People need to realize that the civil war was simply the democrats of 1860 acting exactly like the democrats of today, childish and irrational. Lincoln wasn't even sworn in when they began their tantrums. For that matter, he wasn't on the ballot in most of the south.
The Democrats of the time were the conservative party. Secession started because the Republicans, just a renamed Whig party, were hard centralizers. When the wrong side won, we got the foundation Lincoln laid for the mess we have now. If you like Lincoln, but hate the FedGov we have now, you're political philosophy is contradictory.
The Character of the Democrat Party of 1860 is far, far different than the character of the Democrat Party now. As I have said many times, Jefferson, sitting as judge, would sentence the current Democrats to death, and Jackson would be glad to spring the trap under them.
This is a willful misreading of the times I'm afraid. I've used the holiday to do a bit of reading into the civil war era history. The dems were actually the party that started the civil war, the confederacy ended up doing almost everything to their own citizens that Lincoln is rightfully accused of doing to his, and national presidential political ambitions of the democrats lit the fire.
This by no way means to gloss over the issues the North and South were fighting over. Regional power politics were then as they are now. Strong economic jockeying occurred. The arguments over tariffs for instance were legitimate and each side had their point. But as the North was gaining population at a much greater rate than the South, guess who had the votes.
The Founders had always assumed that slavery would wither away, and their writings show that. That it held on is a mix of political and economic shifts unforeseen by them. Abolitionist movements accelerated in growth through this time, as those against slavery began to wonder if it would ever end. The Missouri Compromise was forged in this environment.
Then presidential ambitions of the likes of Stephen Douglas and a strong push towards making alliances with southern democrats lit the fuse to end the Missouri Compromise and allow for an actual expansion of slavery in the western territories. Had the South not made this move, it is likely the fuse would never have been lit. This resulted in all sorts of violence and a general escalation of emotions about the issue. When Lincoln was elected the South stormed out. And then made the massive strategic mistake of thinking firing on a federal fort was a good idea.
At that point, it allowed Lincoln to save the union by force, something he had given no indication he was willing to do. Yes, at the end, he made decisions that pushed the South to over-react (reinforcing Ft. Sumter) but were a fine line he walked with his own political constituencies in the North.
The South probably had a less aggressive path that actually might have worked, akin to what we see the states doing today, because back then the military was essentially all state based. But they got their back up over slavery, and refused to walk away from it when it had become an albatross, not an asset. It made it impossible to get a deal with the Europeans, which the South should have known given the British sentiment on the practice. But since direct Southern policy had made slavery the hill to die on - they were toast.
Based upon Jefferson Davis' own policies and actions, I see no suggestion that he and Lincoln were much different. The results of the civil war, had the South prevailed, would have just been centralization of power in both countries, as they matured. The writings of both Lincoln and Davis demonstrate their reverence for essentially the same thing, liberty, freedom, etc., but events forced them to act differently. Certainly, had Lincoln not been assassinated by a rogue Southern Dem, some of the post civil war amendments and policies might not have come to pass, which have proved so troublesome today.
Anyhow, the need to fight the war is what set in motion some of the centralization you reasonably dislike. The South's own actions forced them to fight a war they had no reasonable chance to win, for all their military success was defensive in nature, done on Southern ground. Lee's three forays into northern territory all ended up in disaster, and only by the grace of northern generals' failure was his army not destroyed ending the fighting at least 2 years earlier.
So yes, Lincoln was no saint, and neither were the southern leaders.
The Dems did not start the war. Lincoln did by sending a supply ship to Sumter. Lincoln did not save anything. He destroyed the founders republic because of his centralizing desires. The US still suffers from that anti-Constitutional crime.
Your public school education has served THEM well.
Secession started because the southerners were TOLD that Lincoln was going to take their slaves. Lincoln never campaigned in the south. The only information they had came from the same media types we know not to trust.
Had the south kept their representatives and senators in Congress, it would have been gridlock.
As to republicans being repainted whigs, the whigs were for the most part proslavery. They DID object to the federal government ordering Northern states to enforce southern slave laws, that right there is the REAL state's rights issue of the time.
Ask yourself why Ft Riley, in Kansas, had streets named for southern generals. Sure, they also have McClellan, but remember, he was the one who wanted to surrender.
That's your publik skool talking. The main problem was Hamiltonianism. At the bottom line, that brought secession, and we are seeing the results of Lincoln's "victory" now. The south was both within its rights to leave, and was right to leave.
I agree also. Lee didn't "lead the South to ruin." The South seceded and Lincoln invaded and started an illegal, bloody war. If you want to blame someone in the South for leading the South to ruin, blame the secessionists. Lee joined the South because of his loyalty to Virginia. He didn't start the war.
f course the South fired the first shot. And the democrats actually fueled the build up to war, with the abrogation of the Missouri Compromise. So there were lots of fingers that could be pointed at with when this all started. And the illegality or legality of any revolution or secessionist war is always in the eyes of the beholder. ;-)
And let's not forget the actions of hyper democrat Booth in assassinating Lincoln which changed significantly our path after the war.
Irrelevant. The Northern politicians tried to hike excise taxes on the Southern states for decades before open hostilities, waging economic war. They wanted a war, and they eventually got it.
AFWIW, there is still no LEGAL basis for denying a state from succession. The only precedent is that of brute force preventing it. So much for a country of laws.
Hardly. I am well aware of the political disputes over tariffs. The South made it politically impossible for any Union President to walk away. I don't even know that I disagree with your premise that you can walk away via secession. But when you fire on Union property, which the fort was, you've lost the moral high ground if they ever held it. There was a political resolution to the dispute. The South chose differently. They lost.
Nonsense. The firing of a first shot is a meaningless artificial distinction. The South was under attack long before that first round was fired. War can be waged in many ways. Economic sanctions, for one. (Just ask our current administration about their Russian sanctions.)
No one is questioning whether the South lost or not, so that is just mindless knee jerk argumentation. Political resolution? More nonsense, unless you consider being beaten into submission political.
Actually the war was started by the South in the 1850's with the gutting of the Missouri Compromise. At that point, the only way was never going to start was for the South to publicly publish a plan for the eventual elimination of slavery.
Oh - and the decision to scrap the Missouri compromise was specifically done by the south to allow for an expansion of slavery into the western territories. Completely and totally based upon slavery.
It's a good article which explains in more detail all the underlying political causes for setting up the war.
But every war needs a spark. And the spark was not slavery per se, as it had been around forever, but the political decisions made by the south to reignite it as an issue with the gutting of the Missouri Compromise. That did start lots of fighting, got everyone's blood heated up, and allowed those looking for violence the opportunity to engage in it. Let's face it - Missouri and Kansas were in an open border war prior to the civil war. It required an act on slavery by the south to put the genie back into the bottle, and allow the political fighting to continue on matters economic that had always been an issue. They coalesced around the issue instead, inserting slavery into a more prominent issue than it had ever been before. Strategically, the south got schooled, then beaten. They decided it was time to fight. Once bullets fly, all bets are off.
Yup. That's where he lost me. Why would I value the opinion of someone who can make such a blatantly inappropriate comparison as if it were self-evident. Seriously calls his judgment and analytic ability into question. Not even gonna bother reading the rest.
Putin started the war. He didn't have to start the war as Ukraine had done nothing to Russia, and the stuff about NATO and "genocide" which Putin supported with heavy weapons and troops, is also BS.
Putin pushed himself into a corner. I have heard all the theories and accusations. He made an assessment and decided he needed a different border structure. I think the only way you would have pacified him was to allow him to unilaterally re-constitute the Soviet security structure. No way that was happening.
John J. Mearsheimer, political scientist and international relations scholar, in 2015:
"The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.”
George Kennan, American diplomat and historian, right after the US Senate approved NATO expansion all the way back in 1998:
“I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies…Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are — but this is just wrong.”
CIA Director William Burns’s 2008 memo to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:
“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin).
Last US ambassador to the USSR Jack Matlock: “an avoidable crisis that was predictable, actually predicted, willfully precipitated, but easily resolved by the application of common sense”:
1997: “I consider the Administration’s recommendation to take new members into NATO at this time misguided. If it should be approved by the United States Senate, it may well go down in history as the most profound strategic blunder made since the end of the Cold War. Far from improving the security of the United States, its Allies, and the nations that wish to enter the Alliance, it could well encourage a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat to this nation since the Soviet Union collapsed.”
Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s secretary of state, concedes that “[Russian president Boris] Yeltsin and his countrymen were strongly opposed to enlargement, seeing it as a strategy for exploiting their vulnerability and moving Europe’s dividing line to the east, leaving them isolated.”
Strobe Talbott, deputy Secretary of State under Pres Clinton “Many Russians see Nato as a vestige of the cold war, inherently directed against their country. They point out that they have disbanded the Warsaw Pact, their military alliance, and ask why the west should not do the same.”
Robert M Gates, Secretary of Defense in the administrations of both George W Bush and Barack Obama, stated his belief that “the relationship with Russia had been badly mismanaged after [George HW] Bush left office in 1993…trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into Nato was truly overreaching…recklessly ignoring what the Russians considered their own vital national interests”.
Ukraine has everything to do with Russia. For three decades the Cold War relic of nato has moved closer and closer to the border of Russia. Wiser people have known for decades this was provocative.
“The history of Russia’s survival is rooted in strategic depth. The vastness of the Russian and Ukrainian steps killed both Napoleon and Hitlers army’s. Both of which were the most powerful armies of their era.” M Tracey
Ukraine is to Russia what Cuban missiles were to JFK.
Hopeless? Really? That "Lost Cause" crap is dangerous. The Confederacy was close to winning, or at least ending the war with their "nation" intact in 1864.
The South could very well have won the Civil War. Hardly "hopeless."
"The South could very well have won the Civil War."
