As commented already that there is hate on both sides. I believe the Democrat regime in Washington is helping to prolong the war in Ukraine by coming late in supplying military weapons late in the war. A lot of the propaganda coming out of the Whitehouse I ignore. Biden isn't running the show there, and the puppet masters are doing a horrible job at it. either.

Then present the data. All I got from five chapters was bias and opinion - not a single real fact.

I wasted all the time I'm going to on that author. If you want to present his arguments for consideration, go ahead. If they're persuasive, they should stand on their own.

I do understand that you may not have the time to read DiLorenzo's book in its entirety, so we can agree to disagree as we are not basing our conclusions on the same data.

I completely disagree with your opinion and your conclusions.
Apparently you did not see DiLorenzo's notes to contemporary sources used and didn't read but a fraction of the evidence.
I don't have time to argue with you.

I read the first five chapters of DiLorenzo's book before throwing it in the garbage. There was nothing there but opinion and invective. He cited no history. He gave no timeline for context. His interpretation directly conflicts with that published by other scholars such as those found in the Oxford History of the United States. (And unless I'm mistaken, Oxford is in England not the United States.) He ignored the Letters of Secession which showed the enumerated and ratified voice of the People in the Southern States. He ignored the history which showed the South on the brink of insurrection twenty years earlier. It's quite staggering that you claim bias on the part of every other history book regarding the Civil War, yet refuse to see it in DiLorenzo's work. It couldn't have been more blatant if it had hit me with a hammer.

Rebellions MUST have just cause to be morally sanctioned. The War for Independence had such sanction. The Civil War lacked any. One takes note of the efforts of the Slave States to influence the Caribbean, even agitating for a invasion of several Caribbean nations following the Mexican War for the express purpose of establishing slave-run plantations. The cause of secession was clearly enumerated in their own words: OFFICIAL letters they sent to the US Congress which were written, debated, and voted upon not only by their respective State legislatures, but by their People. How you choose to ignore the express declarations of millions in favor of one man's work of fiction 150 years later is a mystery to me.

"Lincoln took dictatorial powers to stop that legal act of secession by the states."

What made it legal? Is there an Amendment to the Constitution allowing for secession that I missed? A Supreme Court case? No. At best it is a legal gray area. It certainly isn't legally sanctioned by any means. To argue it as such is disingenous.

Did the South petition to be heard by the Supreme Court - the Court which holds original jurisdiction in cases of suits by one State against another? (That Court was dominated by Southern-sympathizing Justices who had voted only three years earlier 7-2 in the Dred Scott case.) No. They did not.

Did they explore any other legal means to justify their case such as a general petition to Congress? No. They did not.

And contrary to your assertions, the South did NOT entreaty with Lincoln or his cabinet. In fact, they refused Lincoln's envoys. They were not victims, as you seem to want to portray them. They were given the chance to come to the negotiating table several times leading up to and including at Fort Sumpter and they refused, choosing instead to initiate the bloodiest conflict in US history.

History written to conform to the "Lincoln was a saint" narrative are in conflict with evidence in Thomas DiLorenzo's books that examine evidence using contemporary writings.
Yes, states acted on secession because of Lincoln's election. However that was a legal act by the states. It was not rebellion except in Lincoln's propaganda that declared them as such in defeat.
(A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as "our rebellion." It is only in the third person - "their rebellion" - that it becomes illegal.)
None of your 'history lesson' post addresses that. Had the American colonies lost there is no doubt that history would have recorded it as an illegal 'rebellion' not a legal action for independence.
Lincoln took dictatorial powers to stop that legal act of secession by the states.
Southern representatives continued to try to meet with Lincoln after the election to avoid war and Lincoln refused to meet. War ensued when Lincoln ordered the military to hold positions in southern territory and Lincoln refused to negotiate to avoid war.

A few documents of note:

1) a timeline of relevant decisions leading up to the hostilities which would eventually become known as the Civil War: https://www.historians.org/teaching-a...

Of note: Nov 10, 1860 - a day after the Presidential election - South Carolina issues a call for a convention with the intent to secede.
Dec 20th: South Carolina votes unanimously to secede from the Union.
Jan 9th, 1861: Mississippi votes to secede from the Union
Jan 10th: Florida votes to secede from the Union
Jan 11th: Alabama votes to secede from the Union
Jan 19th: Georgia votes to secede from the Union
Jan 26th: Louisiana votes to secede from the Union
Feb 1st: Texas votes to secede from the Union
Feb 8th: Delegate from the Southern States adopt a provisional Constitution - in full rebellion from the United States.
Feb 28: The House passes a measure supported by President-elect Lincoln which prohibits the federal government from interfering with slavery in states where it exists.
Mar 4th: Lincoln's inauguration
April 6th: Lincoln dispatches a State Department employee to inform South Carolina Governor Francis Pickens that the federal government will re-provision Fort Sumter. The president makes it clear that no additional troops will be sent to the fort if supply ships are allowed to land. (South Carolina refuses to allow the ships to land.)
April 12th: South Carolina opens fire on Fort Sumpter. The Civil War begins.

