___
2yr ago
The actions of the North, to be clear, were "in explicit violation of treaties and structures it has formerly recognized as valid". The constitution does not give the president the right to send troops to forcibly abolish the existing democratically elected government in the case that they choose to secede, and my ancestors would not have signed it if it did. It was originally a free association of states, not unlike the EU (and my state has an almost identical population to your country).
Typically, when you send troops into a place to depose the existing government and install your own puppet government, we call that "invasion". You can characterize it differently, if you wish, such as "quelling a rebellion", but this your original point was that Russia was violating a modern guiding principle for the international order, which was "Don't invade and annex other countries". That you are willing to split hairs over exactly what counts as an invasion instead of leaning in on the more general principle of "People ought to be able to self-govern, if they so choose, and attempting to force them into your polity is wrong" further reinforces to me the idea that no such principle actually exists in the modern world.
___
2yr ago
I agree that prior to secession it is clear the South was part of the United States.
But immediately after secession but before the war is ended is this sort of fuzzy area where the winner gets to declare the legal state after the fact. It turns out that the secession was illegal and the South was always part of the US, but only in retrospect after they lost. Had they won, then the moment secession was declared would have been the moment an independent nation was legally formed which would have meant that Lincoln's actions would have been an invasion by any reasonable definition.
This puts your second paragraph in context.
Russia may claim that Ukraine is and always has been part of Russia, but the Ukrainians obviously do not agree, and neither does the rest of the world.
Whether the Ukrainians agree or not is no more relevant than whether the Southerners agreed or not. What actually matters is what force Russia/The Union are capable of projecting onto their reluctant citizens.
The only guiding principle here is "It's okay when we do it, it's bad when they do it." just as it always has been throughout human history.
___
2yr ago
It was not Lincoln trying to adjust the borders of the United States unilaterally. It was the Confederacy that tried to do that.
Huh? By democratically seceding? Why do Ukrainians have a God given right to an independent polity but the southern states do not? Do you imagine that if the South had not fired on Fort Sumpter, Lincoln would have moved the troops out eventually and respected the will of the Confederate peoples?
It was after WW2, and due to WW2, that the current international system, along with its respect for existing borders, was born. To my knowledge America has not annexed new territories since WW2.
Yet our historical mythos remains unaltered in a post WWII order (despite many other historical events getting revamped to match modern morality). Actually its much worse, confederate statues and flags were far more tolerated prior to WWII than they are now, we have gone in the opposite direction. It's all "who whom".
___
2yr ago
People have been elucidating the reason why Americans and Europeans, in general, keep supporting Ukraine in many individual posts; one of the main pillars of the global international order is countries not altering their borders unilaterally through invasion and annexation, and whatever other violations to this principle there have been, none have been as flagrant as what Russia is doing now.
This line of reasoning is thoroughly unconvincing as long as Lincoln remains a beloved historical figure.
Having briefly spent some time on confederate twitter, I noticed the typical progressive low-effort culture war snipe is some variation of "we Sherman'd you once, and we'll do it again."
The threat here is quite explicit: You belong to the empire, independence and self governance -even democratically enacted- are a form treason, which is so heinous as to justify killing civilians and burning their houses down. (bonus points for Ukrainian flag in username)
This isn't limited to the worst elements on twitter or the left. Tom Cotton claims the confederate flag is a terrorist symbol while helping to spearhead efforts to aid Ukraine.
It's a very common strategy in the leftwing/neocon playbook to trot out Libertarian principles when it suits them and abandon them when it doesn't, that is almost certainly what is happening here. Scott, for example, noticed the CSA/Ukrainian dissonance and just decided to ignore it in typical Scott fashion (IIRC).
It does not have a sovereign right to adjust its own borders on a whim. Not for the "protection of Russian minorities"
Yes, indeed, it would seem only the United States is to morally grounded enough to forcibly annex independent states on behalf of minorities, according to Americans anyway.
I may not have been clear, I do not believe "might makes right" is morally correct. I think we are in agreement here. If you are making a narrower Sovereign Citizen adjacent argument then I would love it if you would expound on that because I don't think I've ever read anyone on the motte argue that before. If it's some third thing then I don't understand your post. Ownership is 9/10s of the law if the guy with the most guns says it is. I don't endorse this point of coarse, I would prefer if I could avoid federal taxes by claiming status as CSA citizen, but the guys with the guns say otherwise.
I don't understand your point here. (Sorry, I may be a little slow). This seems closer to the sovereign citizen thing.
Has claiming "You do not have the right to invade and annex me" ever prevented anyone from getting invaded and annexed? What does it mean to be "allowed" to resist being invaded an annexed? Who is doing the allowing?
I'll repeat here what I posted further downthread to Steffari:
...
Hmm, I never really considered myself a "confederate apologist". I think most of the modern criticisms are largely accurate, they just pale in comparison to the deeds of the yankees, who subverted the will of a democratically enacted government, deposed them and installed their own, then proceeded to spend the next thirty years culling the native population. That you consider these to be beloved heroes and good people on the right side of history is the point I was attempting to make to Steffari about the principles held by westerners.
More options
Context Copy link