Utter nonsense. The South had less than half the military age population of the North, and essentially no industrial base to support a war effort. (5 Northern states EACH had more industrial capacity than all the Confederacy) The South's illusory belief that it would find foreign recognition and support by either England or France completely misses the fact that NEITHER of those nations were about to intervene on their behalf. (France because it was broke and already fighting an expensive foreign war in Mexico, the United Kingdom because it both would have brought down the Palmerston government.....and cut off the grain imports from the Ohio Valley and brought on food riots among the population) Not to mention that the rest of Europe was strongly pro-Union, including the Russians, who went so far as winter their Baltic and Pacific fleets in Union controlled harbors.
Defending ones family and property from foreign mercenaries is not an evil deed. If your house was at Fort Sumter, surrounded by Hessian Mercenaries armed to the teeth, would you wait for them to shoot first? Lincoln was planted by the British/Rothschild Empire, just like Biden was planted by the Rothschild/British Empire. All wars are about money being stolen by the bank owners. The same bank loaned money to the Yankees as well as the Rebels, just like the same bank loaned money to the Nazi's and American's at the same time. They funded both sides. After every American war, America was broke and indebted to, guess who? Amschel von Rothschild's Family. That's why they live in castles and we do not, because we have a heart & a soul & The Good Lord, and they have our tax & interest & mortgage money.
The first year and a half, yes. Then Grant began to figure things out in the west, and the tide slowly turned. The real chance for the South, when it looked the best, was the beginning of 1863. They could still control the Mississippi, Lee had every version of the Army of the Potomac on the defensive, and Bragg was seriously threatening southern Ohio and Indiana.
By 1864 the Mississippi had been lost, Lee was lucky to retreat from Gettysburg and would never be an offensive threat again (he said as much to Davis at the end of 1863/beginning of 1864), Brag had been dismissed and the Union controlled Tennessee. That is not kicking the crap out of anyone.
Yes, the West was a disaster almost from the start thanks to Bragg. I dont believe he was ever a real threat due to his lack of leadership and the subsequent disdain the common soldier had for him. The NY Draft Riots in 1863 perfectly illustrated the mood of much of the country because they were losing.
Washington under constant threat by men like Moseby's Rangers, too many people losing their sons, draft riots, Lincoln pilloried in the press, so he started locking up journalists and outspoken citizens and suspended habeas corpus, etc. Not sure what you would call that maybe not losing but certainly not winning
The South ran out of resources while the drunk known as General Grant forced Union men into the meat grinder. Grant didnt win through skill but overwhelming resources and unlimited dupes. Ever heard of the NYC draft riots? I can send you a history book or you could go and finally get that elusive GED
Yes, well aware of the riots. Your dismissal of Grant is inaccurate. A more accurate criticism would be his embrace of something we would now call total war. I would suggest some more reading on Grant to bring your understanding up to speed.
My opinion of Grant remains. You can call it Total War or War of Attrition, but he waged it against Southern civilians (AMERICANS) irrespective of whether they were pro union or not. Do you actually think grant would have defeated Lee if the circumstances were reversed? As an example the South having an entire factory for every factory worker in the North? Once you understand Grant and Sherman's illegal war on Southern civilians your understanding of Grant will be up to speed.
Lee could’ve prolonged the war as he was being urged by some to never surrender and run guerrilla operations against the north. He estimated he could keep the war running a few more decades if he did that.
Fortunately he chose not to. So he had more to do with ending the war than prolonging it.
Yes, he said it would last 25 more years if he set up a new front.
360,222 Union deaths and 258,000 Confederate deaths. The Yewden in the north that started it would not fight. The mercenaries they paid kept pouring into NY Harbor, protecting them. It's not over 'til it's over. lol
Putin did not invade so he could annex the Russian-speaking areas of eastern Ukraine. He finally came to realize that NATO was hell-bent on the destruction of Russia and he was better off attacking than waiting. He's been proven right as Ukraine's army has been devastated and Russia's economy is holding it's own. Europe will be sliding into depression without Russia's cheap energy. Russia can continue to wipe out any NATO army with their superior artillery and control of the air. Russia has no interest in annexing any area unless the people are Russian speakers that desire to join.
OK - this is just silliness. Russia's army has woefully underperformed. Our only fear is nuclear. That's it. NATO, aka the US, would wipe out the Russian forces rather quickly. As for only Russian speakers, they were headed towards Odessa - not very Russian.
Now Europe is in trouble - Germany in particular gambled by putting their energy supplies in Russia's hands. My understanding is that the big German chemical firm BASF is trying to rebuild their industrial plant in Louisiana as a stop gap.
"Putin did not invade so he could annex the Russian-speaking areas of eastern Ukraine...."
True.
"...NATO was hell-bent on the destruction of Russia..."
Utter nonsense.
Putin is trying to create the strategic depth that historically has protected Russia from invasion from WWII all the way back to the Ottoman Empire. In point of fact, he is looking to recreate the "buffer zones" between Russia's core territories by seizing the military choke-points that the USSR controlled at the height of the Soviet period. He's already dealt with several of the Central Asian routes by subverting governments and creating client states, as well as invading Georgia. His invasion of Ukraine was aimed in the long run at grabbing the routes to both the Polish plains and the Bessarabian Gap. The problem is that to gain the defensible positions he seeks.....would take not only *completely* controlling Ukraine (not just the Russian-speaking portions) but also involve grabbing Moldova, and invading NATO members Poland and Romania. (which are part of his ultimate goals0.
Mr Shanks, you forget important details. We knew bringing Ukraine into NATO would start a war. So why did Biden offer Ukraine membership in NATO ? We wanted this war whether you believe it or not.
How do you know this? A lot of people - not me - claim to know what Putin wants and what he will do. Personally I doubt it. But not really knowing, myself, your guess is as good as any.
I love the detailed history of the assassination. I had no idea who did it, that there had been a previous grenade attack, or that he killed Ferdinand's wife too. I had no idea about the cyanide, the sandwich, or much of any of this. All I knew was a guy killed Franz Ferdinand, and everything went downhill from there. This is fascinating.
Of course, the sandwich was not the cause of WW1. Princip being at the deli at the right time is one of those serendipitous things upon which world history often turns. That Princip is a hero simply shows how stupid Serbians can be.
Yes for sure. I would say it basically the opposite way. WWI was the cause of him not finishing his sandwich rather than the sandwich being the cause of the war.
Sorry, I can't stay! World War One is about to start!
Don, its hard to disagree more with what you have written. The supposition here is that Russia will end its expansionist efforts into expanding its borders, as if it could have stopped after Crimea, Georgia, one of the Stan's, etc. There is always one more. This reality seems to be missing from most of the end of the war scenarios of Dr. K.
As for who buys Treasuries in the future? Where else can you get 5%? China, Russia, the EU? Where? Don't misunderstand me, we certainly have a spending problem our politicians of either side have no interest in stopping. However, we could also argue that they realize there is much less danger to the debt than is typically argued, because the US drags in so much capital and the dollar is THE global currency. So, they take short term actions for their own benefit, because their entire worldview is the next election.
To take a Russian advantageous truce presumes the Russians will finally stop. Zero evidence supports them stopping until they have plugged all their perceived security risks. The last of these are on NATO ground. While I cannot for certain say they will not stop, I can point to 20 years or more of Russian history documenting they won't. It trumps any argument you, or Dr. K can muster.
I think you are overboard on this. I agree that Ukraine is and was no poster child for democracy. It was ruled by a Russian stooge for a long time before the Z-man. No one should be surprised that Biden's son got the deal he did at Burisma. No one should think it was a job obtained on merit. That's just how things are in Ukraine. It has been trying for EU membership for a while - turned down because it was not open enough - not democratic enough.
Every country has 'well paid' politicians... there is a reason the US has no political reform, can't 'drain the swamp, and that political leaders leave office as millionaires. We are no different...
LOOK AT A MAP. You do not want Russia owning Ukraine. And while you quote Kissinger, you could quote Soros who is on the other side urging fight and drive the buggers out. Kissinger is adept at giving Russia someone else's property ( for an unstable peace??!!). He will not be around so he will not deal with the consequences of rewarding Russian aggression.
It makes sense to to stop Russia now and roll back their gains as an INVESTMENT in peace for the future. Letting them stay is asking for more trouble in the future. Remember the Maine!! ...and Crimea! Crimean sanctions were a joke, no wonder Putin went back for 'seconds.' If Ukraine capitulation happens because US support is pulled its a very bad message for the future letting everyone (wink, wink, China!) know we can be had and we have our limits. No this is a job that must be finished. Kissinger is wrong to look at it and say it is no longer worth it. The present value of future conflict avoided by expelling Russia is a valuable gain he ignores. - RAB
It is a fantasy dystopian dream that WWIII beckons. However it is a relative certainty that if we back off and if we are seen to be unwilling to face down Putin when he makes baseless threats our ability for any kind of deterrence in the future will be wholly compromised. Only a credible defense policy is a defense policy. A noncredible defense policy is a joke and is dangerous. This process of nuclear deterrence works on the premise of MAD, 'mutually assured destruction.' If you think you can back off and have credibility later you are confused. You get only one chance. Because if you blow it the only way to show in the future you are NOT bluffing is to do IT. That is not really a good plan. So staying committed here is the only option- it's not really a choice.
Yes, considering the present situation, in a negotiated peace, also considering Crimea as already a Russian port I think Putin would stop at the Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Luhansk and Donetsk regions. I suspect he might agree to just Donetsk and Lugansk. What makes you think he wouldn't?
There can be no negotiation because all Putin's wants is surrender. The Ukrainians left the table in Turkey for that very reason. You do not negotiate national existence. You can only fight for it.
And no, Putin will not stop at The Dnipro river and Crimea.
Explaining the Causes and Consequences of Putin’s Invasion of Ukraine with Mike McFaul
Putin is only interested in eastern Ukraine, because the Russian-speaking people who live there want to join Russia. Do you know anything about what's really going on or do you just repeat what our media (CIA) tells you to think?
