Catalan 'independence declaration' to trigger showdown with Madrid

[jimmy olsen]

Yes but in a very British way. We demanded to be taken seriously as British subjects and went on babbling about the British Constitution and defending our British liberties many months after we started shooting each other. Many of us decided they still were British and moved to Canada afterwards. It was really similar to what the English had done in the English Civil War.

Only when Pitt went along with our interpretation of the British Constitution rather than Parliament's interpretation. But again we had 'virtual' representation and that was not going to fly for proud British subjects. But I don't see how this is relevant to anything going on today. Pitt was a huge supporter of us to the end Godbless him. And then we named a terrible place like Pittsburgh after him. That is gratitude for you.

If only George III hadn't sacked him, he had plans to give the colonies representation and expidite the settlement of the Ohio valley by using the army against the natives.  This would have ensured the revolution would never have taken place as the political and economic desires of the colonial elite would have been satisfied. I blame cricket for killing Prince Frederick. 

[Razgovory]

Oh, there would eventually be a revolution.  The needs of Britain and the needs of her colony in North America were pulling them apart.  The growing disgust over slavery in England and the American reliance on it could have fractured it, or the different attitudes toward Indian policy, or Britain's need for captive markets or the growing Catholic and Irish population in North America or the simple inability to transport enough British soldiers to hold down a rebellion.  The American colonies had simply grown to large to hold.

[viper37]

Yes but in a very British way. We demanded to be taken seriously as British subjects and went on babbling about the British Constitution and defending our British liberties many months after we started shooting each other. Many of us decided they still were British and moved to Canada afterwards. It was really similar to what the English had done in the English Civil War.

Yeah, well, of course that moved to Canada did not feel they were Americans.  I suspect you would see such an exodus everywhere there is independance from a larger country.  I'm sure there were Tunisians & Algerians who felt more French than anything else and moved back to the mainland and many others stayed, even if not arabs.

The moment Americans and British started shooting each another, especially as there were many German soldiers, technically part of the larger British Empire, it was impossible for the Colonials to simply lay down their arms and agree to peace talks that did not involve complete independance.  Not that the British would have agreed to that early in the war any way.  But that is my point, that the fault lies in the central government, not in those for which the idea of independance was born.

Only when Pitt went along with our interpretation of the British Constitution rather than Parliament's interpretation. But again we had 'virtual' representation and that was not going to fly for proud British subjects. But I don't see how this is relevant to anything going on today. Pitt was a huge supporter of us to the end Godbless him. And then we named a terrible place like Pittsburgh after him. That is gratitude for you.

Basically, the Americans felt they were different than other British subjects and subject to special rules voted by their Parliament rather than the British parliament.  All other colonies were governed the same ways, including Canada, pre-loyalist exodus.
In Great Britain proper, only 3% of the population had the right to vote at the time, compared to 10-20% in the colonies
(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_representation )


Although the colonials based their demands on the British Constitution, namely the Magna Carta, there were no such provision for the people to rule themselves.

And by 1774, the Americans pretty much disregarded anything from London, including the Quebec acts.  Had they still felt themselves British, they would have obeyed the law and accepted the provisions it contained for the French population of Canada.

Huh. Are you ignoring everything I have said on this topic on purpose? And in any case it is not nearly as simple as this caricature.

Nothing is simple, yes.  I did not ignore your argument that a parliamentary vote has little legitimacy to declare independance.
But there are many historical examples where a referendum was never required.
I believe a referendum, today, in the 21st century, is the best and most legitimate way to achieve independance, but it is not the only way.
And I also believe that independance movement are created by the attitude of the central government, not the other way around.  When you treat people with respect, they don't rebel.  When you disregard them, when you insist there's only one culture, yours, eventually, if enough people in a defined territory feel different, there is a call for independance or revolution, depending on the severity of the situation.

By your very strict position of who's allowed to declare independance, pretty much only the Kurds would be allowed to secede from Turkey and Syria, and only after a valid referendum...  That puts the bar pretty high.

