In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Is there any difference?
Smitty500mag
Member Posts: 13,623 ✭✭✭✭
The Southern states of American wanted independence back in 1860 and the US government sent in troops that killed a large percentage of the population and set their towns on fire and put an end to it.
What is Russia doing in the Ukraine that's any different?
Comments
Well, Ukraine actually had their independence from Russia already. Other than that, good point!
If the South would have had Stinger missles...
Even Ruger's 10/22 would have made a big difference 😊
"Never do wrong to make a friend----or to keep one".....Robert E. Lee
I have often wondered what the USA would have been like if the South had won its independence in 1865. Pretty sure all of our history regarding all the wars since would not have had the same conclusions. Maybe we would have not gotten involved at all in those world messes. Things would have been different for sure!
What you described is what the Russian did (twice) in Chechnya- a breakaway federal republic which is an area inside of Russia similar to a US state. Chechnya, just like the CSA, was never recognized as an independent country by any foreign nation. That was a civil war. It finally ended with Russia agreeing to a form of "reconstruction" which rebuilt and revitalized the region, at a cost of billions .
Ukraine had most recently been a socialist republic within the USSR. These were semiautonomous regions, something like Canadian provinces. Before the breakup of the USSR, there were 15 such republics. When the the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, each republic became an independent nation with a seat in the UN General assembly. Russia retained the Soviet seat on the UN security council and all of the nuclear weapons which had been stored in those former republics
Rather than our Civil War, the war in Ukraine is like our war with Mexico: a big time land grab in the name of manifest destiny. Mexico, an independent nation, had land that we wanted...so we took it. Putin has his own plan for a Russian manifest destiny...and we are seeing part one.
"Rather than our Civil War, the war in Ukraine is like our war with Mexico: a big time land grab in the name of manifest destiny. Mexico, an independent nation, had land that we wanted...so we took it. Putin has his own plan for a Russian manifest destiny...and we are seeing part one."
Good point Mr. Christian. Thanks for the reply.
I am often impressed with the IQ of so many GBers. There are a lot of highly intelligent people on this Forum.
I think I detect a bit of sarcasm here. 😁
Putin isn't finished if he take the Ukraine. He will most likely go into every non nato country and continue
why thank you, thank you very much for noticing
My thoughts exactly. I doubt if he will stop with Ukraine. Putin was mentored under Stalin and Khrushchev's regime. He is ex KGB and wants to bring back the old Soviet Union.
Putin is well aware of wokeism, culture destruction, rewriting of history happening in America. Now combine our transformation into a service economy, more government spending on the welfare state and entitlements rather than defense, plus our unprecedented loss in manufacturing power. We have also opened up our borders to mass immigration. Lastly and most important: no physical involvement in Ukraine.
Many of us now in our 60s and later years were brought up being taught critical lessons of past world wars about "Aggression Unopposed" will eventually reach our shores... Such is no more.
When the Scots and other settlers of the South got here, they may not have been as formidable as they eventually became by living in readiness for slave revolts and Indian attack.
Colonial and later American armies had to suppress the natives in the South. The US might have inherited the debt of the costs of the British Indian wars and had to send colonial conscripts to serve under the British at great cost to life.
The South had more Tories in it than the North and could not be said to have helped the nation become independent as much as the North did.
I don't know this for a fact but it struck one as a fairly unequal society. The landed gentry may not have been paying enough taxes to truly keep an orderly society free of crime. If so, without United States protection, there was a risk it would have become a haven for criminal activity which would be a grave existential danger to the citizens of the North, so long as the planters were left to be free to make money.
If the whole reason Europeans had the right to take the continent was that it had become a haven for traffickers and a source of gold to fund Europe's enemies, they couldn't allow it to happen to a part of the continent they had committed to control. It would have hurt them, and it would have hurt the rest of the world, which may have led to European wars against the United States.
Last, slavery. By 1860 the writing was on the wall that it was becoming increasingly unacceptable worldwide. It was easy to see the US may have to ban slavery. The rest of the world may not want to do business with the US if slavery wasn't banned. The racism of the time may have made it seem like for that reason, the South should be made to stop multiplying and secretly importing slaves because soon there would be no use for them. It wasn't clear whether the planters or the rest of their society was going to have the money and will to keep them well managed. It must have been a scary prospect in a more racist time.
Putin's war is simply Lincoln's war brought up to date.
Is Ukraine keeping slaves?
@SoreShoulder why yes there are some people in Ukraine doing just that! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Ukraine
and a more recent article: https://www.wvi.org/newsroom/ukraine/world-vision-warns-growing-human-trafficking-risk-women-fleeing-ukraine
Are you really serioius? The Ukranian government is trying to counter trafficking. The Confederate constitution explicitly protected slavery and allowed trafficking in human beings so long as it was internal and not from other places.
Lincoln didn't even issue the Emancipation Proclamation until January 1st 1863 which was 3 years into the war. Slavery had nothing to do with it. It was an after thought to legitimize the war to the bleeding hearts all over the world.
The South attacked. The government swung into action and not quite two years later, they had Emancipation.
The South fired on the Union Army that had moved into South Carolina's Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. Lincoln didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation until January 01, 1863. That's one year and nine months which is a long time to wait to finally come up with an excuse for the war that was already in progress. If he had issued it on April 13, 1861 there would not have been enough men signing up to field an army. The men joined up to save the Union not to set anyone free let alone black slaves. NYC tried to succeed along with the South so northerners didn't give a hoot in hell about slavery.
The Emancipation Proclamation was clearly issued for the purpose of discouraging European nations from supporting the Confederacy.