Vladimir Lincoln invades Ukraine. I think he wants to "preserve the Union."

Today | Me

[DiogenesLamp]

Seceded state about to be reacquired by the Union. Which side should we root for?

[ladyjane]

For those not familiar with Monument Avenue

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/origin-story-monument-avenue-america-most-controversial-street

[DiogenesLamp]

If ‘we’ ever want to resolve what will worsen exponentially in the coming years south of the border, we better damned well stop effing with others’ strategic/security concerns about their borders and be supportive.

A lot of people have pointed out that we shouldn't have involved ourselves in ousting a Russian favoring leadership in Ukraine for a Western favoring leadership.

Meddling in other people's nations often backfires as it appears to have done in this case.

[DiogenesLamp]

The world would be a safer place with fewer White Coats

I am inclined to agree with you about this.

[Gaffer]

Like anybody here needs your BS, either. No one disputes what the Constitution says on it OR the process. My opinion was just that - an opinion, your meddling notwithstanding. Carp on it all you will.

[DiogenesLamp]

You should try reading the resolutions of succession passed by the states that seceded.

No you shouldn't. They are red herrings meant to push your gaze back to the "The war is only about slavery" misdirection.

As has been pointed out to you before, there are only 3, perhaps 4 with creative reading, states that issued these declarations, ( and i'm thinking they weren't even official acts of the legislature, but something put out by conventions committees) while the other 7 states issued no such documents.

It also misdirects attention away from *WHY* the North invaded. The "Union" was tolerating slavery for "four score and seven years." Why was the "Union" suddenly concerned about this thing it had always allowed, and indeed tried to reinforce by it's support of the Corwin Amendment?

The "Union" became against slavery when it was politically advantageous for it to spread this propaganda, but was indifferent or even supportive of slavery (See Corwin Amendment) when it thought it was beneficial for the Union to support slavery.

What this proves is that the Union motivation was not over slavery, and the only explanation left is that it was being motivated by money.

[DiogenesLamp]

Ah, partisans of the War of Southern Treason to Preserve Slavery speak. I am sure you will now deny all of the speeches and documents at the time and say it was about “states rahts.” 😂 I love my southern fellow citizens but you are wrong on history.

I will urge you to read the Declaration of Independence so that you can explain to me at what point in US history that document was repealed.

Whether we have Slave states in the Union or slave states out of the Union, It seems to me the real question isn't about slavery, but whether people have a right to be in or out of the Union.

The Union fully intended to keep slavery. Read the Corwin Amendment.

Oh, and I'm not Southern and neither is my family. We didn't arrive from Europe until the 1900s, long after the conflict.

[DiogenesLamp]

I’ll root for Texas.

If there is another attempt at peacefully leaving the Union, a lot of people believe that Texas will be at the center of it.

I suspect a lot of it's bordering states would support it as well.

[DiogenesLamp]

your history is false.

I am open to learning. What part is false?

[DiogenesLamp]

. Odd, your slavery-loving Confederate heros certainly didn't agree with those ”principles”, as they refused to recognize the newly formed state of West Virginia during the Civil War, and continued to claim all the former counties of Virginia as part of the CSA, including the ones that had declared Independence from Virginia and proclaimed themselves the state of West Virginia.

Let's say that's absolutely true. (notwithstanding the fact that the US constitution absolutely prohibits another state from being formed out of the territory of an existing state) Does them doing something bad justify other people doing something bad?

What you have put forth is called a "tu quoque" argument. You are claiming that because someone else does something bad, it's okay to do this bad thing. This idea is regarded as a fallacy argument, because one bad thing does not justify another bad thing.

BTW, in answer to how long it took Israel to be recognized after they declared Independence, the answer is the very same day. The State of Israel was declared and President Truman and the U.S. Congress recognized them the very same day.

Wasn't talking about the US. I'm sure Russia recognized the Independence of regions of Ukraine, but that's because it was in their best interest to do so.

Did the rest of the World recognize Israel? How long did that take?

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm guessing there was very little actual "thought" involved there.

It didn't take a great deal of thought to see the parallels between what Lincoln did and what Putin is now doing.

A lot of other people see the similarities too, probably because the two events have a lot of similarities.

[DiogenesLamp]

What spooks me a bit is that “honest abe” was supposedly the founder of the Republican party. OTOH, the upper echelons of the Republican party is Deep State Controlled Opposition, as we see today in the likes of the Liz Cheney’s and Turle McConnells and Myth RomEny’s.