There was no coup. That is simply part of Putin's spew. Yanukovych could have stayed. Instead, he ordered murders of protesters on the Maidan and opened the violent phase of the protests that saw him run because he was going to be arrested for his crimes.
Yanukovych was Putin's puppet, but he made a serious miscalculation when he ordered the Berkut to start shooting people.
You need to study up on Victoria Nuland, Premo Beeotch Ambassador to Ukraine from Obumdumb to now. What a piece of work. But she was too scared to lie to Senator boy mouse from Miami. He about choked when she told the Senate sure, we have lots of Bio-Weapon Labs in Ukraine and sure she orchestrated at least two coups there and expected to get awards for it.. Wake up QM and stop watching the horse pucky on CNN.
I know about Nuland, and she had nothing to do with the Maidan uprising. The biolabs are simply lies. I don't watch CNN, but your info comes from either RT or Sputnik. It may not directly from one of those, but that is the ultimate source.
So here I was, all set to compliment Don his masterful analysis of the situation in Ukraine and his historical comparisons supporting his position when, what to my wondering eyes appeared but a string of comments upbraiding him for daring to criticize Robert E. Lee! No wonder our country is in the mess it is; people are distracted by every shiny object that appears in their path. I take second chair to nobody in my regard for Lee as an honorable man and a military genius (except for that third day at Gettysburg, in which his hubris overcame all his training and experience), but it true that he was integral to the leadership of the Southern Confederacy and thus integral to the ruination of hundreds of thousands of lives and billions in property losses. Having said that, I return to my original purpose, inasmuch as I came here to add my agreement to Don's analysis. The USA has NO, repeat and emphasize NO interest in the hostilities between Ukraine and Russia, which has taken on greater and wider proportions with each passing week. The Biden cabal, dominated as it is by neocon warhawks who are stuck in time back in the Cold War, when they imagined themselves the saviors of Western Civilization against the global communist threat (not that global communism was not a threat, but the people in charge of opposing it in our State Department and elsewhere were either idiots, utterly deluded or fifth columnists working for the communists--Alger Hiss, I'm looking at you. Biden himself is a mere cypher in the equation, exerting no real influence but rather merely bearing the public face of his neocon masters. He fell under the spell of the Obamunists when he was playing vice-president and has never emerged from his hypnotic state, which has been compounded by advancing senility. I pray to God that He protect the remnant of His faithful followers residing in this country, because I see no other source of help for us. May He open the eyes of those in positions of power to oppose and curtail the present madness of escalation upon escalation before it is too late.
Steve, Lee did his duty as a soldier. He was not a politician and did not have any say as to the political direction of the Confederacy. Your a victim of conformist history which is little more than a pack of lies.
By the by, we have serious interests at stake in Ukraine. Putin means to push to the eastern borders of NATO. he has said he wants all of Ukraine and that he means to expand Russia back to the borders of the USSR. Ukraine is just the first step. Moldova, the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, and Romania are also on the menu. See the two videos I linked earlier for more information.
All due respect, but you are as wrong about Lee as you are about Russia/Ukraine. Lee was a soldier in the U.S. Army, but resigned his commission to take a commission in the newly created Confederate States of America. His had a very clear choice; continue as an officer in the U.S. Army or resign the commission and stay out of the conflict. Instead, he chose to become what was quite clearly under all applicable laws and military customs a traitor to his country. That he felt a greater affection for and attachment to his home state of Virginia changes nothing. That he was not punished as such (nor were any Confederate soldiers or officers) after the war ended was a sign of Northern magnanimity and a gesture of healing extended to the South. Again, I have utmost respect for Lee as a man and military genius, but you are the one using creative historical revisionism on his behalf. As to our involvement in Ukraine, I am old enough to remember when the Soviet Union controlled all of the Baltic States, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, East Germany and Bulgaria as well as Ukraine. So what difference did that make? Was the American interest somehow less then than now? After the USSR was dissolved, all these political entities were "freed" from Soviet Russian influence and set up independent governments. Then NATO (under the direct influence of the US government) began to encroach eastward, expanding the alliance back to the borders of Russia itself, not merely the former Soviet Union. Putin recognized this existential threat to his country and reacted accordingly, but only after decades of warning NATO/America that he was not going to tolerate this expansionism beyond a certain point. That point was reached as Ukraine was touted as another NATO member, meaning placement of strategic nuclear weapons literally on its border with Russia. Would you expect the government of the USA to react differently if Russia or China decided to enter into a military defense treaty with Mexico or Canada and send tactical nukes into its new allies? Remember how JFK reacted when Khrushchev sent missiles to Cuba? That should give you a basis for comparison. Meanwhile, if you think Ukraine is so vital to our interests now, why was it inconsequential from 1945 through
"Instead, he chose to become what was quite clearly under all applicable laws and military customs a traitor to his country."
It was no longer his country.
While you intersperse some facts in your comment, the conclusions you reach are erroneous. Ukraine is an independent country and Russia agreed to respect Ukrainian sovereignty and borders in the Budapest memorandum when Ukraine gave up the nukes she inherited from the USSR. Each of the countries that were part of the east block had the right to join NATO if they wished, and the other NATO countries accepted them. There was no encroachment.
Russia made herself a threat to her neighbors. Instead of acting like a normal country, Russia's imperial drives are unsated, and Putin wishes to expand Russia back to the borders of the USSR. It has little to do with threats as Ukraine was not a threat and neither was NATO. Now Putin has made himself an enemy to his neighbors, and don't think that has not had no affect in those countries. Putin's actions have been counterproductive. He has inspired NATO expansion, and forged a Ukrainian nation.
1989, when the USSR was effectively dismantled? There is no need to start beating war drums over a dispute between two Eurasian countries with a history of animosity going back over half a millennium. If you and that other warhawk, Jim Mills are so anxious to keep poking the bear, I suggest you both enlist and bring your sons and daughters with you to the recruiting station so you can all get into the fight when you have some skin in the game. If you aren't going to do that, I suggest you reconsider your belligerence.
I would prefer we send money and let the Ukrainians defend themselves. But you can mischaracterize my motives all you like. Your characterization of Russia's motives is in direct conflict with what Putin has said and done. If you won't believe Russia own actions, I'm not sure what additional evidence could get you off your own unsupported beliefs.
Your discussion of Lee demonstrates your utter lack of knowledge of how 19th century America viewed both their states and country, so I would suggest you read up a bit with some of your recovering lawyerly skills. No one at that time would even think to make the argument you made, because it wasn't how they saw the world or their country and their state. Take your 21st century sensibilities and leave them here if you wish to understand history. Both sides were recruiting the hell out of Lee to get him on their side.
Of course this statement is entirely incorrect - "The USA has NO, repeat and emphasize NO interest in the hostilities between Ukraine and Russia". This is false, completely so.
The only way you can even begin to support this is to accept Russian claims they only want the Donbass region and that's it. When has it ever been enough? The answer is when they had Soviet borders. This is unassailably true. It cannot be disputed. As such the rest of your analysis falls apart. I'm sorry, yes both countries are, um, kleptocracies. Yes, our government players have their hands in the till. And yes, the State Department has been and still is run by idiots. But Russia has no intention on stopping in Ukraine, they have their eyes further over the horizon. To make this too painful, we need only send financial support to Ukraine to force the Russians to spend their last full measure there. Not our blood. Just a few bucks.
And to think our government threw a fit because the Russians bought some social media in 2016 to "influence our elections". Pales in comparison to the hostility we've shown them and the declarations of our intent to destabilize their government and our actions to destabilize the governments of the surrounding countries.
Don't pretend like we didn't goad Russia into the Ukraine. Now the globalists want to loot Russia, and are manipulating NATO into being the tool to pry open the doors. If you look at what passes for Western culture these days, I can see why Russia is trying to push back. Drag queen story hour, anyone?
Putin was not in a corner. NATO was never a threat to Russia, and wasn't after he came into office. Russia is the threat and why Finland and the Swedes applied for NATO membership.
"His statue reminds me of the statues of Robert E. Lee, who led the South to its ruin."
You do so well, then throw BS like that out like it's some sort of master play fact. Lee did his duty as a soldier. Even a die hard Yankee should understand that.
The Zelensky and Ukraine is stuff is also utter BS. You really need to learn what is actually going on. Putin started the war, forcing Ukraine to fight a war it did not provoke. If you don't want it to rise to WW3, you need to have a good talk with Putin. But, a bit of warning before you try. You can accomplish as much by talking to your living room wall, and it's lot cheaper since there is no travel and lodging expenses.
Actually, the WW3 ship has already sailed. It's at the shooting stage only in Ukraine, but other things are waiting in the wings to fire up.
Your complaint that Russia has looked east is risible. There is nothing there for Russia. China has already told Putin to pound sand on military aid, and much of his hydrocarbon sales can not be redirected to China as there is no transmission infrastructure. It's the west, or the pumps have to shut down. Last time they did that, the wells in permafrost were destroyed and they didn't reach the same production levels as the USSR until December 2021. Stuff like that, and the very heavy losses in Ukraine, have raised a serious red flag for Putin, but he's ignoring it.
I believe a bunch of the oil is being handled with small tankers bringing oil out of Russia to a floating terminal so to speak off the Portuguese coast which are then loaded into Chinese super tankers for the trip home.
I believe there is another round of sanctions on oil transport going into effect now, so I am not sure how the floating platform is impacted by that. And I also don't know what the impact of the Chinese sticking the Russians with Chinese Yuan for the oil and then refusing to facilitate its conversion into another currency of more worth will be. I think this war has about 6 months to go to determine how it will end. The food shortages it is going to create will be more long lasting and deadly than anything currently going on in Ukraine.
