The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Sommerswerd]

The last civil war started with the shelling of Fort Sumter, will this one start with the shelling of Fort Jackson or Parris Island?

Attacking Parris Island would seem like an easy way to guarantee that less (or no) Marines join their cause, so I'd bet heavily against that.

 

[El_Machinae]

... It's times like this where we have to remember that at least part of the Civil War was about slavery. South Carolina will not become an economic juggernaut if they leave the union, even if they enslave their Negroes again.

 

[Cutlass]

... It's times like this where we have to remember that at least part of the Civil War was about slavery. South Carolina will not become an economic juggernaut if they leave the union, even if they enslave their Negroes again.

There was nothing about the Civil War that was not about slavery. It was a 1 issue conflict.

 

[Sommerswerd]

... It's times like this where we have to remember that at least part of the Civil War was about slavery. South Carolina will not become an economic juggernaut if they leave the union, even if they enslave their Negroes again.

Well they might have an easier time of it since the black population now is only 27.5%, whereas back then I think it was actually a majority black population (I haven't verified that stat so feel free to correct me)...

 

[metatron]

Well they might have an easier time of it since the black population now is only 27.5%, whereas back then I think it was actually a majority black population (I haven't verified that stat so feel free to correct me)...

"White" persons constituted the plurality of the population counted in the US census in 1790, 1800, 1810 and from 1920 going forward, as well as in the 1680 and 1700 countings (whatever the British called these things).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Carolina

 

[Sommerswerd]

"White" persons constituted the plurality of the population counted in the US census in 1790, 1800, 1810 and from 1920 going forward, as well as in the 1680 and 1700 countings (whatever the British called these things).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Carolina

Your Wikipedia link places the slave population of South Carolina at 57.2% in 1860 (right before the Civil War) and 58.9% black in 1870 (five years after the Civil War). So that seems to confirm what I suspected pretty squarely, thanks. South Carolina had a majority black population during the time of the Civil War.

 

[metatron]

Your Wikipedia link places the slave population of South Carolina at 57.2% in 1860 (right before the Civil War) and 58.9% black in 1870 (five years after the Civil War). So that seems to confirm what I suspected pretty squarely, thanks. South Carolina had a majority black population during the time of the Civil War.

Oh, i didn't mean to disagree in any way. I just tried to be somewhat precise.

Btw: Do you have any idea how this "white" majority in 1800/1810 came about, like, in the middle of basically two centuries of African American majority?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Oh, i didn't mean to disagree in any way. I just tried to be somewhat precise.

Btw: Do you have any idea how this "white" majority in 1800/1810 came about, like, in the middle of basically two centuries of African American majority?

The most significant events, in terms of US history, that I can think of that took place between 1770, when the black population in SC was 61.5%, 1780, when the black population in SC was 53.9%, and 1790, when the black population in SC was 43.%... was the American Revolutionary War (1776-1783) and the adoption of the US Constitution (1789), which basically created "The United States of America" as a nation as it exists today.

If I were a betting man, I'd wager that a lot of black folks took advantage of those two situations to get out of South Carolina... which had a reputation as being one of the most brutal and oppressive of all the slave States... to get the hell out of Dodge while the getting was good... and before it was too late. Even more especially since one of the major sticking points of the formation of the US Constitution was the designation of some states as "slave states" and others as "free states". If there was ever a time to flee the US southern states... it was 1789, to get on the right side of the infamous "Mason-Dixon line".

I'd also think that the seven years of chaos of the Revolutionary War presented other great opportunities to escape slavery. For one thing, the British were offering freedom to slaves who agreed to work for them, so that was as good a chance as any to escape. Another chance was if the owner of the plantation you were on was killed in battle and just never returned, or there weren't enough overseers left to keep you captive, because the able bodied men had gone off to fight, or if the slave themselves were offered into military service by the plantation owners themselves in their own stead, or if the Plantation was burned or occupied by the British. I'm sure the War presented a plethora of opportunities to escape South Carolina.

 

[metatron]

The most significant events, in terms of US history, that I can think of that took place between 1770, when the black population in SC was 61.5%, 1780, when the black population in SC was 53.9%, and 1790, when the black population in SC was 43.%... was the American Revolutionary War (1776-1783) and the adoption of the US Constitution (1789), which basically created "The United States of America" as a nation as it exists today.

If I were a betting man, I'd wager that a lot of black folks took advantage of those two situations to get out of South Carolina... which had a reputation as being one of the most brutal and oppressive of all the slave States... to get the hell out of Dodge while the getting was good... and before it was too late. Even more especially since one of the major sticking points of the formation of the US Constitution was the designation of some states as "slave states" and others as "free states". If there was ever a time to flee the US southern states... it was 1789, to get on the right side of the infamous "Mason-Dixon line".