This is what I have come to believe. Lincoln's methodology was the kernel around which our modern Deep State Crony Capitalist Federal Leviathan has formed.

Lincoln was effectively the God Father of our current mafioso like government.

[Wizdum]

And he is going to gobble up these three, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, after he is done in the Ukraine. Forces in Belarus are in an ideal position to make that happen.

What is happening now is one of the reasons Trump was forcing the NATO countries to spend more on their forces than having the US be the umbrella. Now, with Joe Weakling in charge we are all in danger. He will do something stupid to escalate this.

[DiogenesLamp]

He is always out to bash Lincoln and defend the slavers.

Here once again you are deliberately misstating my position. I am not trying to "defend the slavers." I am trying to point out that slavery is irrelevant to the larger issue at stake in this conflict, and that issue is the right to independence.

I point out that not only did the Northern states continue to have "slavers", but that they also voted to keep slavery going. (See Corwin Amendment.)

*THEREFORE*

They cannot claim slavery as an excuse for what they did.

I've gotten very tired of him getting on his hobby horse at every opportunity and recognize that he's not going to be convinced by any "facts, figures, or logic."

I can be convinced, but you aren't putting forth any relevant facts that show me my understanding is incorrect.

I point out to you the money connections to the powerful cartel that still runs our government to this day, and you dismiss it.

What I see from you is someone who simply doesn't want to believe you've been misled by people you long believed to be the "good guys."

As i've said before, I used to believe this too, but I kept stumbling across too many examples of facts that didn't make any sense in the context of the Northern states invading the Southern states because they were the "good guys."

The evidence indicates they didn't do it because they were good guys. The evidence indicates they did it because they were "bad guys." They did it to keep the money and power they had acquired as a result of their influence on the government.

[DiogenesLamp]

Maybe he just wants to Take Back his Country??

I'm sure that's what he was thinking. I've read accounts that claim Putin has always wanted to restore the Soviet Union to it's former glory.

[DiogenesLamp]

The day is coming that God will crush Magog/Russia...and the armies of Gog will fight each other. The blood will rise to the horses bridle.

I think of that prophecy several times a year.

It looks more and more likely to come true with each passing year.

[DiogenesLamp]

As you recall, my sole focus in these discussions is the reality that Southern secession was motivated entirely by the issue of slavery,

And that is the error of your thinking. You focus solely on what you claim are their reasons for leaving, and you avert your eyes to looking at the reasons why they were invaded.

Slavery is immoral and deplorable, but it had nothing to do with why Lincoln sent armies into their land to kill them.

His reasons for doing this are worse than what you claim are their reasons for leaving.

[logi_cal869]

BIG time.

[Chode]

well, it’s been brought up in the security counsel and Russia is the president, so there’s that...

[BillyBoy]

Good thing for O.J. then, no doubt he’ll be remembered in history as an innocent black man who was unfairly framed for murder by racist cop Mark Fuhrman, right?

[DiogenesLamp]

Right. Kansas’ admission to the union was what triggered the war.

Why? Did you see how very little cotton can be produced in Kansas? And look at the region in which it would have been produced in 1860. It would have been far away from any transport system. Again, not economically viable, and so there would have been few (if any) actual slaves in Kansas.

But the shift in power caused by Kansas voting to be a slave state would have been enormous. The fight over Kansas was really a fight over Washington DC power.

Let me give you a more recent example. Bret Kavanaugh. Do you think Liberals opposed him because they believe he assaulted a woman 30 years ago? Or do you believe they opposed him because they saw him as a shift in the power of the Courts?

Bill Clinton provably assaulted and raped many women, but the left didn't care about that because he was on their side. What they care about is *POWER*. It's all they care about. This was the case with Kansas. It was about *POWER* in Washington DC. Nothing else.

And California’s central valley relies on immigration to provide CONSISTENT water supply, but that doesn’t mean they can produce nothing without irrigation.

Back in 1860, they could not only not grow cotton, they would have had a hard time shipping it to the mills of Europe, or even the Mills of New England.

The whole thing was an astro turf ruse to get people stirred up, not unlike BLM and George Floyd. Liberals pull these stunts to gain power in Washington DC, and that is the only reason why they do it.

There was never going to be any significant slavery in New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Utah, or anywhere else. It didn't work economically, but this didn't stop them from using it to hold onto power in Washington DC, because this group of people were making huge amounts of money by controlling DC power, and *THAT* is why they agitated on these issues.

The "Free Soil Party" was headquartered in New York city, not Kansas. It was a thousand miles away from the "soil" it claimed to be concerned about.