According to Peter Zeihan, Russian oil is being shipped exactly as you describe. The problem with that is sea state and that can render such transfers problematic. When I was in the Navy, fueling underway was a risky business and when the sea state reached a certain point, we had to put things on hold. Rafting supertankers is, by itself, problematic.
A nit: Clinton did not balance the budget. He increased the domestic national debt because he still had to borrow to make ends meet. Turns out he overborrowed resulting in a "surplus." Remember when he told us he couldn't return the surplus to taxpayers because we might not spend it "correctly"? That's because there was no surplus to return and the money went back to the treasury to offset the debt his borrowing had created.
Comparing Lee to Princip is a clear demonstration that Don Surber is completely ignorant to the South and its causes for the war. This is typical of a public-school-educated-Yankee. The union victory brought about centralization and empire which is what Don spends his time criticizing today. You cant have it both ways, Don
Thanks for making my point by proving your total lack of knowledge on the subject. You obviously have never read the countless statements of Confederate leaders and common soldiers who clearly stated they were fighting against centralization and defending the Jeffersonian ideal of the Constitution while the Union was hell-bent on the Hamiltonian version, which is strong centralized fed and federal banking system. The war was absolutely about state's rights. Are you aware of the tariffs placed on cotton that enriched the Nothern states at the expense of the South? It was nothing short of subjugation of the southern economy, which is the very thing the colonies rebelled against the crown for. The SC delegation (led by my ancestors) was the last to sign the Declaration because they wanted the assurance they could leave the Union if they chose. If it wasnt about centralization then why not let the South go? Keep telling yourself the big lie so you dont have to square up your ideals with reality and historical fact.
“The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.”
Charles Dickens, 1862
“[T]he contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces. These opinions…are the general opinions of the English nation.”
London Times, November 7, 1861
“All that the South has ever desired was that the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth.”
David, have You ever read the declarations of session passed by the southern legislatures? Slavery slavery slavery. It was the democrats who opposed states rights and wanted to force the northern states to enforce southern laws.
The tariffs were on IMPORTED goods. Those caused a slowdown in imports. That meant fewer ships coming from England.
Shipping was a trade triangle. Ships brought industrial equipment to the north. They were then loaded with New England granite to haul south for the construction of Fort Sumpter. Why? Ever sailed a ship empty? They ride high and tend to roll back and forth. In the south they loaded with cotton to take back to Europe. The money run though was bringing manufactured goods to America.
Nice try, Jeremy. I'm not denying slavery played a part, but you should really look more closely, also consider 5 Union states held slaves until the war ended in '65. The Emancipation Proclamation didnt free those slaves, so ask yourself why.
Tariffs were also used for protectionist purposes, benefiting largely northern manufacturing businesses and effectively raising the costs to southern agricultural exporting industries.
If you want to believe that 90% of the Confederates were fighting to defend the right of 10% to own slaves then be my guest. Some soldiers certainly fought for slavery but the majority did not. As Shelby Foote explained the average Confederate was fighting because "the yankees were down here", nothing short of an invasion. Citizens were loyal to their states first and there was no national cohesion like we saw at the turn of the century, which destroys the "traitor" narrative. Also, Im very familiar with the triangle trade but I'm pretty sure the construction of Ft Sumter wasnt enough to justify trade routes that existed for a couple hundred years.
Of course they did. And of course Lincoln made decisions to hold what he could of the union together with very nuanced decisions on slavery. He has a very famous quote about that as we all remember. The south made their philosophical arguments as you noted above. They also acted differently from those noble aims, much like the northern leaders did. But if you continue on in Shelby Foote's excellent series, you also realize that Davis knew he could end the war with a slavery concession. He knew it as he stared at the shrinking map as 1864 approached. In the end it wasn't high ideals of self government and liberty. It was the maintenance of their economic system based upon slavery. So while the war was started with a number of aims, even Davis admitted slavery was what kept it going, even to the detriment of the successful completion of their supposed grand plan of independence.
We can continue to argue slavery, Sherman, Lee or Grant until the sun goes down, but either way, as you have conceded, the South was well within their rights to leave and was left little choice, which is the crux of my entire argument in reaction to Don Surber's silly Lee comment. My point is simple, sonme Confederates certainly were fighting for slavery but the majority of the soldiers were not. General Patrick Cleburne (the best field commander in the West) said, "It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties."
HL Mencken, a Chicagoan, wrote of Licoln and the farce known as the Gettysburg Address which encompasses my whole argument of the war and God knows he was more eloquent than I, ".....but let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — “that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle an absolutely free people; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all."
Finally you argue that the South could have ended the war by ending slavery, but wouldnt that be to ignore the other issues as mentioned previously?
Don went to school in Cleveland. I spent 13 years in Ohio and came to be acquainted with many CW reenactors at Long Bottom at yearly gathers there. Most of the people I sat around a campfire with wore Yankee Uniforms and thought the south was right.
Lee didn't start the war. He faithfully served his country (Virginia). George Washington served a similar separation movement against all odds. Washington's opponents weren't as ruthless and willing to use scorched earth tactics as was Lincoln.
You are living in the past, my friend. Russia, outside of its vast store of natural resources and tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, has an economy smaller than California. In other words, they survive on energy exports, like every third world country, but retain the ability to destroy civilization. So it is foolish to speak of Russian "expansionism" in any seriously threatening way. For the better part of a century, the USSR controlled the Baltics, Poland, Hungary, Romania and East Germany as well as Ukraine and we were able to survive and prosper as a nation. What was then the urgency to push Ukraine into NATO? And what is now the point in funding Ukraine's (really, NATO/America's) war against Russia? There never will be any possibility that Russia rolls tanks through into western Europe in your or my lifetimes; so the fact that Putin wanted a buffer between his country and NATO is entirely reasonable. He told us time and time again of his concerns as well as his intentions should we ignore them. How would you react if China decided to put nuclear weapons into Mexico or Canada? That is how Putin viewed NATO (i.e., America) installing tactical nuclear weapons into all the countries on his western border, and clearly signaling that it wanted to do so in Ukraine as well. What do you think will happen when "we" (I speak of the Biden cabal, not most Americans) "force them to spend their last full measure" (of whatever) there"? That Putin and his supporters will suddenly decide, "Oh, snap! I guess I shouldn't have done that; now I'll just go and retire somewhere"? Your analysis is superficial, supercilious, jingoistic and dangerously misguided. I submit in all due respect that the brinkmanship you recommend is more than likely designed to escalate into a situation where Putin calls our (again, I refer to the cabal of fools who control our foreign--and domestic--policy in DC) bluff. Who do you think is going to back down then? And if you think it is Putin, you really need to step back and reflect thoughtfully instead of thumping your chest and shouting, "USA! USA! USA!" This isn't the hockey finals in the 1980 Winter Olympics, after all. If it should come to a nuclear confrontation, nobody is going home with a trophy. Are you willing to wager your future and that of your children on your strategy? I, for one, am not. Let Russia and Ukraine work out their own political destinies while we here in America work on correcting the many missteps we have taken over the past two years by concentrating on rebuilding our own country, politically, ethnically and economically. That is where our interest lies as well as our strength, not in meddling in the affairs of two otherwise irrelevant countries on the other side of the globe.
What a load of shit. Russia has not been a force of equilibrium since 1970. Instead it's been a force of chaos, misery, and death. Every major terrorist group then in western Europe was funded by the USSR. Every one of them collapsed or went mainstream after the cold war because their support was cut off.
The people in eastern Europe see Russia as a malicious predator and they refuse to be its next meal, so they gravitated to the West and NATO. NATO is not a threat to its neighbors unless they choose to be aggressive. Russia has been a predator since 1920, invading at least 10 of its neighboring countries. It has practiced murder, torture, forced expulsion of minorities and sent entire ethnicities to Siberia.
Ukraine chose to oppose that future presented to them starting with Maidan and Putin's puppet. The current president of Ukraine is not leading, but following the will of his people to escape the murderous grasp of the current tsar/commissar. Putin winning in Ukraine would have placed him right on the Romanian border and his next victim would have been Moldova.
No one is making Putin continue this war. He could end the fighting and withdraw right now. His people are so cowed that would accept any rationalization he proffers. His ego is the sole reason he can't climb back down. And for that reason he has not presented a single credible offer to end the war. What he wants is victory handed to him by the weak West.
Your comparison with Lee is way off the mark.
As far as I can tell, Gavrilo Princip was little different from today's antifa. Comparing him with Robert E. Lee serves no good purpose.
People need to realize that the civil war was simply the democrats of 1860 acting exactly like the democrats of today, childish and irrational. Lincoln wasn't even sworn in when they began their tantrums. For that matter, he wasn't on the ballot in most of the south.
The Democrats of the time were the conservative party. Secession started because the Republicans, just a renamed Whig party, were hard centralizers. When the wrong side won, we got the foundation Lincoln laid for the mess we have now. If you like Lincoln, but hate the FedGov we have now, you're political philosophy is contradictory.
The Character of the Democrat Party of 1860 is far, far different than the character of the Democrat Party now. As I have said many times, Jefferson, sitting as judge, would sentence the current Democrats to death, and Jackson would be glad to spring the trap under them.
This is a willful misreading of the times I'm afraid. I've used the holiday to do a bit of reading into the civil war era history. The dems were actually the party that started the civil war, the confederacy ended up doing almost everything to their own citizens that Lincoln is rightfully accused of doing to his, and national presidential political ambitions of the democrats lit the fire.
This by no way means to gloss over the issues the North and South were fighting over. Regional power politics were then as they are now. Strong economic jockeying occurred. The arguments over tariffs for instance were legitimate and each side had their point. But as the North was gaining population at a much greater rate than the South, guess who had the votes.
The Founders had always assumed that slavery would wither away, and their writings show that. That it held on is a mix of political and economic shifts unforeseen by them. Abolitionist movements accelerated in growth through this time, as those against slavery began to wonder if it would ever end. The Missouri Compromise was forged in this environment.
