly pointed out, the war only proved which side was stronger (not better mind you). Not which side was right or what was legal.

how do you account for the american revolution? humphrey evades this obvious point. the declaration of independence would have meant nothing if not for victory on the battlefield.

It was only after the war that session was declared illegal, by what was apparently an extremly biased court…

and now you’re picking and choosing which USSC decisions are wrong. is *Texas v. White’s *ruling on secession good law or not? is Polhaaz good law or not? contrary to your opinion, you can’t cherry pick laws.

the secession fantasy is over. deal with it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It’s not the secession fantasy that worries me. It’s the killing-fellow-Americans-because-they-choose-to-separate-from-the-rest-of-us fantasy that bothers me.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

…

I was thinking of more of a scinario where the government is destroying everything and we should rise up in civil war to tear it down and form a renewed government. We wouldn’t be doing that for political reasons, but for the sake of justice, and for the sake of the survival of our nation.

actually, you’re thinking of a scenario where in your opinion the government is “destroying everything” and you think “we” should rise up. I’d cringe everytime I read someone talking about revolution for the sake of “justice” – which is typically the poster’s view of justice. I can read these exact same sentiments on any gun nut forum.

I don’t actually cringe because these sentiments are, as someone else put it, “the rage of dreaming sheep.” just a fantasy.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

It’s not the secession fantasy that worries me. It’s the killing-fellow-Americans-because-they-choose-to-separate-from-the-rest-of-us fantasy that bothers me.

you mean lincoln’s “fantasy”? you must a real die-hard pro-slavery advocate.

 

[vern_humphrey]

you mean lincoln’s “fantasy”? you must a real die-hard pro-slavery advocate.

No, I mean **your **fantasy, about killing your fellow Americans if they decide to separate from the rest of us.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

No, I mean **your **fantasy, about killing your fellow Americans if they decide to separate from the rest of us.

vern, I think you should give up the civil war fantasy. slavery isn’t coming back, and pretending the secession was and remains a legal option won’t help you at all.

I certainly don’t want to misrepresent your position on this board regarding slavery and secession. perhaps you should clarify it some. just a suggestion.

I’m on record that slavery was an atrocious moral outrage, alone sufficient justification for the civil war and the 600,000 deaths. I’m disappointed you don’t view it this way. but it takes all kinds and this is still a free country and you have the right to adopt any position, however wrong and immoral.

now, my naval service was a century after the civil war, but had I been in the service at that time, I would have done what over two million other americans did – end the rebellion by whatever means was required, including killing rebels.

 

[vern_humphrey]

vern, I think you should give up the civil war fantasy. slavery isn’t coming back, and pretending the secession was and remains a legal option won’t help you at all.

Jack, I think you should give up on your Civil War fantasy – daydreaming about killing your fellow Americans in large numbers merely because they wish to separate is not healthy.

And face facts, there is no slavery in this country. A new secession movement (like that in Vermont) would have nothing to do with slavery.

Come into the 21st Century, man!!

I certainly don’t want to misrepresent your position on this board regarding slavery and secession. perhaps you should clarify it some. just a suggestion.

Gladly. A modern secession movement would have nothing to do with slavery – if you deny it, ask the secessionists in Vermont.

I’m on record that slavery was an atrocious moral outrage, alone sufficient justification for the civil war and the 600,000 deaths. I’m disappointed you don’t view it this way. but it takes all kinds and this is still a free country and you have the right to adopt any position, however wrong and immoral.

And if we lived in the mid 19th Century, you might have a point. But we live in the 21st century. To pretend that the people in Vermont, for example, are supporting slavery is nonsense.

now, my naval service was a century after the civil war, but had I been in the service at that time, I would have done what over two million other americans did – end the rebellion by whatever means was required, including killing rebels.

So when do you plan to start killing Vermonters?

 

[Elric]

are you claiming a legal right to secede exists today?

No, the Union made the amendments after the war.

But that wasnt the question.

because if it was legal then, its either legal still or someting (i.e., the civil war) decided that issue. so which is it?

