Quoted: Kennedy didn't exactly have a stellar record when it came to deploying troops.  The Bay of Pigs fiasco really showed what stuff that Mass boy was made of.

Not exactly, but it did however show the stuff that the Agency was made of. Their attitude and failings contributed greatly to the outcome of that mission. If you get a chance, pick up "The Book of Honor" its a great view into the Agency during the dark years and gives you some excellent stories of how people have made the ultimate sacrifice for this country.

I guess you guys are right, Wallace was not a madman after all. He did apologize for his actions later on in life. Regardless of public opinion at the time (which was also wrong) when you take a part of your population out of the equation, you end up with a burden. Can you imagine what we, the taxpayer would have to cover now if minorities were not allowed the chance at a decent education? Everyone in a relatively civilized society has the option to contribute to the big picture..even liberalstarget holders.

The saddest part of this thread is that the federal government felt that things were so bad in the south that they needed to get involved. All so everyone could enjoy the same freedoms. Even after talking with my parents and others that lived through that period I just can't fathom the hatred.

Quoted: Quoted: Bonus March Quoted: I'm not surprised. I knew Waco wasn't the first time the thought has crossed the FEDGOV's mind. Anyone still think the military wouldn't engage American citizens if commanded to do so? HS1 And not only were they citizens, they were former enlisted men. Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...

Former enlisted men begging for a handout.

Arkansas was "invaded" by a Brigade from the 101st in 1957, after the National Guard was federalized and stood down.  No violence, just a bunch of racists with hurt feelings.

I honestly do not believe Wallace would have done anything to provoke the Feds into a fire fight of any kind. He did his stunt because at the time that is what the population wanted. He was planning on running for President on his State Right agenda. Having a bloody battle would not have helped his plan.

And I want to add there is big difference between early 1960 and 2004. Alabama is not the same place as it was back then, Yankees get over it! Bama is a great place to live white or black.

TAG

I agree with BeerSlayer, it very easily could have turned ugly. As for the National Guard, in AL Wallace was the President at that time and because kids inherant many of the feelings and beliefs of their parents and grandparents many in the South carried deep mistrust of the FEDGOV due to the mistreatment of civilians during and after the Civil war.

A war would have broken out. Alabamians would not have sat on the sidelines like those in Ar. Feelings against the Feds and Kennedys were very high. Alabamians would have been joined by others from Ms., Ga., and a few other states. A bloodbath would have ensued and an armed rebellion taken place. Kennedy knew better than to send these troops in to Bama at that time. Unlikke many who have surrendered, there are and were many who still believe in the right of states under the 9th and 10th.

This is thread is bullshit. In 1957, 327th IN (my Brigade ) deployed to Arkansas under president Eisenhower to allow black students to enter school after Brown vs. Board of Education; which made segregation illegal. This action was in response to Governor Orval Faubus calling out the AR National Guard to BLOCK students from entering school in little rock. So 1,000 101st troops went in, and there was no resistance. To say that the NG would have fought and "beat the Feds" is a load of stupid bullshit. First, the National Guard soldiers would be placed under federal control, HEY there's a thought! National Guard, when it boils down to it are really FEDERAL TROOPS maintained partially by the state. They sure as fuck would not have fought their own fellow soldiers, and had they, they would have been beat badly by superior numbers, training, and resources. But the point is moot. And the reason they were mobilized is to deal with a bunch of racist fucks. Just like in the Civil War, the so called "states' rights" was really the "states' rights to keep slaves." Don't forget, the Confederate States issued a proclamation declaring that they would put any black soldier (American soldier) back into slavery if captured. Any black American soldier wearing an American uniform would be executed. Any white officers leading black soldiers would be executed. So, if you want to be racist and ignore federal law preventing discrimination, AND then try to force a confrontation with American soldiers, you probably should have your ass kicked. BTW, these two situations have nothing in common with Waco.

Well put, and you are correct.  In spite of the Georgia boys' statement above that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, in fact, it was.  The true revisionism is the neo-southerners re-labelling the war as "The War of Northern Aggression" or some such bullshit.  I give you fools a lot of credit for persistence, in believing something that is so obviously wrong, but you must be closet Democrats, i.e., "Don't let the facts get in the way of what I believe.  I FEEL that I'm right."

Neat thread to focus the attention on the "invasion" of Alabama while avoiding the "invasion" and KILLINGS of American citizens at Kent State.  No one was ever prosecuted.  

Another interesting observation above, about how the southerners were upset, in the 1950s & 1960s, about the treatment of rebel prisoners by Union troops.  Fer  KEEERIST SAKES, give it up already,  the Civil War was over for a hundred years at that time, and it's almost 150 years old now.  GET OVER IT!

And, to steal an idea from another thread on here a long time ago, "Coulda, shoulda, woulda, and if my aunt would have had a wiener she would have been my uncle."