Then presidential ambitions of the likes of Stephen Douglas and a strong push towards making alliances with southern democrats lit the fuse to end the Missouri Compromise and allow for an actual expansion of slavery in the western territories. Had the South not made this move, it is likely the fuse would never have been lit. This resulted in all sorts of violence and a general escalation of emotions about the issue. When Lincoln was elected the South stormed out. And then made the massive strategic mistake of thinking firing on a federal fort was a good idea.
At that point, it allowed Lincoln to save the union by force, something he had given no indication he was willing to do. Yes, at the end, he made decisions that pushed the South to over-react (reinforcing Ft. Sumter) but were a fine line he walked with his own political constituencies in the North.
The South probably had a less aggressive path that actually might have worked, akin to what we see the states doing today, because back then the military was essentially all state based. But they got their back up over slavery, and refused to walk away from it when it had become an albatross, not an asset. It made it impossible to get a deal with the Europeans, which the South should have known given the British sentiment on the practice. But since direct Southern policy had made slavery the hill to die on - they were toast.
Based upon Jefferson Davis' own policies and actions, I see no suggestion that he and Lincoln were much different. The results of the civil war, had the South prevailed, would have just been centralization of power in both countries, as they matured. The writings of both Lincoln and Davis demonstrate their reverence for essentially the same thing, liberty, freedom, etc., but events forced them to act differently. Certainly, had Lincoln not been assassinated by a rogue Southern Dem, some of the post civil war amendments and policies might not have come to pass, which have proved so troublesome today.
Anyhow, the need to fight the war is what set in motion some of the centralization you reasonably dislike. The South's own actions forced them to fight a war they had no reasonable chance to win, for all their military success was defensive in nature, done on Southern ground. Lee's three forays into northern territory all ended up in disaster, and only by the grace of northern generals' failure was his army not destroyed ending the fighting at least 2 years earlier.
So yes, Lincoln was no saint, and neither were the southern leaders.
The Dems did not start the war. Lincoln did by sending a supply ship to Sumter. Lincoln did not save anything. He destroyed the founders republic because of his centralizing desires. The US still suffers from that anti-Constitutional crime.
Your public school education has served THEM well.
Secession started because the southerners were TOLD that Lincoln was going to take their slaves. Lincoln never campaigned in the south. The only information they had came from the same media types we know not to trust.
Had the south kept their representatives and senators in Congress, it would have been gridlock.
As to republicans being repainted whigs, the whigs were for the most part proslavery. They DID object to the federal government ordering Northern states to enforce southern slave laws, that right there is the REAL state's rights issue of the time.
Ask yourself why Ft Riley, in Kansas, had streets named for southern generals. Sure, they also have McClellan, but remember, he was the one who wanted to surrender.
That's your publik skool talking. The main problem was Hamiltonianism. At the bottom line, that brought secession, and we are seeing the results of Lincoln's "victory" now. The south was both within its rights to leave, and was right to leave.
I agree also. Lee didn't "lead the South to ruin." The South seceded and Lincoln invaded and started an illegal, bloody war. If you want to blame someone in the South for leading the South to ruin, blame the secessionists. Lee joined the South because of his loyalty to Virginia. He didn't start the war.
f course the South fired the first shot. And the democrats actually fueled the build up to war, with the abrogation of the Missouri Compromise. So there were lots of fingers that could be pointed at with when this all started. And the illegality or legality of any revolution or secessionist war is always in the eyes of the beholder. ;-)
And let's not forget the actions of hyper democrat Booth in assassinating Lincoln which changed significantly our path after the war.
Irrelevant. The Northern politicians tried to hike excise taxes on the Southern states for decades before open hostilities, waging economic war. They wanted a war, and they eventually got it.
AFWIW, there is still no LEGAL basis for denying a state from succession. The only precedent is that of brute force preventing it. So much for a country of laws.
Irrelevant?
Hardly. I am well aware of the political disputes over tariffs. The South made it politically impossible for any Union President to walk away. I don't even know that I disagree with your premise that you can walk away via secession. But when you fire on Union property, which the fort was, you've lost the moral high ground if they ever held it. There was a political resolution to the dispute. The South chose differently. They lost.
Nonsense. The firing of a first shot is a meaningless artificial distinction. The South was under attack long before that first round was fired. War can be waged in many ways. Economic sanctions, for one. (Just ask our current administration about their Russian sanctions.)
No one is questioning whether the South lost or not, so that is just mindless knee jerk argumentation. Political resolution? More nonsense, unless you consider being beaten into submission political.
The war probably started with the Missouri/Kansas border war.
Yes
The War was started by the north in 1828.
Actually the war was started by the South in the 1850's with the gutting of the Missouri Compromise. At that point, the only way was never going to start was for the South to publicly publish a plan for the eventual elimination of slavery.
I don't want to enter into a long discussion of the merits of this article, but this article explains the cause of the CW quite well.
To me at least.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/01/what_issue_was_really_at_the_heart_of_the_civil_war_and_is_it_relevant_today.html
Oh - and the decision to scrap the Missouri compromise was specifically done by the south to allow for an expansion of slavery into the western territories. Completely and totally based upon slavery.
Well we tiptoed around the issue but you finally got to the end result of all CW debates. Was it fought over slavery.
It's a good article which explains in more detail all the underlying political causes for setting up the war.
But every war needs a spark. And the spark was not slavery per se, as it had been around forever, but the political decisions made by the south to reignite it as an issue with the gutting of the Missouri Compromise. That did start lots of fighting, got everyone's blood heated up, and allowed those looking for violence the opportunity to engage in it. Let's face it - Missouri and Kansas were in an open border war prior to the civil war. It required an act on slavery by the south to put the genie back into the bottle, and allow the political fighting to continue on matters economic that had always been an issue. They coalesced around the issue instead, inserting slavery into a more prominent issue than it had ever been before. Strategically, the south got schooled, then beaten. They decided it was time to fight. Once bullets fly, all bets are off.
He just prolonged it, to no good end from his own point of view.
Yup. That's where he lost me. Why would I value the opinion of someone who can make such a blatantly inappropriate comparison as if it were self-evident. Seriously calls his judgment and analytic ability into question. Not even gonna bother reading the rest.
I gave him a pass, and kept reading.
Past essays have been good.
But, I'm with you. When I read something like that it screams virtue signaling, exactly why I don't read mainstream crap.
How so? All Lee managed to do was prolong the inevitable and get hundreds of thousands more men killed in an evil and hopeless cause.
He was defending his land, and fought honorably. It's a poor comparison.
Jim, Honor is just a widow factory.
True, it can be. But the comparison Don made doesn't hold for that very reason. that was my point.
Sometimes.
Lee lead an army on the south's behalf after the South was left no option but to fight.
BTY exactly what Putin is doing.
Putin started the war. He didn't have to start the war as Ukraine had done nothing to Russia, and the stuff about NATO and "genocide" which Putin supported with heavy weapons and troops, is also BS.
The Clinton's used Nato to push Putin into a corner. Probably for their personal profit.
Putin pushed himself into a corner. I have heard all the theories and accusations. He made an assessment and decided he needed a different border structure. I think the only way you would have pacified him was to allow him to unilaterally re-constitute the Soviet security structure. No way that was happening.
What country would put up with enemies so close?
Three decades of failed foreign policy
John J. Mearsheimer, political scientist and international relations scholar, in 2015:
"The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.”
George Kennan, American diplomat and historian, right after the US Senate approved NATO expansion all the way back in 1998:
“I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies…Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are — but this is just wrong.”
CIA Director William Burns’s 2008 memo to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:
“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin).
Last US ambassador to the USSR Jack Matlock: “an avoidable crisis that was predictable, actually predicted, willfully precipitated, but easily resolved by the application of common sense”:
1997: “I consider the Administration’s recommendation to take new members into NATO at this time misguided. If it should be approved by the United States Senate, it may well go down in history as the most profound strategic blunder made since the end of the Cold War. Far from improving the security of the United States, its Allies, and the nations that wish to enter the Alliance, it could well encourage a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat to this nation since the Soviet Union collapsed.”
Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s secretary of state, concedes that “[Russian president Boris] Yeltsin and his countrymen were strongly opposed to enlargement, seeing it as a strategy for exploiting their vulnerability and moving Europe’s dividing line to the east, leaving them isolated.”
Strobe Talbott, deputy Secretary of State under Pres Clinton “Many Russians see Nato as a vestige of the cold war, inherently directed against their country. They point out that they have disbanded the Warsaw Pact, their military alliance, and ask why the west should not do the same.”
Robert M Gates, Secretary of Defense in the administrations of both George W Bush and Barack Obama, stated his belief that “the relationship with Russia had been badly mismanaged after [George HW] Bush left office in 1993…trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into Nato was truly overreaching…recklessly ignoring what the Russians considered their own vital national interests”.
Ukraine has everything to do with Russia. For three decades the Cold War relic of nato has moved closer and closer to the border of Russia. Wiser people have known for decades this was provocative.
“The history of Russia’s survival is rooted in strategic depth. The vastness of the Russian and Ukrainian steps killed both Napoleon and Hitlers army’s. Both of which were the most powerful armies of their era.” M Tracey
Ukraine is to Russia what Cuban missiles were to JFK.
Ukraine was simply a nation oppressed by Russian imperialists. Everything else is irrelevant.
Hopeless? Really? That "Lost Cause" crap is dangerous. The Confederacy was close to winning, or at least ending the war with their "nation" intact in 1864.
The South could very well have won the Civil War. Hardly "hopeless."
"The South could very well have won the Civil War."
