Posted on 02/24/2022 6:58:05 AM PST by DiogenesLamp
Seceded state about to be reacquired by the Union. Which side should we root for?
Make NO mistake about it. Somewhere in the coming days we'll hear a Democrat punch line reminiscent of the "Peace in our time" line coming from the mouths of that Idiot-in-Chief or his backup, Cackles nonetheless. And, you can be assured that the MSM will be there to trumpet that to the hilt.
At one time I had familiarized myself with Kosovo, but I have forgotten most of it. What I recall is we were probably on the wrong side of that conflict.
Taiwan is the rightful government of China, so far as I'm concerned, but at the very least they should be supported in maintaining their independence from the People's Republic.
How much do you base your perspective on values of liberty and rights?
My entire argument is that people have a right to independence based on the Natural Law premises of this nation's own founding.
How small in scale and integrated in territory do you want to go?
Till this notion is better explored, I simply default to Lincoln's stated position on the subject.
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable-a most sacred right-a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such a people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of their territory as they inhabit."
I would also point out that the Declaration of Independence applied to states and it was some of these very same states that declared independence in 1776.
Are we to believe they were justified in declaring independence in 1776, but "four score and seven years..." later they are not?
How great a majority need be involved?
Well clearly a greater number would be better, but most of what we do as a nation involves a majority greater than 50%.
How much do you fall back on realpolitik? Possession being 9/10s of international law?
Philosophy and reality do not always conform to one another. I would favor the fundamental principles involved, but the guy with the guns often makes the rules and cares not about principles.
I was referring to Russia. Russia is more likely to be attacked from China than from Ukraine or Poland.
The most accurate numbers now accepted by historians are 750,000 people killed as a direct result of the war.
These numbers do not cover the numbers of people who died from starvation, exposure and disease as an aftermath of the war, and i've read some accounts claiming those were more than were killed directly by the war.
Also the economic devastation and the destruction of lives in the South were an additional cost of the war.
Putin currently has five NATO members on his border - Norway, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Turkey.
Since the ratification of the Constitution no state has 'freely joined' anything. They were allowed to join and only after obtaining the approval of a majority of the existing states as expressed through a vote in Congress. Should leaving require the same?
Losers write the myths.
Seek help.
And Sherman kicked traitorus SC ass
Mens rea. Did they pass the 13th amendment because they believed it was the right thing to do, or did they pass it because it was politically advantageous for them to do it?
I used to believe the former, but after looking at enough manipulation of the public from this era, I now believe it was done for the later reason.
The North had the four years of the civil war to grant former slaves (indeed, they did not even free their own slaves) the right to vote. They did not.
When Northern armies occupied the South and prevented all white people from voting, Washington DC ordered it's puppet governments in the Southern states to ratify this amendment. This is problematic on the face of it, because puppet governments do not truly represent the will of the people. They represent the despotic authority that controls them.
After having killed hundreds of thousands of their men, it was clear these states would be indefinitely hostile to the party that did it, but at the same time, it was clear the accidentally freed slaves would be grateful and would support this party no matter what it wanted to do.
I now think that they then supported those voting rights, as they now support illegal immigrants voting, that their motivation is induced by what is best for their control of power, and that they don't give a crap about it because they are concerned about human rights.
Indeed, if the 1860 Republicans thought freed slaves would vote against their party, they would have absolutely denied them the right to vote, and even now, if Hispanics were perceived as voting against the Liberal party today, the Liberals would be down there on the border building the fence themselves.
So is this about what is moral and right, or is this about who benefits? Because I now believe it is always about who benefits, and it is never about what is morally right.
That's just the propaganda they spew to justify whatever brings them power.
The fact remains those territories joined of their own ‘free’ will. And, in case you have some errant misconception I didn’t know about your trivial reply to that which you weren’t addressed is meaningless. Stalk much, vaxxer?
Root for whichever you want. Bottom line is that Ukraine is not and never has been a vital USA interest.
Didn't they sell it to us?
You live in the United States. You can leave. You are no different from the left, you both hate the US. So tired of you traitors on this site.
I am aware the Russians have good economic reasons for doing what they did. So too did Lincoln have good economic reasons for invading the South. Lincoln's invasion was entirely about the need to control the South's economics.
:)
From the Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861
Sec. 9. (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Sec. 2. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
Is this what you're in favor of?
Don’t like those hard questions. I understand.
The parallels between the South and the Founders are nearly exact. Even the British thought so at the time.
A bunch of slave owning states joined together and formed a confederacy. The Union they were leaving offered freedom to any slave that would fight for the Union. The "rebels" armies were led by a slave owning general from Virginia.
All of this is true in 1776 just as it was true in 1860. Even some of the descendants of the founders were involved, and some of the exact same states that had done it in 1776.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.