gangleri2001
Garbage day!!!
Signs? What are you talking about?
Secession
- Thread starter lovett
- Start date
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
I'm in favor of secession.
If they wanna go, and have their own crappy little country to themselves, let 'em go. As long as a large majority (>80%?) of the folks who live there support it, let 'em go. I don't care.
If they wanna go, and have their own crappy little country to themselves, let 'em go. As long as a large majority (>80%?) of the folks who live there support it, let 'em go. I don't care.
Leonel
Breakfast Connoisseur
If it was anyone else, yes. Especially for California.
But not for Cascadia!
But not for Cascadia!
Ansar
Détente avec l'été
Billboards, stop signs, DO NOT PARK HERE signs, etc.
You have restaurant menus in Catalan too?
Hehe, good question. And honestly, I think this is a question which can only be settled in a court of arms, just as our Revolution was.
In the case of the American Revolution, it was clear what was happening: the English government was violating the rights of the American colonies and its citizens, and because of the way the government was set up, the colonies had no real chance of ever affecting change. They were stuck, sending non-binding and useless petitions that weren't worth the paper they were printed on. And so they rebelled, and ultimately won their freedom.
Ultimately, I'd say the People retain the right to control their government, which includes the right to overthrow it, or secede from it. So I would say that the People are the ones that decide when their rights are being violated so seriously, and that no legitimate method of redress remains. And I think this works both with the Revolution, and with the Civil War.
At the time of the American Revolution, there was a big split in public opinion in the Colonies: to rebel, or stay loyal? But as far as I can tell, that was the main difference - most of the Tories (Or loyalists) agreed that many of the things the English government were doing were unfair. They just didn't believe that they had the right to rebel. Even in England, a good many people - from Dukes to merchants and on down - believed that good King George was needlessly provoking and abusing England's "children." Not all Englishmen thought so, but a good portion did, and an even greater portion in the Colonies.
Now look at the Civil War. The South, the part that seceded to form the Confederacy, did indeed think that their rights were being violated. And I would submit to you that most Southerners really were more concerned with states rights than slavery itself - see the Nullification Crisis during the term of Andrew Jackson, where South Carolina (Of all states!) very nearly led to secession and open war. And yes, Southerners believed that their rights were being violated - but the idea that Northern states banning slavery was a violation of Southern rights was a view pretty much confined to the South. (Northern Democrats commonly opposed the war - but few truly insisted that the South was truly in the right. Just that they had the right to secede, and that it wasn't worth fighting over.) It wasn't a nation that tried to secede, but an aggrieved minority.
Furthermore, it was not that the South had no means of redress, but that they didn't like the outcome. They voted freely and fairly in the election of 1860. And they lost, and in response, several states seceded. If they had seceded because the election was rigged, then they might have had a good argument - after all, there can be no redress for wrongs by the national government, when it is controlled by the abusers. But that's not what happened - Abraham Lincoln was elected fairly, and the South seceded because they didn't like it. This was not a revolution against a tyrannical government which refused to leave open an ally where change could be effected. This was a rebellion against lawful authority because a minority got outvoted. That, I think, is the crucial difference. They rebelled not because they had no other option, but because they didn't get their way. Thus, I see a crucial difference between the American Revolution and the Civil War, and I think therein lies the reason for the justification of one but not the other.
Well....that was pretty long.I can get rather long winded when I get going. Do you see my basic point, though? If you need clarification or have issue with my historical knowledge (Which I admit is woefully incomplete) then please do so.
Also, note that I'm only talking about secession from an unwilling American Union. If the rest of the nation is willing to let you go, then I do think that should be allowed. What I'm opposing is unilateral secession.
I think it does come down to the "court of arms" issue. I would add that another aspect of the election of 1860 that probably informed the South's decision was that Lincoln won without the South. It wasn't so much that a non-Southern candidate won, so much as they realized that the President could be elected entirely without the South. Since the pre-Civil War U.S. could be described as more of a republic than the post-Civil War version, I'm almost sympathetic to the Souther states' argument that they could no longer participate in the federal government with meaningful power, especially on an issue central to their existence (troll prophylactic: of course their position on that issue was odious). I guess what complicates it is that the interesting, legal federalist argument was so tied up with a moral argument that has such a clear answer. If it were merely about equal taxation or something, and not slavery, maybe it would look different.