Utter nonsense. The South had less than half the military age population of the North, and essentially no industrial base to support a war effort. (5 Northern states EACH had more industrial capacity than all the Confederacy) The South's illusory belief that it would find foreign recognition and support by either England or France completely misses the fact that NEITHER of those nations were about to intervene on their behalf. (France because it was broke and already fighting an expensive foreign war in Mexico, the United Kingdom because it both would have brought down the Palmerston government.....and cut off the grain imports from the Ohio Valley and brought on food riots among the population) Not to mention that the rest of Europe was strongly pro-Union, including the Russians, who went so far as winter their Baltic and Pacific fleets in Union controlled harbors.
But the South didn't win the war.
1964? Nah. The question by 1964 was what could the South reasonable expect to hold.
The beginning of 1963 I could see as a better argument.
Defending ones family and property from foreign mercenaries is not an evil deed. If your house was at Fort Sumter, surrounded by Hessian Mercenaries armed to the teeth, would you wait for them to shoot first? Lincoln was planted by the British/Rothschild Empire, just like Biden was planted by the Rothschild/British Empire. All wars are about money being stolen by the bank owners. The same bank loaned money to the Yankees as well as the Rebels, just like the same bank loaned money to the Nazi's and American's at the same time. They funded both sides. After every American war, America was broke and indebted to, guess who? Amschel von Rothschild's Family. That's why they live in castles and we do not, because we have a heart & a soul & The Good Lord, and they have our tax & interest & mortgage money.
Those mass paranoias look just adorable on you!
the South was kicking the crap out of the union for 3 years
The first year and a half, yes. Then Grant began to figure things out in the west, and the tide slowly turned. The real chance for the South, when it looked the best, was the beginning of 1863. They could still control the Mississippi, Lee had every version of the Army of the Potomac on the defensive, and Bragg was seriously threatening southern Ohio and Indiana.
By 1864 the Mississippi had been lost, Lee was lucky to retreat from Gettysburg and would never be an offensive threat again (he said as much to Davis at the end of 1863/beginning of 1864), Brag had been dismissed and the Union controlled Tennessee. That is not kicking the crap out of anyone.
Yes, the West was a disaster almost from the start thanks to Bragg. I dont believe he was ever a real threat due to his lack of leadership and the subsequent disdain the common soldier had for him. The NY Draft Riots in 1863 perfectly illustrated the mood of much of the country because they were losing.
They were not winning in Virginia - it was taking too long. Typical reaction. But the South was not winning either.
Washington under constant threat by men like Moseby's Rangers, too many people losing their sons, draft riots, Lincoln pilloried in the press, so he started locking up journalists and outspoken citizens and suspended habeas corpus, etc. Not sure what you would call that maybe not losing but certainly not winning
How did the South do in the 4th year?
The South ran out of resources while the drunk known as General Grant forced Union men into the meat grinder. Grant didnt win through skill but overwhelming resources and unlimited dupes. Ever heard of the NYC draft riots? I can send you a history book or you could go and finally get that elusive GED
Yes, well aware of the riots. Your dismissal of Grant is inaccurate. A more accurate criticism would be his embrace of something we would now call total war. I would suggest some more reading on Grant to bring your understanding up to speed.
My opinion of Grant remains. You can call it Total War or War of Attrition, but he waged it against Southern civilians (AMERICANS) irrespective of whether they were pro union or not. Do you actually think grant would have defeated Lee if the circumstances were reversed? As an example the South having an entire factory for every factory worker in the North? Once you understand Grant and Sherman's illegal war on Southern civilians your understanding of Grant will be up to speed.
Lee could’ve prolonged the war as he was being urged by some to never surrender and run guerrilla operations against the north. He estimated he could keep the war running a few more decades if he did that.
Fortunately he chose not to. So he had more to do with ending the war than prolonging it.
Yes, he said it would last 25 more years if he set up a new front.
360,222 Union deaths and 258,000 Confederate deaths. The Yewden in the north that started it would not fight. The mercenaries they paid kept pouring into NY Harbor, protecting them. It's not over 'til it's over. lol
I agree but that doesn't negate the veracity of the rest of the essay.
Leads me to question what else he may be wrong about.
When you trust a person for information on a subject you know little about a statement that is that far off the mark provides no trust.
Eat the chicken…leave the bones.
Putin did not invade so he could annex the Russian-speaking areas of eastern Ukraine. He finally came to realize that NATO was hell-bent on the destruction of Russia and he was better off attacking than waiting. He's been proven right as Ukraine's army has been devastated and Russia's economy is holding it's own. Europe will be sliding into depression without Russia's cheap energy. Russia can continue to wipe out any NATO army with their superior artillery and control of the air. Russia has no interest in annexing any area unless the people are Russian speakers that desire to join.
Superior artillery?
Control of the air?
Delusional.
D2
Indeed. Quite delusional.
OK - this is just silliness. Russia's army has woefully underperformed. Our only fear is nuclear. That's it. NATO, aka the US, would wipe out the Russian forces rather quickly. As for only Russian speakers, they were headed towards Odessa - not very Russian.
Now Europe is in trouble - Germany in particular gambled by putting their energy supplies in Russia's hands. My understanding is that the big German chemical firm BASF is trying to rebuild their industrial plant in Louisiana as a stop gap.
You must be listening to Scott Ritter channel Baghdad Bob.
"Putin did not invade so he could annex the Russian-speaking areas of eastern Ukraine...."
True.
"...NATO was hell-bent on the destruction of Russia..."
Utter nonsense.
Putin is trying to create the strategic depth that historically has protected Russia from invasion from WWII all the way back to the Ottoman Empire. In point of fact, he is looking to recreate the "buffer zones" between Russia's core territories by seizing the military choke-points that the USSR controlled at the height of the Soviet period. He's already dealt with several of the Central Asian routes by subverting governments and creating client states, as well as invading Georgia. His invasion of Ukraine was aimed in the long run at grabbing the routes to both the Polish plains and the Bessarabian Gap. The problem is that to gain the defensible positions he seeks.....would take not only *completely* controlling Ukraine (not just the Russian-speaking portions) but also involve grabbing Moldova, and invading NATO members Poland and Romania. (which are part of his ultimate goals0.
Mr Shanks, you forget important details. We knew bringing Ukraine into NATO would start a war. So why did Biden offer Ukraine membership in NATO ? We wanted this war whether you believe it or not.
How do you know this? A lot of people - not me - claim to know what Putin wants and what he will do. Personally I doubt it. But not really knowing, myself, your guess is as good as any.
I love the detailed history of the assassination. I had no idea who did it, that there had been a previous grenade attack, or that he killed Ferdinand's wife too. I had no idea about the cyanide, the sandwich, or much of any of this. All I knew was a guy killed Franz Ferdinand, and everything went downhill from there. This is fascinating.
Of course, the sandwich was not the cause of WW1. Princip being at the deli at the right time is one of those serendipitous things upon which world history often turns. That Princip is a hero simply shows how stupid Serbians can be.
Yes for sure. I would say it basically the opposite way. WWI was the cause of him not finishing his sandwich rather than the sandwich being the cause of the war.
Sorry, I can't stay! World War One is about to start!
Don, its hard to disagree more with what you have written. The supposition here is that Russia will end its expansionist efforts into expanding its borders, as if it could have stopped after Crimea, Georgia, one of the Stan's, etc. There is always one more. This reality seems to be missing from most of the end of the war scenarios of Dr. K.
As for who buys Treasuries in the future? Where else can you get 5%? China, Russia, the EU? Where? Don't misunderstand me, we certainly have a spending problem our politicians of either side have no interest in stopping. However, we could also argue that they realize there is much less danger to the debt than is typically argued, because the US drags in so much capital and the dollar is THE global currency. So, they take short term actions for their own benefit, because their entire worldview is the next election.
To take a Russian advantageous truce presumes the Russians will finally stop. Zero evidence supports them stopping until they have plugged all their perceived security risks. The last of these are on NATO ground. While I cannot for certain say they will not stop, I can point to 20 years or more of Russian history documenting they won't. It trumps any argument you, or Dr. K can muster.
Don, good move. This is the right place for your blog. Good luck.
Let's stop eating the shit sandwiches Zelensky is feeding us.
I think you are overboard on this. I agree that Ukraine is and was no poster child for democracy. It was ruled by a Russian stooge for a long time before the Z-man. No one should be surprised that Biden's son got the deal he did at Burisma. No one should think it was a job obtained on merit. That's just how things are in Ukraine. It has been trying for EU membership for a while - turned down because it was not open enough - not democratic enough.
Every country has 'well paid' politicians... there is a reason the US has no political reform, can't 'drain the swamp, and that political leaders leave office as millionaires. We are no different...
LOOK AT A MAP. You do not want Russia owning Ukraine. And while you quote Kissinger, you could quote Soros who is on the other side urging fight and drive the buggers out. Kissinger is adept at giving Russia someone else's property ( for an unstable peace??!!). He will not be around so he will not deal with the consequences of rewarding Russian aggression.
It makes sense to to stop Russia now and roll back their gains as an INVESTMENT in peace for the future. Letting them stay is asking for more trouble in the future. Remember the Maine!! ...and Crimea! Crimean sanctions were a joke, no wonder Putin went back for 'seconds.' If Ukraine capitulation happens because US support is pulled its a very bad message for the future letting everyone (wink, wink, China!) know we can be had and we have our limits. No this is a job that must be finished. Kissinger is wrong to look at it and say it is no longer worth it. The present value of future conflict avoided by expelling Russia is a valuable gain he ignores. - RAB
The U.S. aided and abetted the violent overthrow of the duly elected " Russian stooge" president of the Ukraine.
Sorry I do not think WW III is in our best interests because the ".. is a job that must be finished."
It is a fantasy dystopian dream that WWIII beckons. However it is a relative certainty that if we back off and if we are seen to be unwilling to face down Putin when he makes baseless threats our ability for any kind of deterrence in the future will be wholly compromised. Only a credible defense policy is a defense policy. A noncredible defense policy is a joke and is dangerous. This process of nuclear deterrence works on the premise of MAD, 'mutually assured destruction.' If you think you can back off and have credibility later you are confused. You get only one chance. Because if you blow it the only way to show in the future you are NOT bluffing is to do IT. That is not really a good plan. So staying committed here is the only option- it's not really a choice.
