Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
- Feb 20, 2005
- Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Your above implies that the federal government should have done nothing to prevent further rebellion. It reminds me of the scene of a movie, From Here to Eternity, I saw long ago contained a scene where the Japanese were attacking Pearl Harbor. US soldiers were desperately trying to get arms and ammunition to fire at attacking Japanese planes strafing their barracks and all the while, the arms room sergeant didn't want to unlock the arms room because he didn't have written orders to do so.I really like the "and federal military intervention" regarding the border states. Pushing the % agenda regarding the border state, are you?s excludes the federal military intervention as being part of the reason that none of them seceded.
The sergeant, like your view above, didn't seem to understand that the situation had changed from peace time normal to war.
You speak of a % of the "agenda" as though it was just another day instead of the enormous impact of losing those states to armed rebellion.
There are two sides to every coin, at least, with a "normal" coin. You're not advocating a two-headed coin toss for every situation and event, are you?