The timeline clearly shows that seven Southern States had already voted to secede from the Union and formed their own government prior to Lincoln taking office.

2) South Carolina's Letter of Secession: https://www.humanitiestexas.org/sites...

Of note is South Carolina's justification which centers around the alleged non-enforcement of the Fugitive Slave laws. Not a word is mentioned about proposed tariffs as other justification for secession.

3) Mississippi's Letter of Secession: https://www.jhwolfanger.com/uploads/2...

Of note is Mississippi's unfeigned attachment to slavery as noted in the second sentence of the document: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--"

The timeline of history is quite clear: the secessionist leanings of the Southern States had not only been evident prior to Lincoln taking office, but acted upon. If you want to continue to grind your axe against Lincoln, that's your choice. But the history is quite clear - and it does not support your assertions.

I think our response is to simply don’t comply.

Its stated openly that “you’ll own nothing and be happy”, well I think they are planning for us to all lose our jobs and homes. The writing is on the wall, we just need to read it…

Destruction of your ability to earn a living - The vaccinee mandate that failed would have cause over 30% of the employees that work for woke companies to be laid off. This without severance or unemployment insurance, which I have paid for. This would have been disastrous to many in this country. That plan failed but I’m sure more is to follow.

Destruction of personal property - California passed a law enforcing all forecloses purchased for rental income to comply with a laundry list of conditions. This would make it impossible for anyone wishing to purchase investment property as the requirements are open ended. The law is worded in a way in which they can change the teams after you purchased the property, the fine for non-compliance is heavy. Furthermore, the state of California is given the ability to purchase the home if no one else wants it. This seems like a method to transfer home ownership out of the hands of the people into the hands of the government, with our own money. Guessing other blue states have similar laws?

Dollar is a scam – Our dollar is worthless, it’s a fiat currency and printing more of it devalues what you already have. Through factional reserve lending, the banks can loan out 70% (from memory, not positive of the value) of all assets the bank owns. What they don’t tell you is that the banks consider unpaid loads as an asset. Let that sink in for a minute… They just only need a small fraction of what they lend out and every time they lend out it adds to the asset column.

My point about non-compliance is simply that everyone involved in this plan is a traitor, I will not comply to a traitor’s demands. When I’m triggered, as in losing my job, I’m going all in and not paying taxes or mortgages. I will not leave my property and when we organize, I’ll help you protect your property. We need not comply, and we need to assist our neighbors in their non-compliance.

We are smarter than they are, only that they have been planning, preparing, and grooming for a long time. As long as we don’t become the sheep they wish us to be, we will win.

It would seem that USA is currently not as strong as we used to be....unfortunately. We are capable but we have allowed the decline. Somehow, it seems similar to Russia.

The Main stream media is losing the narrative!

3958
Apr 14, 2020 3:50:43 PM EDT
Q !!Hs1Jq13jV6 ID: c618f4 No. 8792104

INFORMATION WARFARE.
Q

The winner's propaganda about the US Civil War is so thick that the truth is definitely a casualty.

imo, Lincoln was a war criminal regardless of the South's reasons for secession.
I think the reasons were all economic and that included the "peculiar institution" but that institution was not being immediately threatened. The entire economy of the South was being immediately threatened by the tariffs that Lincoln promised northern manufacturers - corrupt looters using corrupt government to steal from others , specifically from southern farmers. If this happened today, we would oppose it as corrupt thievery, but since the North controlled everything after the war the entire blame was placed on the south instead of the true culprits.
Yes, slavery was wrong, but it was economically accepted in that era. In every other country it disappeared without war because it became economically inferior - as it would have in America. Lincoln had a history of waffling on the subject of slavery and even suggested sending all the blacks back to Africa as a solution (after buying them from their owners.) It was no reason to Lincoln to go to war according to his own speeches and writings.

However, when Lincoln had the chance to resolve the disagreement with the southern states by meeting with southern representatives, he refused and chose war instead.
Lincoln was a politician like the people running the current administration. He wanted power; he represented himself above all and used any means to gain power and to repress anyone who criticized his actions.
Today there is censorship on the internet of opposing voices and we cry foul against the administration and media. Lincoln put opposing voices in jail to stop them.

