I can see the equivalency of the Civil War and the American Revolution, but you leave out a few details. Regardless of sovereignty, no person has the right to keep slaves. Perhaps Lincoln acted unethically (and we could argue about this for a while), but I don't see how he broke the law there. He certainly bent the law at other times in his presidency.
The Civil War wasn't about slavery. It was about forcing the southern states to rejoin the union. If they had left for other reasons they would most probably still have been forced back.
You have grossly oversimplified the matter. You've completely left out the issues of nullification, "perpetual union", and states' rights. Also, you haven't explained what law Lincoln broke.
It's easy for you to sit there and declare that the North was wrong. Where do you stand on the slavery part of it? The South wanted to secede, therefore they should have been allowed to do so. I can understand your position on that. But, if the South had seceded peacefully, the North would be justified in invading to free the slaves. Consider this in a modern context: if a modern-day country was publicly keeping four million people in captivity as forced labor, wouldn't the US be justified in doing something about it?
Even if everything else is thrown away, your point still fails.
The US populace may not have cared if Hitler had enslaved Europe, but the leadership was sending aid to the Allies before we formally entered into the war. That's backwards from the usual setup nowadays.
One little detail is that the UK gave the US copies of all important inventions that they had, especially for military purposes, like the radar.
And if we had allied with Germany we could have completed their heavy water experiments with them. We shared things with the the Allies, such as aircraft, tanks and food. That's what allies do.
You focus so much of your attention on the US without paying any attention to other countries. Do you claim that the USSR was acting altruistically by instituting the Warsaw Pact? What about the Japanese imperialism that helped lead to WWII? Nazi Germany's annexation of most of Europe?
Some of the Nazis might ironically have thought that what they did they did for a good cause. The same is probably true for some Soviet leaders. The US interventions have never been about anything else than money.
Yet I still don't see you using the Nazis as an example of the evils of imperialism. Do you have any evidence that the US has never intervened militarily for altruistic reasons?
The US concern with money must be why we overcharged the Allies for all of the military supplies we sent them during WWII.
Wait...
LinkNot modern enough for you? How about the British occupation of Gibraltar and Cyprus? How about China's control of Taiwan and Tibet? I hear a lot of talk about American oppression from you but little about other countries'. All nations act according to their interests.
Sure, but America is the only Western country that does it with the blatant lie that it is for freedom and democracy.
I see that you qualify that with "Western country". What about the Communist interventions during the Cold War? The "People's Republic of China" has something to say about that as they spread the "workers' revolution" to Taiwan.
We can argue this all day, Lit. The fact remains that you paint all US military action with the broad brush of an evil overlord, and you don't back up your assertions with fact or logic. I don't appreciate it. You certainly don't have to tell me about the bad things that the US government is doing; I live here. However, your dislike of current US foreign policy doesn't justify you portraying all of US history as being a string of illegitimate military actions. Yes, there are a fair number of them in our past and present (more than our fair share), but you portray the entire history of the US as being lies. Why not back yourself up, or go talk about China?