[viper37]

Oh, there would eventually be a revolution.  The needs of Britain and the needs of her colony in North America were pulling them apart.  The growing disgust over slavery in England and the American reliance on it could have fractured it, or the different attitudes toward Indian policy, or Britain's need for captive markets or the growing Catholic and Irish population in North America or the simple inability to transport enough British soldiers to hold down a rebellion.  The American colonies had simply grown to large to hold.

as the Southern War of Independance has proven , European powers would have been very reluctant to side with a pro-slavery state.  Had England abolished slavery and some of the colonies declared their independance, they would have had no support from France, Spain or any other country and would have been left to fend for themselves against a majority of northern loyalists + Great Britain.

But that is total fiction.

[viper37]

Besides there were not 'calls for autonomy'. The colonies being autonomous was how it had always been done for over 100 years.

Were there significant difference between colonial law and England law?  What was forbidden in England bu legal in America and vice-versa?

EDIT:
Never mind, this deserve its own thread.

[Razgovory]

Oh, there would eventually be a revolution.  The needs of Britain and the needs of her colony in North America were pulling them apart.  The growing disgust over slavery in England and the American reliance on it could have fractured it, or the different attitudes toward Indian policy, or Britain's need for captive markets or the growing Catholic and Irish population in North America or the simple inability to transport enough British soldiers to hold down a rebellion.  The American colonies had simply grown to large to hold.

as the Southern War of Independance has proven , European powers would have been very reluctant to side with a pro-slavery state.  Had England abolished slavery and some of the colonies declared their independance, they would have had no support from France, Spain or any other country and would have been left to fend for themselves against a majority of northern loyalists + Great Britain.

But that is total fiction.

What the hell are you talking about?  Britain abolished slavery before Spain and France and shut down the Atlantic slave trade which resulted in the decline of slavery in the Americas.  I'm confused as to what your point is or what you are even on about.

[jimmy olsen]

Oh, there would eventually be a revolution.  The needs of Britain and the needs of her colony in North America were pulling them apart.  The growing disgust over slavery in England and the American reliance on it could have fractured it, or the different attitudes toward Indian policy, or Britain's need for captive markets or the growing Catholic and Irish population in North America or the simple inability to transport enough British soldiers to hold down a rebellion.  The American colonies had simply grown to large to hold.

If the Southern colonies had revolted over slavery in the 19th century the British and the Northern colonies would have put them down and the American independence movement would have been premantly discredited.

[viper37]

What the hell are you talking about?  Britain abolished slavery before Spain and France and shut down the Atlantic slave trade which resulted in the decline of slavery in the Americas.  I'm confused as to what your point is or what you are even on about.

We're talking an hypothetical scenario where the American Revolution is pushed back much later, and the split is done on slavery, not taxation.

Slaves were declared free on French soil as soon as 1315.  Officially it was abolished in 1794, reinstated by Napoleon for the colonies, but he had plans to reabolish it after Waterloo.  1818 is when slave trade is abolished, then gradually slavery is abolished in all colonies until the end of the 19th century.  It wasn't until 1833 that Great Britain abolished slavery, and only for direct posession of the crown, meaning the East India company was still free to use slavery.

[jimmy olsen]

What the hell are you talking about?  Britain abolished slavery before Spain and France and shut down the Atlantic slave trade which resulted in the decline of slavery in the Americas.  I'm confused as to what your point is or what you are even on about.

We're talking an hypothetical scenario where the American Revolution is pushed back much later, and the split is done on slavery, not taxation.

Slaves were declared free on French soil as soon as 1315.  Officially it was abolished in 1794, reinstated by Napoleon for the colonies, but he had plans to reabolish it after Waterloo.  1818 is when slave trade is abolished, then gradually slavery is abolished in all colonies until the end of the 19th century.  It wasn't until 1833 that Great Britain abolished slavery, and only for direct posession of the crown, meaning the East India company was still free to use slavery.

If they still owned the American colonies that late they would have had some form of political representation in parliament, and significant economic influence. Such a decision would have been pushed back some time.

[Razgovory]

I don't want to get in a debate about alternate history, we have enough nonsense with your separatism and you telling us about American history, we don't need more stupid shit.