The Southern states HAD good reasons to secede, and Lincoln had no authority to stop the states under the constitution.
Lincoln skillfully manipulated propaganda against them and grabbed power as the Bush administration did to go to unnecessary war for power and wealth.

There was no "good" side in the US Civil War, a war that should never have occurred except for politicians' need for power and corrupt manufacturers need to loot farmers.

Jefferson elaborated well the reasons for the American Revolution. Since it was a success, we are able to hear those reasons.
Those reasons would have gone to the dustbin of history if the revolution had failed, just as the reasons justifying the secession of the southern states have in a torrent of propaganda raising Lincoln to sainthood.

I do think the Ukrainians should just vote and figure out how they want to be governed. Russia should stay out of it, and so should NATO and the USA. Russia currently just wants the booty it could get from Ukraine without a lot of trouble (or so it thought). Now its just a revenge thing cause whatever goodies they might have gotten will have been totally destroyed by their own hand. In addition, the ukranian people still alive will hate russia for a VERY LONG TIME. If I had to stay there when russia finally takes over, I can tell you I woudlnt be much good to them. Talk about passive resistance....

At that point in time, secession from the Union would have destroyed not only the seceding States, but all the others as well. It was a "darned if you do and darned if you don't" situation which was further exacerbated because the primary reason the South wanted to secede was to protect their "peculiar institution." Even Great Britain took a standoffish approach to the South as a result.

We can also look at it from modern day. Can anyone really say that the breakup of Yugoslavia was a positive thing? What about the occupation of Cyprus? What about the Kashmir region in India which Pakistan claims? Should someone invade China on behalf of the Uighers? (sp?)

I'm not saying Russia is right. Russia exterminated millions of Ukrainians in the 1930's through starvation and confiscation of their farms and properties. I'm not saying that the current leaders in Russia are responsible, only that Russia doesn't exactly have a history of benevolence. Putin is certainly no exception to this, as he ran the KGB for decades before assuming power. He knows where the bodies are buried and probably has a few of his own.

So the reason a region wants to become its own country matters. If it is with good reason - such as the seventeen enumerated on the Declaration of Independence - then independence may be justified. If it is solely because of political differences I'm not sure that's a real solution.

Yet the US administration says Russia is evil when the US has done worse in other countries while using the PetroUSD to steal from all other countries and peoples.
I don't believe that Russia is evil just because US propaganda (aka 'news') claims it is true.
If Russia is evil then the western leaders are more evil based upon past verifiable actions.
We Gulchers should not assign blame without verifiable evidence. I don't see such evidence in the case of Russia and Ukraine.

How about the USA civil war. All the south wanted was to secede from the union. They should have allowed to, Their punishment was total destruction.

Imagine what would happen if Texas wanted to secede today? It would be attacked and destroyed before it would ever be allowed to leave the ""divided states of america"

personally I think the usa civil war was a bad thing, and preventing texas from seceding today by force would be an equally bad thing. but thats me....

Of course, Russia is into conquering and invading. Seems like they have been into this for years and years, so its nothing new. Ukraine takeover gives them breadbasket and sea lane advantages that Russia simply wants and takes. After Ukraine, it will be just more and more that they can get away with. With china, what the hell do they need Taiwan for anyway. They just want revenge because the people in Taiwan rose up and didnt want to be run by communists- so now they get destroyed. Same with Ukraine- no wonder Putin just destroys so much of Urkaine. That is part of the revenge for not knuckling under and going Russian.

Also every one between 1815 and 1941.

Interesting. This isnt the land of the free exactly, is it?

That worked really well for the USA circa 1860...

I'm looking at it from their (Russia's) standpoint. (This is precisely the same reason given for the Crimean invasion during Barack Obama's Presidency.)

I agree. My dad was a naval aviator and trained to deliver nuclear bombs flying AD-6's. They could fly under radar, then climb as high as the air would allow (prop planes), sling shot the bombs, and then do a maneuver to get the hell out of there. Dad's nasal academy buddies were on the destroyers during the Cuban missile crisis and had stories to tell - years later. I too was not a fan of JFK at the time but as years past I realized he was a true dino.

I think all politicians are crooks actually, with hidden power and money grubbing agendas. I dont believe anything they say, I just look at what they do (when we can at least see it).

In Ukraine there should be independent elections to see what happens. whatever parts of ukraine want to be independent, so be it. If they want to give in to russia, then so be that too. Personally I dont care, its up to the ukranians.

but russia isnt liberating, they are conquering and pillagine
we did liberate kuwait. we should not have invaded iraq though