As you're convinced there's no choice, there's only one solution, there's no point in continuing any discussion.
Do you believe Putin will stop with Ukraine? On what basis do you believe this?
Yes, considering the present situation, in a negotiated peace, also considering Crimea as already a Russian port I think Putin would stop at the Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Luhansk and Donetsk regions. I suspect he might agree to just Donetsk and Lugansk. What makes you think he wouldn't?
20 years of grabbing the next piece of land. And what he "wants" and the reason for wanting it goes beyond Ukraine.
There can be no negotiation because all Putin's wants is surrender. The Ukrainians left the table in Turkey for that very reason. You do not negotiate national existence. You can only fight for it.
And no, Putin will not stop at The Dnipro river and Crimea.
Explaining the Causes and Consequences of Putin’s Invasion of Ukraine with Mike McFaul
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wbzf0ix2G5I
Changing Character of War
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0CQsifJrMc
Putin is only interested in eastern Ukraine, because the Russian-speaking people who live there want to join Russia. Do you know anything about what's really going on or do you just repeat what our media (CIA) tells you to think?
There was no coup. That is simply part of Putin's spew. Yanukovych could have stayed. Instead, he ordered murders of protesters on the Maidan and opened the violent phase of the protests that saw him run because he was going to be arrested for his crimes.
Yanukovych was Putin's puppet, but he made a serious miscalculation when he ordered the Berkut to start shooting people.
You need to study up on Victoria Nuland, Premo Beeotch Ambassador to Ukraine from Obumdumb to now. What a piece of work. But she was too scared to lie to Senator boy mouse from Miami. He about choked when she told the Senate sure, we have lots of Bio-Weapon Labs in Ukraine and sure she orchestrated at least two coups there and expected to get awards for it.. Wake up QM and stop watching the horse pucky on CNN.
I know about Nuland, and she had nothing to do with the Maidan uprising. The biolabs are simply lies. I don't watch CNN, but your info comes from either RT or Sputnik. It may not directly from one of those, but that is the ultimate source.
So here I was, all set to compliment Don his masterful analysis of the situation in Ukraine and his historical comparisons supporting his position when, what to my wondering eyes appeared but a string of comments upbraiding him for daring to criticize Robert E. Lee! No wonder our country is in the mess it is; people are distracted by every shiny object that appears in their path. I take second chair to nobody in my regard for Lee as an honorable man and a military genius (except for that third day at Gettysburg, in which his hubris overcame all his training and experience), but it true that he was integral to the leadership of the Southern Confederacy and thus integral to the ruination of hundreds of thousands of lives and billions in property losses. Having said that, I return to my original purpose, inasmuch as I came here to add my agreement to Don's analysis. The USA has NO, repeat and emphasize NO interest in the hostilities between Ukraine and Russia, which has taken on greater and wider proportions with each passing week. The Biden cabal, dominated as it is by neocon warhawks who are stuck in time back in the Cold War, when they imagined themselves the saviors of Western Civilization against the global communist threat (not that global communism was not a threat, but the people in charge of opposing it in our State Department and elsewhere were either idiots, utterly deluded or fifth columnists working for the communists--Alger Hiss, I'm looking at you. Biden himself is a mere cypher in the equation, exerting no real influence but rather merely bearing the public face of his neocon masters. He fell under the spell of the Obamunists when he was playing vice-president and has never emerged from his hypnotic state, which has been compounded by advancing senility. I pray to God that He protect the remnant of His faithful followers residing in this country, because I see no other source of help for us. May He open the eyes of those in positions of power to oppose and curtail the present madness of escalation upon escalation before it is too late.
Steve, Lee did his duty as a soldier. He was not a politician and did not have any say as to the political direction of the Confederacy. Your a victim of conformist history which is little more than a pack of lies.
By the by, we have serious interests at stake in Ukraine. Putin means to push to the eastern borders of NATO. he has said he wants all of Ukraine and that he means to expand Russia back to the borders of the USSR. Ukraine is just the first step. Moldova, the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, and Romania are also on the menu. See the two videos I linked earlier for more information.
All due respect, but you are as wrong about Lee as you are about Russia/Ukraine. Lee was a soldier in the U.S. Army, but resigned his commission to take a commission in the newly created Confederate States of America. His had a very clear choice; continue as an officer in the U.S. Army or resign the commission and stay out of the conflict. Instead, he chose to become what was quite clearly under all applicable laws and military customs a traitor to his country. That he felt a greater affection for and attachment to his home state of Virginia changes nothing. That he was not punished as such (nor were any Confederate soldiers or officers) after the war ended was a sign of Northern magnanimity and a gesture of healing extended to the South. Again, I have utmost respect for Lee as a man and military genius, but you are the one using creative historical revisionism on his behalf. As to our involvement in Ukraine, I am old enough to remember when the Soviet Union controlled all of the Baltic States, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, East Germany and Bulgaria as well as Ukraine. So what difference did that make? Was the American interest somehow less then than now? After the USSR was dissolved, all these political entities were "freed" from Soviet Russian influence and set up independent governments. Then NATO (under the direct influence of the US government) began to encroach eastward, expanding the alliance back to the borders of Russia itself, not merely the former Soviet Union. Putin recognized this existential threat to his country and reacted accordingly, but only after decades of warning NATO/America that he was not going to tolerate this expansionism beyond a certain point. That point was reached as Ukraine was touted as another NATO member, meaning placement of strategic nuclear weapons literally on its border with Russia. Would you expect the government of the USA to react differently if Russia or China decided to enter into a military defense treaty with Mexico or Canada and send tactical nukes into its new allies? Remember how JFK reacted when Khrushchev sent missiles to Cuba? That should give you a basis for comparison. Meanwhile, if you think Ukraine is so vital to our interests now, why was it inconsequential from 1945 through
"Instead, he chose to become what was quite clearly under all applicable laws and military customs a traitor to his country."
It was no longer his country.
While you intersperse some facts in your comment, the conclusions you reach are erroneous. Ukraine is an independent country and Russia agreed to respect Ukrainian sovereignty and borders in the Budapest memorandum when Ukraine gave up the nukes she inherited from the USSR. Each of the countries that were part of the east block had the right to join NATO if they wished, and the other NATO countries accepted them. There was no encroachment.
Russia made herself a threat to her neighbors. Instead of acting like a normal country, Russia's imperial drives are unsated, and Putin wishes to expand Russia back to the borders of the USSR. It has little to do with threats as Ukraine was not a threat and neither was NATO. Now Putin has made himself an enemy to his neighbors, and don't think that has not had no affect in those countries. Putin's actions have been counterproductive. He has inspired NATO expansion, and forged a Ukrainian nation.
Putin has been beyond stupid.
1989, when the USSR was effectively dismantled? There is no need to start beating war drums over a dispute between two Eurasian countries with a history of animosity going back over half a millennium. If you and that other warhawk, Jim Mills are so anxious to keep poking the bear, I suggest you both enlist and bring your sons and daughters with you to the recruiting station so you can all get into the fight when you have some skin in the game. If you aren't going to do that, I suggest you reconsider your belligerence.
I would prefer we send money and let the Ukrainians defend themselves. But you can mischaracterize my motives all you like. Your characterization of Russia's motives is in direct conflict with what Putin has said and done. If you won't believe Russia own actions, I'm not sure what additional evidence could get you off your own unsupported beliefs.
Your discussion of Lee demonstrates your utter lack of knowledge of how 19th century America viewed both their states and country, so I would suggest you read up a bit with some of your recovering lawyerly skills. No one at that time would even think to make the argument you made, because it wasn't how they saw the world or their country and their state. Take your 21st century sensibilities and leave them here if you wish to understand history. Both sides were recruiting the hell out of Lee to get him on their side.
Of course this statement is entirely incorrect - "The USA has NO, repeat and emphasize NO interest in the hostilities between Ukraine and Russia". This is false, completely so.
The only way you can even begin to support this is to accept Russian claims they only want the Donbass region and that's it. When has it ever been enough? The answer is when they had Soviet borders. This is unassailably true. It cannot be disputed. As such the rest of your analysis falls apart. I'm sorry, yes both countries are, um, kleptocracies. Yes, our government players have their hands in the till. And yes, the State Department has been and still is run by idiots. But Russia has no intention on stopping in Ukraine, they have their eyes further over the horizon. To make this too painful, we need only send financial support to Ukraine to force the Russians to spend their last full measure there. Not our blood. Just a few bucks.
And to think our government threw a fit because the Russians bought some social media in 2016 to "influence our elections". Pales in comparison to the hostility we've shown them and the declarations of our intent to destabilize their government and our actions to destabilize the governments of the surrounding countries.
Well said Steve ! Thanks for telling the truth about General Lee and our present situation.
Not even close.
He didn't.
Don't pretend like we didn't goad Russia into the Ukraine. Now the globalists want to loot Russia, and are manipulating NATO into being the tool to pry open the doors. If you look at what passes for Western culture these days, I can see why Russia is trying to push back. Drag queen story hour, anyone?
Putin was not in a corner. NATO was never a threat to Russia, and wasn't after he came into office. Russia is the threat and why Finland and the Swedes applied for NATO membership.
"His statue reminds me of the statues of Robert E. Lee, who led the South to its ruin."
You do so well, then throw BS like that out like it's some sort of master play fact. Lee did his duty as a soldier. Even a die hard Yankee should understand that.
The Zelensky and Ukraine is stuff is also utter BS. You really need to learn what is actually going on. Putin started the war, forcing Ukraine to fight a war it did not provoke. If you don't want it to rise to WW3, you need to have a good talk with Putin. But, a bit of warning before you try. You can accomplish as much by talking to your living room wall, and it's lot cheaper since there is no travel and lodging expenses.