The Civil War did decide the issue, but that doesnt mean that seccession wasnt legal.

how do you account for the american revolution? humphrey evades this obvious point. the declaration of independence would have meant nothing if not for victory on the battlefield.

You dont really want to hear about my opinion of that part of history, besides it would probably get me in trouble.

and now you’re picking and choosing which USSC decisions are wrong. is *Texas v. White’s *ruling on secession good law or not? is Polhaaz good law or not? contrary to your opinion, you can’t cherry pick laws.

I am?

All I am doing is observing history and bearing in mind that history is written by the victor.

the secession fantasy is over. deal with it.

Thats a bit harsh. Im not even American, so what would secession do for me?

I simply find the Civil War an interesting part of history, that has some very interesting characters, varied opinions and ideals (not all revolved around slavery) and was a defining moment for a nation.

From what I have studied, I believe that the South had a right to secede (amongst other things).

 

[Elric]

you mean lincoln’s “fantasy”? you must a real die-hard pro-slavery advocate.

That statement about slavery (as well as the assumption) is completly inaccurate.

Many Confederates were not “pro-slavers” and didnt fight for slavery.

Men like Robert Lee, Thomas Jackson, “Pete” Longstreet and George Pickett were against slavery. They fought for their states right to secede and for states to govern themselves.

 

[master_catholic]

actually, you’re thinking of a scenario where in your opinion the government is “destroying everything” and you think “we” should rise up.

for one thing, Jack Fisher, if the time were to come, it will become MORE than just “opinion” but FACT: when our government becomes facisit, and destroys everything our founding fathers built. THEN we would have no excuse: either we rise up, or we die.

Of course the media/government can still try to hypnitize us into thinking that it’s only…:hypno: .“opinion”…:hypno:…that your country is dying…only…:hypno:…“opinion”…:hypno:…that your rights are taken away…only…:hypno:…“opinion”…:hypno:…that your country may be headed into a bad direction. I’m sure a communistic government would like the people to think like that, as they kill thousands of people, which is just “opinion.” Pear Harbor didn’t happen, it was just “opinion” WWII didn’t happen, it was just “opinion” etc. Get what I mean? :ehh:

I hope no populous of any nation on earth would be that stupid to tag along with such brainwashing, should their government start to go bad.

I’d cringe everytime I read someone talking about revolution for the sake of “justice” – which is typically the poster’s view of justice. I can read these exact same sentiments on any gun nut forum.

Well at least it’s better than apathy, compared to one who actually cares. If both were to die, at least one would die trying, while the other wouldn’t give a dang about getting squashed. The one who fights at least fights against his country’s internal enemy, while the apathetic one will perhaps join later for having not “done” anything but get hurt anyway, or he’ll die like standstill target practice.

Now granted, we still have democracy, while it still exists in a real way still. Let’s use it to the best of our ability to peacefully restore our country to the virtues and principels that our founding fathers intended.

I don’t actually cringe because these sentiments are, as someone else put it, “the rage of dreaming sheep.” just a fantasy.

Maybe I or someone will change that? Some people are already trying in the states that have been mentioned, of course they didn’t necessarally say they would resort to war if they couldn’t seceed peacefully. But I don’t think they are simply “the rage of dreaming sheep,” or at least they don’t think they are just living “a fantasy,” …Jack

 

[Church_Militant]

I’m just curious - given the divide that the US is in today, how likely or unlikely that we could, given 5,10,20,30,40,50 years from now, we could go through another civil war? Who would the sides be? Which states would suceed?

Why do I entertain this thought? Well logically, if a people get tired of a at least seemingly incompent and corrupt government, how long will a nation’s people’s paitience last?

I’d just like other people to observe what they’ve noticed and if it’s a trend to watch out for.

Fat chance…

 

[master_catholic]

Fat chance…

yeah, people know too little or care too little, but that’s now. Who knows what the future will hold, only God knows.

 

[master_catholic]

One thing that I wanted to know was:

I wanted to know was [SIGN]Has anyone observed anything significant over the years that could “get big” as it where?[/SIGN]