Cleo
West 36
Can count up to 4
Honestly, I don't know. I don't think I'd care if Texas or Vermont seceeded, or really any place, as long as it wasn't so they could go and do something bat . .. .. .. . crazy. My offer then is for any state or significant region that wants to get out, go ahead, and then I'll tell you how I feel.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
I will always support independence movements, if they have real merit to them. "I don't want to live in the same state as the NY Mets, so I'm taking Buffalo and making my own country called Billsistan" is stupid, but "Congress is not addressing our concerns as well as we could, and our way of life is in danger enough that we feel the taking up of arms validated" is of course valid. After all, our nation was born from a rebellion based on grievances, I would be hypocritical if I were to deny any other people the right to govern themselves if they so wish to be.
Inversely, I also understand the potential merits of being a protectorate, client state, or colony, but when the will of the people is to govern themselves, they have no right to be denied it.
Inversely, I also understand the potential merits of being a protectorate, client state, or colony, but when the will of the people is to govern themselves, they have no right to be denied it.
As long as their peaceful and with the consent of the majority, I be fine with it.
I don't know about Catalonia, but Cornwall and Texas seem very unlikely to me. Quebec separatism, while not disappearing, is moribund, stuck in 30% range; it seems unlike it will separate any time soon.
In general, I think people have the tendency to underestimate the internal cohesion of some of the developed states.
I don't know about Catalonia, but Cornwall and Texas seem very unlikely to me. Quebec separatism, while not disappearing, is moribund, stuck in 30% range; it seems unlike it will separate any time soon.
In general, I think people have the tendency to underestimate the internal cohesion of some of the developed states.
Why not discard the old government with the same violence that would be necessary to secure a successful secession? Is your ideal of a free state any less valid than an ideal of a free state for all people in the mother country?
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Not all the people may have the same grievenaces as those who secede, which is the point of seceding in the first place: the government is no longer capable of adequately addressing their concerns.
And that's why I suggest revolution.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Secession is the last resort, not the first. Depending on the situation, it may call for revolution, it may call for secession. Secession has the added implication that it is a specific region whose concerns are not being addressed, and the neglect is to their own detriment. Revolution seems more applicable if it is a part of the populace, and not a geographic thing; for example, the French Revolution, where it was a percentage of the population across the country who was up in arms; in the American Revolution, it was the concerns of the colonials, an obviously geographically seperate entity from mainland England, or the rest of the Empire. Or, for example, the Indian Partition, where it was a percentage of the average populace who was upset, but who was more concentrated in some areas than others (mainly East Bengal, the Nizam of Hyderabad, and the provinces that became West Pakistan), and so secession was demmed necessary (though mostly in this case by Jinnah), even though Muslims were spread out throughout India.
Perfection
The Great Head.
If at first you don't secede, try try again.
Yet secession is selfish in that it calls for a specific territory to be put into a better situation instead of aiding the whole country. Why not combine the two to help everyone?
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
I edited my post extensively while you wrote this.
Stick and stones won't break my bones, but this many words will surely crush me...
I actually don't disagree with you on this point, actually. Good post.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
Certainly.
A true community should never require "forceful prevention of secession". When it comes to that, actual war, what you have is one community using force to enslave another to its will and its rules.
that was one of the curiosities of the american civil war: the south was divided, at a large scale, between two communities, one enslaved to the other. And the ruling community in turn got targeted for the "same" treatment (as far as goals go: impose their will on the others) by the north.
Do two wrongs make a right? Though question, I guess it always depends on circumstances and sympathies...
Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
I said no to intervention, but I would make exceptions for California or the South.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
The South was further divided by a very large minority of anti-secessionists (we're talking upwards of 40% here).
Similar threads