Actually, the WW3 ship has already sailed. It's at the shooting stage only in Ukraine, but other things are waiting in the wings to fire up.
Your complaint that Russia has looked east is risible. There is nothing there for Russia. China has already told Putin to pound sand on military aid, and much of his hydrocarbon sales can not be redirected to China as there is no transmission infrastructure. It's the west, or the pumps have to shut down. Last time they did that, the wells in permafrost were destroyed and they didn't reach the same production levels as the USSR until December 2021. Stuff like that, and the very heavy losses in Ukraine, have raised a serious red flag for Putin, but he's ignoring it.
I believe a bunch of the oil is being handled with small tankers bringing oil out of Russia to a floating terminal so to speak off the Portuguese coast which are then loaded into Chinese super tankers for the trip home.
I believe there is another round of sanctions on oil transport going into effect now, so I am not sure how the floating platform is impacted by that. And I also don't know what the impact of the Chinese sticking the Russians with Chinese Yuan for the oil and then refusing to facilitate its conversion into another currency of more worth will be. I think this war has about 6 months to go to determine how it will end. The food shortages it is going to create will be more long lasting and deadly than anything currently going on in Ukraine.
According to Peter Zeihan, Russian oil is being shipped exactly as you describe. The problem with that is sea state and that can render such transfers problematic. When I was in the Navy, fueling underway was a risky business and when the sea state reached a certain point, we had to put things on hold. Rafting supertankers is, by itself, problematic.
A nit: Clinton did not balance the budget. He increased the domestic national debt because he still had to borrow to make ends meet. Turns out he overborrowed resulting in a "surplus." Remember when he told us he couldn't return the surplus to taxpayers because we might not spend it "correctly"? That's because there was no surplus to return and the money went back to the treasury to offset the debt his borrowing had created.
Comparing Lee to Princip is a clear demonstration that Don Surber is completely ignorant to the South and its causes for the war. This is typical of a public-school-educated-Yankee. The union victory brought about centralization and empire which is what Don spends his time criticizing today. You cant have it both ways, Don
Actually, FDR did that. Lincoln's goal was manifest destiny without slavery.
Thanks for making my point by proving your total lack of knowledge on the subject. You obviously have never read the countless statements of Confederate leaders and common soldiers who clearly stated they were fighting against centralization and defending the Jeffersonian ideal of the Constitution while the Union was hell-bent on the Hamiltonian version, which is strong centralized fed and federal banking system. The war was absolutely about state's rights. Are you aware of the tariffs placed on cotton that enriched the Nothern states at the expense of the South? It was nothing short of subjugation of the southern economy, which is the very thing the colonies rebelled against the crown for. The SC delegation (led by my ancestors) was the last to sign the Declaration because they wanted the assurance they could leave the Union if they chose. If it wasnt about centralization then why not let the South go? Keep telling yourself the big lie so you dont have to square up your ideals with reality and historical fact.
“The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.”
Charles Dickens, 1862
“[T]he contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces. These opinions…are the general opinions of the English nation.”
London Times, November 7, 1861
“All that the South has ever desired was that the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth.”
Robert E. Lee
"All we ask is to be let alone." Jefferson Davis
David, have You ever read the declarations of session passed by the southern legislatures? Slavery slavery slavery. It was the democrats who opposed states rights and wanted to force the northern states to enforce southern laws.
The tariffs were on IMPORTED goods. Those caused a slowdown in imports. That meant fewer ships coming from England.
Shipping was a trade triangle. Ships brought industrial equipment to the north. They were then loaded with New England granite to haul south for the construction of Fort Sumpter. Why? Ever sailed a ship empty? They ride high and tend to roll back and forth. In the south they loaded with cotton to take back to Europe. The money run though was bringing manufactured goods to America.
Nice try, Jeremy. I'm not denying slavery played a part, but you should really look more closely, also consider 5 Union states held slaves until the war ended in '65. The Emancipation Proclamation didnt free those slaves, so ask yourself why.
Tariffs were also used for protectionist purposes, benefiting largely northern manufacturing businesses and effectively raising the costs to southern agricultural exporting industries.
If you want to believe that 90% of the Confederates were fighting to defend the right of 10% to own slaves then be my guest. Some soldiers certainly fought for slavery but the majority did not. As Shelby Foote explained the average Confederate was fighting because "the yankees were down here", nothing short of an invasion. Citizens were loyal to their states first and there was no national cohesion like we saw at the turn of the century, which destroys the "traitor" narrative. Also, Im very familiar with the triangle trade but I'm pretty sure the construction of Ft Sumter wasnt enough to justify trade routes that existed for a couple hundred years.
Of course they did. And of course Lincoln made decisions to hold what he could of the union together with very nuanced decisions on slavery. He has a very famous quote about that as we all remember. The south made their philosophical arguments as you noted above. They also acted differently from those noble aims, much like the northern leaders did. But if you continue on in Shelby Foote's excellent series, you also realize that Davis knew he could end the war with a slavery concession. He knew it as he stared at the shrinking map as 1864 approached. In the end it wasn't high ideals of self government and liberty. It was the maintenance of their economic system based upon slavery. So while the war was started with a number of aims, even Davis admitted slavery was what kept it going, even to the detriment of the successful completion of their supposed grand plan of independence.
We can continue to argue slavery, Sherman, Lee or Grant until the sun goes down, but either way, as you have conceded, the South was well within their rights to leave and was left little choice, which is the crux of my entire argument in reaction to Don Surber's silly Lee comment. My point is simple, sonme Confederates certainly were fighting for slavery but the majority of the soldiers were not. General Patrick Cleburne (the best field commander in the West) said, "It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties."
HL Mencken, a Chicagoan, wrote of Licoln and the farce known as the Gettysburg Address which encompasses my whole argument of the war and God knows he was more eloquent than I, ".....but let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — “that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle an absolutely free people; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all."
Finally you argue that the South could have ended the war by ending slavery, but wouldnt that be to ignore the other issues as mentioned previously?
Lincoln laid the foundation for the mess we have now in DC. If you love Lincoln, then you have to deal with his mess.
Don went to school in Cleveland. I spent 13 years in Ohio and came to be acquainted with many CW reenactors at Long Bottom at yearly gathers there. Most of the people I sat around a campfire with wore Yankee Uniforms and thought the south was right.
Lee didn't start the war. He faithfully served his country (Virginia). George Washington served a similar separation movement against all odds. Washington's opponents weren't as ruthless and willing to use scorched earth tactics as was Lincoln.
You are living in the past, my friend. Russia, outside of its vast store of natural resources and tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, has an economy smaller than California. In other words, they survive on energy exports, like every third world country, but retain the ability to destroy civilization. So it is foolish to speak of Russian "expansionism" in any seriously threatening way. For the better part of a century, the USSR controlled the Baltics, Poland, Hungary, Romania and East Germany as well as Ukraine and we were able to survive and prosper as a nation. What was then the urgency to push Ukraine into NATO? And what is now the point in funding Ukraine's (really, NATO/America's) war against Russia? There never will be any possibility that Russia rolls tanks through into western Europe in your or my lifetimes; so the fact that Putin wanted a buffer between his country and NATO is entirely reasonable. He told us time and time again of his concerns as well as his intentions should we ignore them. How would you react if China decided to put nuclear weapons into Mexico or Canada? That is how Putin viewed NATO (i.e., America) installing tactical nuclear weapons into all the countries on his western border, and clearly signaling that it wanted to do so in Ukraine as well. What do you think will happen when "we" (I speak of the Biden cabal, not most Americans) "force them to spend their last full measure" (of whatever) there"? That Putin and his supporters will suddenly decide, "Oh, snap! I guess I shouldn't have done that; now I'll just go and retire somewhere"? Your analysis is superficial, supercilious, jingoistic and dangerously misguided. I submit in all due respect that the brinkmanship you recommend is more than likely designed to escalate into a situation where Putin calls our (again, I refer to the cabal of fools who control our foreign--and domestic--policy in DC) bluff. Who do you think is going to back down then? And if you think it is Putin, you really need to step back and reflect thoughtfully instead of thumping your chest and shouting, "USA! USA! USA!" This isn't the hockey finals in the 1980 Winter Olympics, after all. If it should come to a nuclear confrontation, nobody is going home with a trophy. Are you willing to wager your future and that of your children on your strategy? I, for one, am not. Let Russia and Ukraine work out their own political destinies while we here in America work on correcting the many missteps we have taken over the past two years by concentrating on rebuilding our own country, politically, ethnically and economically. That is where our interest lies as well as our strength, not in meddling in the affairs of two otherwise irrelevant countries on the other side of the globe.
What a load of shit. Russia has not been a force of equilibrium since 1970. Instead it's been a force of chaos, misery, and death. Every major terrorist group then in western Europe was funded by the USSR. Every one of them collapsed or went mainstream after the cold war because their support was cut off.
The people in eastern Europe see Russia as a malicious predator and they refuse to be its next meal, so they gravitated to the West and NATO. NATO is not a threat to its neighbors unless they choose to be aggressive. Russia has been a predator since 1920, invading at least 10 of its neighboring countries. It has practiced murder, torture, forced expulsion of minorities and sent entire ethnicities to Siberia.
Ukraine chose to oppose that future presented to them starting with Maidan and Putin's puppet. The current president of Ukraine is not leading, but following the will of his people to escape the murderous grasp of the current tsar/commissar. Putin winning in Ukraine would have placed him right on the Romanian border and his next victim would have been Moldova.
No one is making Putin continue this war. He could end the fighting and withdraw right now. His people are so cowed that would accept any rationalization he proffers. His ego is the sole reason he can't climb back down. And for that reason he has not presented a single credible offer to end the war. What he wants is victory handed to him by the weak West.