How Many Mississippi Voters Wish the South Had Won the Civil War?

[Lettow77]

 This discussion seems so venomous, it pains me to read it. You gentlemen are associates of the same forum- please don't be so pedantic and unpleasant to each other. It's a bit wearying- and as such i've bowed out of the conversation, until now, only to say that it really doesn't seem befitting for anyone to do.

I know grumbler has that reputation, but does anyone really enjoy this sort of thing? I think I used to, but I can't be sure.

[Berkut]

Do you feel that, either in the 19th century, or the 21st, that the US could ignore or deny the clearly expressed wish of some region to seceed from the United States?

In all but the most severe circumstances absolutely.  But if they had a reason that was justified the whole country would probably be collapsing anyway.

But who is to judge how severe the circumstances.  You?  The President?

Why not the democratic expression of the people involved?  You know - self-determination?

I am aware that because of the precedent of the Civil War the US does seem to think of itself as indivisible.  But dare I say it - that makes the USA a hypocrite.  Since at least as far back as Wilson's 14 points the USA has long championed the right of self-determination for other peoples of the world.  It has supported decolonialism on the grounds of self-determination.  It supported the independence of the nations of Austria-Hungary, the peoples of the Soviet Union, and most recently of the Kosovars.

And why are you so threatened by this?  Do you really think, say, Alaska is going to go out and vote on independence any time soon?

And there is the counter example of the Philipines - the only area of American sovereignty that was ultimately granted its independence that I can think of.  What makes the Philipines divisible, but not Texas?

I answered all this in my first response to you.

If you don't want to discuss the matter, you could have just not hit the "reply" button.

But I do want to discuss it - I just addressed all your concerns in my first post - hence there is little to add since you didn't actually respond to that post.

The issue is not simple, and does not have a simple answer. I think I illustrated that very well when I pointed out that your claim that "self-determination" was some kind of over-riding principle was both false from a historical perspective, and impossible to actually implement from a logical perspective.

Now, I can understand if YOU do not want to actually discuss it, it is kind of a dry topic (although one I actually find very interesting when not reduced to slogans and idealistic jargon).

[Barrister]

Do you feel that, either in the 19th century, or the 21st, that the US could ignore or deny the clearly expressed wish of some region to seceed from the United States?

In all but the most severe circumstances absolutely.  But if they had a reason that was justified the whole country would probably be collapsing anyway.

But who is to judge how severe the circumstances.  You?  The President?

Why not the democratic expression of the people involved?  You know - self-determination?

I am aware that because of the precedent of the Civil War the US does seem to think of itself as indivisible.  But dare I say it - that makes the USA a hypocrite.  Since at least as far back as Wilson's 14 points the USA has long championed the right of self-determination for other peoples of the world.  It has supported decolonialism on the grounds of self-determination.  It supported the independence of the nations of Austria-Hungary, the peoples of the Soviet Union, and most recently of the Kosovars.

And why are you so threatened by this?  Do you really think, say, Alaska is going to go out and vote on independence any time soon?

And there is the counter example of the Philipines - the only area of American sovereignty that was ultimately granted its independence that I can think of.  What makes the Philipines divisible, but not Texas?

I answered all this in my first response to you.

If you don't want to discuss the matter, you could have just not hit the "reply" button.

But I do want to discuss it - I just addressed all your concerns in my first post - hence there is little to add since you didn't actually respond to that post.

The issue is not simple, and does not have a simple answer. I think I illustrated that very well when I pointed out that your claim that "self-determination" was some kind of over-riding principle was both false from a historical perspective, and impossible to actually implement from a logical perspective.

Now, I can understand if YOU do not want to actually discuss it, it is kind of a dry topic (although one I actually find very interesting when not reduced to slogans and idealistic jargon).

As do I.  As someone with a long-time interest in both history, and of course Canadian politics, secession is a powerful topic in both.

Your first post said secession the US could ignore secession "In all but the most severe circumstances".  What are those severe circumstances you speak of?  I did not find your answer as clear as you seem to think it was, so could you please elaborate?

[Berkut]

As do I.  As someone with a long-time interest in both history, and of course Canadian politics, secession is a powerful topic in both.

Your first post said secession the US could ignore secession "In all but the most severe circumstances".  What are those severe circumstances you speak of?  I did not find your answer as clear as you seem to think it was, so could you please elaborate?

Hmm, I can't find anything like that in my first post, so am not sure what you mean.

But in a more general sense, the decisions to support a particular peoples/culture/political group/whatever violent attempt to secede is based on a few things, I think.

1. Is it the will of a significant majority of the people in question to actually secede?
2. Why do the want to secede? This is AT LEAST as important as #1.
2a. For whatever reason they want to secede, is it the case that they cannot address this issue via the normal means of the political structure in which they exist currently? Does that political structure include fair representation for the people involved? Are they being oppressed?
2b. Is the issue over which they are willing to fight actually legitimate. IE, do they want freedom from tyranny, or do they want freedom to be tyrants themselves?
3. What about the people in the affected area who do NOT wish to secede, even if this is a minority? Will they be fairly represented if the secession does succeed? Is there some reason to believe that the new nation will be more liberal than what it is replacing, and take into account the rights of the new minority?
4. Is the new political contstruct actually viable, politically, culturally, economically? Will it be able to defend itself, will it need to defend itself?

So lets talk some examples. Did the circa 1860s South meet these criteria?