[viper37]

I'm sorry Raz.  I was unaware someone was forcing you to read threads you have no interests in.  It must suck to be you, being held at gunpoint like that, forced to read stuff you don't like

[Razgovory]

I wrote a more in-depth response, but ran into a problem.  I'm not sure if there is a fundamental difference between the type of alternative history where you claim nationalism started the American Revolution and the kind where you create a scenario where the American Revolution occurs in the 19th century instead of the 18th.

[Valmy]

Yeah, well, of course that moved to Canada did not feel they were Americans.  I suspect you would see such an exodus everywhere there is independance from a larger country.  I'm sure there were Tunisians & Algerians who felt more French than anything else and moved back to the mainland and many others stayed, even if not arabs.

Well if they felt they were not "Americans" or "Colonists" or whatever they just would have returned to Great Britain.

The moment Americans and British started shooting each another, especially as there were many German soldiers, technically part of the larger British Empire, it was impossible for the Colonials to simply lay down their arms and agree to peace talks that did not involve complete independence.

False. See 'Olive Branch Petition'. By the way many Germans fought on the American side as well. I think the Germans referred to Yorktown as the German battle since huge percentages of all three armies were Germans.

Not that the British would have agreed to that early in the war any way.  But that is my point, that the fault lies in the central government, not in those for which the idea of independence was born.

I am not sure what 'fault' means in this case but I believe I already covered this earlier. A justifiable revolutionary action like this requires abuses on the part of the rulers, ones that cannot be solved peacefully. And the American Revolution is, IMO, just that sort of situation.

Basically, the Americans felt they were different than other British subjects and subject to special rules voted by their Parliament rather than the British parliament.

No they felt they were the same as other British Subjects and entitled to representation. Also, as I said, there was over 100 years of precedent that said that was how British Colonies worked and you know how British people are about precedent. 

In Great Britain proper, only 3% of the population had the right to vote at the time, compared to 10-20% in the colonies
(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_representation )

While I am not familiar with the specific franchise rules in each colony this might just be because a much higher percentage of Americans were land owners. The Brits back in blighty lacked Native Americans to steal land from.

Although the colonials based their demands on the British Constitution, namely the Magna Carta, there were no such provision for the people to rule themselves.

Ah but you forget that most of the colonies were set up during the era of the English Revolution/Civil War which was all about taxation having to be approved by consent of the governed.

And by 1774, the Americans pretty much disregarded anything from London, including the Quebec acts.  Had they still felt themselves British, they would have obeyed the law and accepted the provisions it contained for the French population of Canada.

Which Americans? There were pretty much 14 different responses and 14 different policies.

Nothing is simple, yes.  I did not ignore your argument that a parliamentary vote has little legitimacy to declare independance.

I do not think I ever addressed parliamentary votes at all.

But there are many historical examples where a referendum was never required.

And?

I believe a referendum, today, in the 21st century, is the best and most legitimate way to achieve independance, but it is not the only way.
And I also believe that independance movement are created by the attitude of the central government, not the other way around.  When you treat people with respect, they don't rebel.  When you disregard them, when you insist there's only one culture, yours, eventually, if enough people in a defined territory feel different, there is a call for independance or revolution, depending on the severity of the situation.

If all that is required then each time a region is on the short end of election they can threaten independence to get their way and intimidate the majority into giving them concessions. You just cannot run a democracy or government like that.

By your very strict position of who's allowed to declare independance, pretty much only the Kurds would be allowed to secede from Turkey and Syria, and only after a valid referendum...  That puts the bar pretty high.

My position is neither strict nor does it require a valid referendum. My position is it requires both a demonstration of overwhelming popular support and a valid grievance. So, for example, 100% of the South Carolina Legislature voted to secede from the Union in December of 1860. A clear demonstration of overwhelming popular support. But their grievance, that their right to keep slaves was being endangered, is not sufficient a grievance for me to consider that a valid cause for independence.