Quoted: Boy, I wonder if any of you realize that... About 90% of the modern infantry is white.  Not a racist statement, but a true one.  Though I know some stellar black infantrymen, most black soldiers are in the rear with the gear. A lot of those white boys are country boys.  Most common hobbies among infantrymen are hunting, dipping, shooting, drinking, and getting laid.  Though not in that order. Most National Guard soldiers of the 1960s were people trying to get out of Vietnam. And when soldiers go into a hostile environment, with unloaded weapons, ammo is always close by. If any of you think the good old boys had a chance, you are sadly mistaken.  Training, numbers, leadership, intelligence (the military kind), superior weaponry, and more fire power would have made any resistance a joke, with the exception of ORGANIZED guerilla warfare.  There were no organized guerilla cells, and it would have taken a long time to organize them and they still would have lost.

The AL Guard of the day was the best equipped and best trained Natl. Guard in the country. Not only is your statement is rife with stereotypes but also ignorance. If Gen. Graham had refused orders and Pres. Kennedy had sent in the troops, it probably would have been bloody and those "good ol' boys" would most definately not have been outgunned.




PS. WAR EAGLE!

i dont know about the al nat guard but i do know that both sides put up a lot of bull with regards to the civil war. i also know that the civil war was a truly bloody conflict with more loss of life than all our wars combined.

i am sure of this: robert e lee surrenderred at appamatox to ulysses s grant ending the civil war with a loss by the south. if it was not at all about slaves why was there such emphasis made at keep blacks from being a equal  part of society in the south? i realize things werent good in the north for blacks either but the south has a particular history with lynching and making sure the ni___ knew his place.

i know this too. if al nat guard had refused to be nationalized and fired on federal troops, there may have been a bloodbath of the first reg army troops. what would have followed would probably have made shermans march to the sea seem quaint. the trials and hangings after would have been really interesting and another round of reconstruction would have really done a great job of making the south rise again.

and i find it reprehensable that you alabamians are arguing this in terms of states rights when the real issue was a refusal to grant equal right on the basis of a bunch of kkk yahoos. you should hang your heads that if you had won the civil war even if blacks were free they would still be seperate and unequal. youre not defending states rights,youre defending the right discriminate. defending the right that noone has the power under the law to stop you from discriminating.

while i firmly believe in states rights , if it wasnt for the continual blatent discrimination that pervaded the states and made it possible to treat us citizens unequally before the law we probably wouldnt have the activist federal system that exists now.

thats right i'm saying that the problems we have in the federal court system we have today are directly rooted in the discrimination of the jim crow south the southern two tier law system that forced a federal responce to solve the inequality that became inherent in the states rights movement. yes ,the good ole boys gave us a activist judiciary, oversight of the school system, affirmative action, et al.

now i'll bet you'll argue these are products of the court system and the states rights  south had nothing to do with it. i will tell to screw your head on straight and remember nothing happens in a vacuum. if seperate but equal had actually provided an equal education and equal opportunity it would still be the law. but it wasnt and so was removed by the federal courts and when compliance was refused by the statist forced the creation of activist judges to get people to follow the law.

once you get judges that can force compliance on social issues you will get social engineering on other issues as well. but the activist judiciary owes itself to the fact that there was no other way to force states to treat citizens as equals

Quoted: A war would have broken out. Alabamians would not have sat on the sidelines like those in Ar. Feelings against the Feds and Kennedys were very high. Alabamians would have been joined by others from Ms., Ga., and a few other states. A bloodbath would have ensued and an armed rebellion taken place. Kennedy knew better than to send these troops in to Bama at that time. Unlikke many who have surrendered, there are and were many who still believe in the right of states under the 9th and 10th.

Talk is cheap, and there would not have been a battle.  The National Guard would have  refused to fight (they are US Army soldiers, after all), or have been federalized and sent home just like those in AR.  To think they would have fought fellow Americans over segregation is really just sad, and if they would the sure as hell didn't deserve the honor to wear the uniform of the American soldier.  

And had they fought (HYPOTHETICALLY), let's see how it would have turned out.  

Their morale:  Low, as only a few members would be dumb enough to think fighting fellow Americans would be a good idea.  There would be divisions among the troops and leaders, severely detracting from their ability to fight effectively.

Command and Control:  The National Guard would not be organized or trained to fight effectively as one unit, mostly they would have been a hodge podge of units called.  They sure as hell would have a lot of issues to coordinate what units they had.

Access to weaponry:  Grandpa's shot guns don't count.  Or their private "Machine Guns."  They would have access to their armories, but access to the massive amount of ammo needed to put up a protracted fight, fuel to run vehicles, any ordnance for heavy weapons, and other logistical needs would be limited or unaccessible.

Training:  Their training would be lacking against a regular unit, especially if an elite division came in like 101 or 82.

Firepower:  Artillery, tanks, air support would all be on the Federal size.  National Guards have aircraft and vehicles, but unless they are federalized, do not have the logistics to operate them.

I can keep on going, but only in some fantasy world would the AR NG fought OR won OR would it have been right.

Maybe Britain would have built a warship for the South again!