1. Probably - as long as we ignore the slaves, it seemed clear a majorirty of the people in the South did in fact wish to secede.
2.  Clearly not - whatever legitimate beefs the south had with Northern "interference", there were political structures in place to allow them to address those issues in a peaceful and fair manner. The South was not being oppressed under some non-representative political system where they had no voice in the decisions.
3. The South falls down here as well. There is no reason to think that the new Southern nation would be an improvement on the USA, in fact, since the puropse of forming it is with the express intention of being allowed to continue enslaving millions of people, we can safely decide that no, the South would NOT be willing to respect the rights of their citizens.
4. Can they pull it off? Apparently not, since they got their asses kicked, and politically would likely have fallen apart even if they had suceeded.

I think Canada is dealing with Quebec exactly right - they are not refusing to consider secession, but they are saying that a simple majority expressing the desire to secede would only the the START of that process. A necessary, but far, far, FAR from sufficient condition.

Now, how about examples where we can and clearly would support succession? There is an entire set of pretty easy examples, of course - the cases where clearly different cultures and nations were subjugated by conquerors with the intent of exploitation for the gain of their "foreign" masters. Ex-Soviet republics, Poland under the Nazis, etc., etc. Here it is clear that the people want to be separate, they have legitimate grievances that are almost certainly not capable of being addressed via the existent political structure, that political structure is generally pretty shitty (hence there is reason to hope that the new one will be an improvement) etc., etc.

It is too complex to evaluate on anything other than a case by case basis. The mantra of self-determination is a starting point, not an ending point.

[Razgovory]

This discussion seems so venomous, it pains me to read it. You gentlemen are associates of the same forum- please don't be so pedantic and unpleasant to each other. It's a bit wearying- and as such i've bowed out of the conversation, until now, only to say that it really doesn't seem befitting for anyone to do.

I know grumbler has that reputation, but does anyone really enjoy this sort of thing? I think I used to, but I can't be sure.

It doesn't seem to bad to me.  Give it another week and I think we can get really vicious.


I believe the term "Self-determination" is somewhat vague.  It doesn't mean a people have to be an independent country.  The south had self-determination within the Union.  It elected it's own leaders and could and did govern itself.  In fact it had a fairly dominate position in American politics.

I suppose secession could be possible for a US state, perhaps through a constitutional change.  It would be difficult though.  The Southern process of "I'm taking my ball and leaving.  And some of your stuff.  And I'm going to shoot at you on the way out", carries much less legal weight.

[Lettow77]

"3. The South falls down here as well. There is no reason to think that the new Southern nation would be an improvement on the USA, in fact, since the puropse of forming it is with the express intention of being allowed to continue enslaving millions of people, we can safely decide that no, the South would NOT be willing to respect the rights of their citizens. "

Er, but Berkut, those weren't citizens..

[Razgovory]

"3. The South falls down here as well. There is no reason to think that the new Southern nation would be an improvement on the USA, in fact, since the puropse of forming it is with the express intention of being allowed to continue enslaving millions of people, we can safely decide that no, the South would NOT be willing to respect the rights of their citizens. "

Er, but Berkut, those weren't citizens..

Failure to respect basic human rights does not mean those rights don't exist.  Also the South had a bad habit of lynching people.  People who were citizens.

[The Brain]

Sovereignty seems to me to be one of the less complex issues around. If you can grab an area and defeat anyone who tries to take it from you then you're done.

[Barrister]

"3. The South falls down here as well. There is no reason to think that the new Southern nation would be an improvement on the USA, in fact, since the puropse of forming it is with the express intention of being allowed to continue enslaving millions of people, we can safely decide that no, the South would NOT be willing to respect the rights of their citizens. "

Er, but Berkut, those weren't citizens..

Which is why the south was full of fail.

Surely even you would acknowledge slavery as a moral disaster.

[Berkut]

Sovereignty seems to me to be one of the less complex issues around. If you can grab an area and defeat anyone who tries to take it from you then you're done.

True, but I think we are talking about what circumstances one nation (presumably OUR nations) should support someone elses quest for sovereignty.

[Berkut]

"3. The South falls down here as well. There is no reason to think that the new Southern nation would be an improvement on the USA, in fact, since the puropse of forming it is with the express intention of being allowed to continue enslaving millions of people, we can safely decide that no, the South would NOT be willing to respect the rights of their citizens. "

Er, but Berkut, those weren't citizens..

Human rights are not amenable to being defined away as a matter of convenience for those who feel that they were born with the right to enslave others.

[The Brain]

Sovereignty seems to me to be one of the less complex issues around. If you can grab an area and defeat anyone who tries to take it from you then you're done.

True, but I think we are talking about what circumstances one nation (presumably OUR nations) should support someone elses quest for sovereignty.

Oil?

[Eddie Teach]

Human rights are not amenable to being defined away as a matter of convenience for those who feel that they were born with the right to enslave others.

Human rights only exist to the extent that humans recognize the concept of human rights.

[Faeelin]

Human rights only exist to the extent that humans recognize the concept of human rights.

But since this extends to the concept of secession as well, I'm not sure what your point is.

[Neil]

"3. The South falls down here as well. There is no reason to think that the new Southern nation would be an improvement on the USA, in fact, since the puropse of forming it is with the express intention of being allowed to continue enslaving millions of people, we can safely decide that no, the South would NOT be willing to respect the rights of their citizens. "

Er, but Berkut, those weren't citizens..

Human rights are not amenable to being defined away as a matter of convenience for those who feel that they were born with the right to enslave others.