But in most situations where it makes sense to break off and form a new country you probably lack the ability to hold a valid referendum so that would be a pretty ridiculous requirement. I mean if a central authority is enabling you to hold free fair elections on things like that then I would question the entire justification for thinking your rights were being abused. I mean during the Scottish referendum, the pro-independence people were attacking the Tories implying that one should vote yes because of party politics rather than outrages and abuses.

Your problem is in Quebec or in Catalonia there exists neither a valid threat to human rights nor an overwhelming popular support so you reduce it to 'feelings' and the absurd idea that if an independence movement exists at all it is always 100% due to abuses by a central government. This is ridiculous, the slave owners who controlled the press in the American South twisted even conciliatory speeches by dough faced northerners into calls for the enslavement of the South. Nationalists can spin and twist and create discord without any actual abuses. Merely things that are not entirely in a province's best interests might be spun as such.

[viper37]

Well if they felt they were not "Americans" or "Colonists" or whatever they just would have returned to Great Britain.

Choice #1: Get to Great Britain.  Start from scratch, buy your own house or farm after you lost everything. Plus, you get a month long boat trip.
Choice #2: 2 days boat trip.  Get to Nova Scotia, Eastern Townships or Upper Canada.  Get free land, the natives and the pesky French Catholic have been deported a few years earlier.  Get monetary compensation for your property lost while you were loyal to the crown.  Get to be with other people thinking just like you.

I can't see why I would chose #1.  Some certainly did, but they had positions waiting for them over in the UK.

False. See 'Olive Branch Petition'.

However, the petition was followed by the July 6 Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, making its success in London improbable
From what I remember of that, and Wiki seems to confirm my memory, it was an attempt by a few delegates to avoid a full blown confrontation with the British, but most weren't serious about it, and the fact  that the other declaration of July 6th was passed even before the first one reached London makes the attempt dubious in its sincerity.  Maybe Adams&co where stuck in the bathroom while the first one was voted

By the way many Germans fought on the American side as well. I think the Germans referred to Yorktown as the German battle since huge percentages of all three armies were Germans.

Well, the Hessian troops (technically, only half of the Germans) represented 25% of all British troops during the Revolution.  I'd say that's pretty big.  And American propaganda did portray them as strangers (technically true) to this conflict.

And the American Revolution is, IMO, just that sort of situation.

Because you were victorious.  The same sort of abuse, even worst, happenned in England, Ireland, Scotland, Quebec, India, all over British territories.  Only the 13 colonies rebelled.  The Canadians did not follow, the Yankee settlers of Nova Scotia did not follow, the Newfoundlanders did not follow, half of the Iroquois did not follow, people from the Bahamas and other British posession did not rebel.

And there is this part:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Colonies#Government

The Royal government in London after 1680 took an increasing interest in the affairs of the colonies—which were growing rapidly in population and wealth so as to rival the homeland. In 1680, only Virginia was a royal colony; by 1720 half were under the control of Royal governors. These governors were appointees closely tied to the government in London. Historians before the 1880s emphasized American nationalism. However Intellectual leadership after that was held by the "Imperial school" led by Herbert L. Osgood, George Louis Beer, Charles McLean Andrews, and Lawrence H. Gipson. They dominated colonial historiography into the 1940s. They emphasized, and often praised, the attention London gave to all the colonies. There was never a threat (before the 1770s) that any colony would revolt or seek independence.[10]

No they felt they were the same as other British Subjects and entitled to representation. Also, as I said, there was over 100 years of precedent that said that was how British Colonies worked and you know how British people are about precedent. 

The British were very invested in their colonies, and I've already demonstrated that most other British did not enjoy the priviledges Americans were asking in the names of their british rights.

While I am not familiar with the specific franchise rules in each colony this might just be because a much higher percentage of Americans were land owners. The Brits back in blighty lacked Native Americans to steal land from.

The vast majority of whitemen were eligible to vote in America.

Ah but you forget that most of the colonies were set up during the era of the English Revolution/Civil War which was all about taxation having to be approved by consent of the governed.

Yeah, I'm not too strong on British history.  Not even sure what Cromwell really changed.  Most people who talk about British history emphasize the Magna Carta but seem to pass over Cromwell revoltion.  or maybe it's just a Canadian thing, rebelling against the King and such.

