I'd argue that history also shows that a divided people are far more at risk of being conquered than a united people.
That's fairly indisputable, yea. I'm just saying the threat to liberty is much (much!) greater from internal forces, than foreign enemies.
The only ones who seem to escape being conquered and brought to heel by a tyrannical majority or "majority" are the ones who leave. And they convert one divided population into two more stable united populations.
Correct.
Maybe we're using different semantics to try to say the same thing. You weren't thinking of domestic conquerors as conquerors.
No, I was certainly viewing domestic conquerors as conquerors. That's the threat that unity brings. Unity has an overwhelmingly strong tendency to threaten force against people who would prefer to leave, and unity likewise, gives them the military strength to make you stay.
Are you not thinking of populations which have seceded as separate populations?
They are indeed separate populations.
I'm not sure what exactly got lost in translation, but my point is that, your liberty is at infinitely more danger from your own countrymen than from foreign actors. The United States is a perfect example of this. I'm not even referring specifically to the civil war, although that is a fairly obvious example. I'm moreso referring to the more dull mundane everyday tyranny that is forced upon us on a daily basis by our own government. The root cause of that tyranny is very clearly identified as unity, in all its forms, civil war included.*
Pretty much every country in the world, currently, is enslaved by their own countrymen. Foreign invasion could even be argued to increase liberty, given the current status quo...
(*Civil war is caused by unity, not division!)
