Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

fightforfreedom

(4,913 posts)
Fri Jun 10, 2022, 07:26 PM Jun 2022

Crazy question: Was the use of outlawed armed militias to attack the capital an act of war?

Armed militias who attempted to take over the United States of America. It was like a military operation and it was supported by a president and Republicans. This whole dam thing is insane.

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Crazy question: Was the use of outlawed armed militias to attack the capital an act of war? (Original Post) fightforfreedom Jun 2022 OP
Glen Kirshner has been using the T word. FalloutShelter Jun 2022 #1
No. Sympthsical Jun 2022 #2
Like I said, crazy question, but I had to ask. fightforfreedom Jun 2022 #3
One thing Lincoln did Sympthsical Jun 2022 #5
You mean like "The War of Northern Aggression" ? electric_blue68 Jun 2022 #7
+ struggle4progress Jun 2022 #8
Where were these arms stored? former9thward Jun 2022 #9
I Think Its an Interesting Thought Stallion Jun 2022 #4
I don't know what else you could call it. Chainfire Jun 2022 #6
 

fightforfreedom

(4,913 posts)
3. Like I said, crazy question, but I had to ask.
Fri Jun 10, 2022, 07:36 PM
Jun 2022

This was like a military operation. They stored weapons all around the capital waiting for Trump to give them the word.

Sympthsical

(9,029 posts)
5. One thing Lincoln did
Fri Jun 10, 2022, 07:47 PM
Jun 2022

Is constantly discuss the Confederacy in terms of rebellion. He knew, no matter how terrible the conflict, there had to be a path forward left for the states to rejoin the Union once the fighting was over. Give them a way out. So he never considered the states to have left the Union. He simply asserted that certain "elements" were in rebellion and controlled various resources.

The one thing he never wanted was for the war to be contextualized in such a way that the Confederacy or those elements within it were considered a foreign power separate from the Union.

Once you go down that road, it would be very hard to go back. It would then become a context of a conqueror taking over a country (an idea that remains to this day in some segments of the South), rather than one country dealing with internal elements.

Stallion

(6,473 posts)
4. I Think Its an Interesting Thought
Fri Jun 10, 2022, 07:40 PM
Jun 2022

Lincoln called it a rebellion because he refused to recognize that a state could secede from the Union

Chainfire

(17,458 posts)
6. I don't know what else you could call it.
Fri Jun 10, 2022, 10:20 PM
Jun 2022
war
/wôr/
noun

1.
a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state:

************************************************************************************************
We called it war when Southern rebels occupied Sumpter. Sending in an organized rebel redneck army to break into and occupy the Capitol, suspend the actions of the government, attempt to kill the government leaders in an attempt to illegally replace the lawfully elected government was an act of war. The test is this: If the actions were those of another government would we have considered it an act of war?

Some of the bad players have already been charged with seditious conspiracy. Justice is apparently considering the storming of the Capitol an act of war to charge seditious conspiracy. If that is the case, and they do consider it an act of war, then anyone who contributed to the action and had sworn an oath of allegiance would most likely be guilty of Treason.

From the web: (the emphasis is mine): Sedition
A revolt or an incitement to revolt against established authority, usually in the form of Treason or Defamation against government.

Sedition is the crime of revolting or inciting revolt against government. However, because of the broad protection of free speech under the First Amendment, prosecutions for sedition are rare. Nevertheless, sedition remains a crime in the United States under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (2000), a federal statute that punishes seditious conspiracy, and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2385 (2000), which outlaws advocating the overthrow of the federal government by force. Generally, a person may be punished for sedition only when he or she makes statements that create a Clear and Present Danger to rights that the government may lawfully protect (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).

The crime of seditious conspiracy is committed when two or more persons in any state or U.S. territory conspire to levy war against the U.S. government. A person commits the crime of advocating the violent overthrow of the federal government when she willfully advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government by force, publishes material that advocates the overthrow of the government by force, or organizes persons to overthrow the government by force. A person found guilty of seditious conspiracy or advocating the overthrow of the government may be fined and sentenced to up to 20 years in prison. States also maintain laws that punish similar advocacy and conspiracy against the state government.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Crazy question: Was the u...