Which Americans? There were pretty much 14 different responses and 14 different policies.

I don't know which Americans, I wasn't there, so I couldn't tell you which one of your ancestors thought it was a bad thing for Catholic french speakers to hold any kind of position in a government   But seeing as the Quebec act was considered an intolerable act, there must have been something there.

I do not think I ever addressed parliamentary votes at all.

In the other thread, you were opposed to a declaration of independance by the parliament, the way the Catalan government wants to do it.

And?

It's not a prerequisite or a necessity, although the preferred way according to me, for whatever it is worth.

If all that is required then each time a region is on the short end of election they can threaten independence to get their way and intimidate the majority into giving them concessions. You just cannot run a democracy or government like that.

Then the other way is to crush the minority?

My position is neither strict nor does it require a valid referendum. My position is it requires both a demonstration of overwhelming popular support and a valid grievance. So, for example, 100% of the South Carolina Legislature voted to secede from the Union in December of 1860. A clear demonstration of overwhelming popular support. But their grievance, that their right to keep slaves was being endangered, is not sufficient a grievance for me to consider that a valid cause for independence.

the problem is you pose yourself as an external observer to determine what is a valid grievance.  I do not live in Catalonia. I have no rights to vote there, or to tell them what option is the best.  My position is the same as for Scotland: the people will decide by themselves if they have valid grievances or not.  All I can says is any promise of decentralization by the Federal government during an independance campaign is a lie, like it was in Canada, like it was in the UK.

But in most situations where it makes sense to break off and form a new country you probably lack the ability to hold a valid referendum so that would be a pretty ridiculous requirement. I mean if a central authority is enabling you to hold free fair elections on things like that then I would question the entire justification for thinking your rights were being abused.

Now, by your own admission, you say the the kind of abuse you require for there being a real reason, in your eyes, to declare independance, would not allow for a democratic process to take place for achieving independance, leaving only one option, outright rebellion.

So, basically, what you need to achieve independance is get right to the point where there will one slaughter to many.  Take the Syrian revolution.  Not an independance fight, but a revolution to change the government, it is not identical, but similar to the situations you describe.  For years, the government has abused its population, executed citizens, tortured them, probably repressed a rebellion or two in a blood bath.

At the right moment, there was a peaceful protest (though Assad's supporters maintain the rebels fired first, the protest was not all peaceful), like there were others in many other Arab countries.  The repression was brutal and violent.  As it is in Saudi Arabia with any kind of protest, is it was in Bahrein during the Arab spring.

I am likely to think that these people felt oppressed by their government.  If I look at this map here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring#/media/File:Arab_Spring_and_Regional_Conflict_Map.svg
I see a lot of protest in many countries.  But only minor protests in Saudi Arabia.  According to you, since there is no popular support for changes in Saudi Arabia, it would mean their rights are not oppressed at all.  Am I correct?

See, I believe you put the bar way too high with only one solution possible, rebellion, and it takes *a lot* and I mean *a lot* of abuse to push a people toward rebellion and even then, you need extraordinary timing.

I, on the contrary, believe in democracy.  If part of a State wishes to secede, then by all rights, it should have this right.  Otherwise, you are creating an abuse, just as the European colonial powers fighting to keep their empires.

Your problem is in Quebec or in Catalonia there exists neither a valid threat to human rights nor an overwhelming popular support so you reduce it to 'feelings' and the absurd idea that if an independence movement exists at all it is always 100% due to abuses by a central government.

Not 100%, but at least 50%+1

This is ridiculous, the slave owners who controlled the press in the American South twisted even conciliatory speeches by dough faced northerners into calls for the enslavement of the South. Nationalists can spin and twist and create discord without any actual abuses. Merely things that are not entirely in a province's best interests might be spun as such.

There was a clear abuse for the South has you threatened their way of life and their financial security.  That it was justified to be threatened because slavery was (and is) immoral is another debate, entirely.

[Razgovory]

Okay, Grumbler has a point that you need to stop using Wikipedia as your source.