I'd also think that the seven years of chaos of the Revolutionary War presented other great opportunities to escape slavery. For one thing, the British were offering freedom to slaves who agreed to work for them, so that was as good a chance as any to escape. Another chance was if the owner of the plantation you were on was killed in battle and just never returned, or there weren't enough overseers left to keep you captive, because the able bodied men had gone off to fight, or if the slave themselves were offered into military service by the plantation owners themselves in their own stead, or if the Plantation was burned or occupied by the British. I'm sure the War presented a plethora of opportunities to escape South Carolina.

Well, it stands to reason that it is in some way a function of the revolution.
I just assumed slaves plainly escaping couldn't be it. Like, i would have expected "white" Carolinians to prevent a drain of such magnitude and to prioritise this prevention over any contribution to the war effort. No idea if this supposition is correct.
So, anyway, British incursions and this replacement service business possibly were the things i didn't properly appreciate.

 

[Commodore]

Attacking Parris Island would seem like an easy way to guarantee that less (or no) Marines join their cause, so I'd bet heavily against that.

This assumes South Carolina would be the ones attacking. Let's say South Carolina secedes and the marines on Parris Island decide to join them. I could certainly see the federal government sending a force to attempt to destroy or recapture the installation.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This assumes South Carolina would be the ones attacking. Let's say South Carolina secedes and the marines on Parris Island decide to join them. I could certainly see the federal government sending a force to attempt to destroy or recapture the installation.

C'mon man...how many marines stationed at Parris Island consider South Carolina to be their home? I was stationed six different places in six different states and I never even knew anyone that identified where we were stationed as 'home.' The marines at Parris Island aren't going to declare for South Carolina.

 

[Commodore]

C'mon man...how many marines stationed at Parris Island consider South Carolina to be their home?

It may be the cause they support, not the state that's championing that cause.

EDIT: And it's not all that unlikely either. Both the Army and Marine Corps have a significant number among their ranks who have openly stated and continue to openly state they would not comply with a federal order to assist law enforcement in firearms confiscation. The general sentiment being that such an order would be seen as "unlawful" in their eyes.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It may be the cause they support, not the state that's championing that cause.

Not buyin' it. I flat out loved living in Hawaii. Gave serious thought to getting out of the navy and staying there. But taking on citizenship in "the newly independent nation of Hawaii" while being branded a traitor and never allowed to return to the US, where all of my family lived, where I was born and raised, where my wife's family lived, where my kids were born (admittedly I have no particular use for Florida or Idaho, so that part is a bit hard to follow, but still)...

No.
Possibility.
Period.

The military is not going to just "side with where they are stationed." It's one of the smaller reasons that it is so hard to draw a duty assignment "at home."

 

[Arakhor]

From what I could find about the US military oath, you don't even swear fealty to the United States, but instead to the serving president, who is presumably issuing said federal orders.

The British armed forces swear fealty to the Sovereign and not Parliament (in fact, the entire Royal Navy is technically maintained under Royal Prerogative), so you could at least claim to have legitimate split loyalties if we had another civil war.

 

[Cutlass]

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed

The oath is to the Constitution. The president is only recognized as the commander in chief.

 

[Arakhor]

Right, but the Constitution of the United States is not the same thing as the country itself. I imagine it has something to say about armed secession though.

 

[inthesomeday]

Right, but the Constitution of the United States is not the same thing as the country itself. I imagine it has something to say about armed secession though.

It kind of doesn’t, really. In fact the second amendment arguably encourages it.

Obviously the whole document sucks but it’s also horribly contradictory and poorly written so there’s a lot it misses.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Right, but the Constitution of the United States is not the same thing as the country itself. I imagine it has something to say about armed secession though.

The Constitutionality of actual secession (as opposed to theoretical) was more or less an issue of first impression for President Lincoln's administration during the Civil War. He decided it wasn't allowed, and years after the war, US Supreme Court agreed, so that's the rule now. However, it isn't addressed directly in the Constitution itself.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Right, but the Constitution of the United States is not the same thing as the country itself. I imagine it has something to say about armed secession though.

Interestingly enough it doesn't. This was used by both sides of the Civil War to claim that the constitution doesn't say you can't leave (South) or that it doesn't say you can (North). The Supreme Court case Texas v. White (1869) is what actually wrote out the official interpretation that secession was illegal.

It kind of doesn’t, really. In fact the second amendment arguably encourages it.

The first part of the Second Amendment, the " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." bit, is grounded in part by the Founders general distrust in standing armies and the view that the nation would be best served by relying on State Militias to serve in times of need.

Obviously the whole document sucks but it’s also horribly contradictory and poorly written so there’s a lot it misses.

*sigh*

 

[inthesomeday]

The first part of the Second Amendment, the " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." bit, is grounded in part by the Founders general distrust in standing armies and the view that the nation would be best served by relying on State Militias to serve in times of need.

Right, obviously it’s historical context makes it basically useless, but the sentiment is a good one.

*sigh*

?