CSS Alabama was a screw sloop-of-war built for the Confederacy in 1862 by John Laird Sons and Company, Liverpool, England. Launched as Enrica, it was fitted out as a cruiser and commissioned 24 August 1862 as CSS Alabama. Under Captain Raphael Semmes, Alabama spent the next two months capturing and burning ships in the North Atlantic and intercepting American grain ships bound for Europe. Continuing the path of destruction through the West Indies, Alabama sank USS Hatteras along the Texas coast and captured her crew. After a visit to Cape Town, South Africa, Alabama sailed for the East Indies where the ship spent six months cruising, destroying seven more ships before redoubling the Cape en route to Europe.



ANdy

2gun, you are FOS.

How in the fuck do some of you idiots make a jump from this story to the civil war.

It's interesting that you bring this up now, after the southern revisionists have had their say & got bitch slapped with the facts.

Ya think that's bad?????

This thread has run 3 pages and nobody has bothered to mention "Operation Northwoods"

www.ratical.com/ratville/CAH/Northwoods.html

here are some excerpts, and yep this is bad stuff:

3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in
several forms:

     a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and
  blame Cuba.

     b. We could blow up a drone (unmannded) vessel anywhere
  in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident
  in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result
  of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both.  The presense
  of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of
  the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship
  was taken under attack.  The nearness to Havana or Santiago
  would add credibility especially to those people that might
  have heard the blast or have seen the fire.  The US could
  follow with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US
  fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existant
  crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful
  wave of national indignation.

and here:

6. Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide
additional provocation.  Harassment of civil air, attacks on
surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft
by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions.
An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they
saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were
to announce such fact.

and here:

9. It is possible to create an incident which will make it
appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft
over international waters in an unprovoked attack.

     a. Approximately 4 of 5 F-101 aircraft will be dispatched
  in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba.
  Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir
  aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida.
  These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at
  frequent intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at
  least 12 miles off the Cuban coast; however, they would be
  required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile
  actions were taken by the Cuban MIGs.

     b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly
  tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft.
  While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that
  he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other
  calls would be made.  The pilot would then fly directly
  west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an
  Eglin auxiliary.  The aircraft would be met by the proper
  people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The
  pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would
  resume his proper identity and return to his normal place
  of business.  The pilot and aircraft would then have
  disappeared.
 
     c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was
  presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft
  would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately
  15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart.  The pilots
  retuning to Homestead would have a true story as far as
  they knew.  Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched
  and parts of aircraft found.

Sorry but the link above is the only one I found handy......

Fortunately for us back then, Kennedy rejected this plan as outrageous (and some folks said he was a dummy). Between his rejection of Northwoods, his planned withdrawal from the Vietnam conflict and his hope to reform the monetary system, there is little wonder he was assassinated.

To those of you who claim the idea of government complicity in attacks on the US public to be “paranoid conspiracy,” I suggest you get a copy of the complete Northwoods Document for yourself and read it.

Its existence alone moves the possibility of the US government staging fake terror attacks against its own citizens out of the realm of “paranoid conspiracy that can be quickly dismissed,” and into the realm of "conceivable possibility that should be discussed".

Shame the only discussion of subjects like this occur on the internet and not in Washington DC where they belong......

Mike


PS - by the way the Bonus Marcher "facist plot" hinted at above which was exposed to Congress by none other than Smedly Butler can be read about in "War Is a Racket" and is a subject for review at some other time....

Quoted: Anyone still think the military wouldn't engage American citizens if commanded to do so?

I never have, and would never.


People, the U.S. military demands an oath be pledged; to protect from foreign threats... and domestic.

Now, if Mr. Joint Chief says "Hunt down all the members of ARFCOM and send them to the re-education camps. Anyone that refuses can and will be subjected to termination on the spot," do you think they won't do it? Sure, some members of the military will not follow the order - thankfully. But, some, take that oath very seriously and would gladly follow that order.

Now, yes, I know that order is an illegal one deserving of refusal to follow, but it's just an example. The simple fact is, just because your neighbors are military, doesn't mean you're safe and they'll spare you.

When TSHTF, you're on your own. You can't really trust anyone, you can only think you can... because, in reality, most of the people on the world would do just about anything to keep living.

The oath is to "Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."  That is all.

While, sadly, some sheeple have joined the military, the military as a whole would not stand for widespread oppression.  Politicians asking them to do it would be in trouble.

Quoted: This is thread is bullshit. (snip) Another interesting observation above, about how the southerners were upset, in the 1950s & 1960s, about the treatment of rebel prisoners by Union troops.  Fer  KEEERIST SAKES, give it up already,  the Civil War was over for a hundred years at that time, and it's almost 150 years old now.  GET OVER IT! And, to steal an idea from another thread on here a long time ago, "Coulda, shoulda, woulda, and if my aunt would have had a wiener she would have been my uncle."

One of the reasons why I'm not a Civil War reenactor - some of these guys seem to think the war's still going on.....

Quoted: One of the reasons why I'm not a Civil War reenactor - some of these guys seem to think the war's still going on.....

Wait a minute...

Aha!  I knew it!  REAL BULLETS!

because some people can't discuss anything without bashing others cultures