Mew!
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/04/25/how-many-mississippi-voters-wish-the-south-had-won-the-civil-war.aspx
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5228%2F5654721918_dd376f6a79.jpg&hash=f865cb01c1f761f8a86ac6e969e4904206a48bc5)
Quote
How Many Mississippi Voters Wish the South Had Won the Civil War?
Posted Monday, April 25, 2011 2:03 PM | By David Weigel
Public Policy Polling has the number of the day:
Screen shot 2011-04-25 at 2.07.42 PM
Thirty-eight percent of Republicans! Twenty-two percent of Democrats -- which is really something when you consider that the Democratic vote in federal elections is mostly black.
I can't get enough of these Public Policy Polling surveys, and to tell the truth I wish they were doing more. How many Republicans in North Dakota think that Barack Obama might be the antichrist? How many Democrats in Cook County, Illinois think the planes that hit the World Trade Center were actually holograms? How many people think tax cuts always increase revenue?
So is Scips part of that 15%?
The South has fallen pretty far to come up with only these numbers, but this is enough patriots to form the basis for independence.
Well in defense of the South, Mississippi is by far the dumbest state there. And I'm including Arkansas.
Mississippi is glorious, raz!
Second only to South Carolina!
Hey, I am living in Tennesse!
Fort Campbell is right in thee border between Tennesse and Kentucky.
I am presently in the northwest part of TN, on the KY border as well- we are reasonably close.
Be careful- it isn't really a very fortuitous place to have your fort.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_GAMSNC_0421.pdf
Here are the full results of the poll, in the interests of disclosure.
Looking at the results, it is heartening to see that the 18-29 generation is more in line with voters 65+, and the baleful generations in between have not been able to effectively transmit their opinions.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 28, 2011, 09:58:43 PM
... but this is enough patriots to form the basis for independence.
Or an FBI/ATF raid.
What % of Mississippians were in favour of secession in the first place...?
The number of people polled is so small, though, that I am not really sure what should be done with it.
also, it's disheartening y'all actually speak approvingly of attacking people who support breaking off from the union- whither democracy?
Edit: Mississippi's legislature voted 84-15 to secede, in 1860.
Quote from: citizen k on April 28, 2011, 10:16:53 PM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 28, 2011, 09:58:43 PM
... but this is enough patriots to form the basis for independence.
Or an FBI/ATF raid.
Hopefully this time when they do a surprise raid they don't tell reporters about it before hand.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 28, 2011, 10:20:34 PM
The number of people polled is so small, though, that I am not really sure what should be done with it.
also, it's disheartening y'all actually speak approvingly of attacking people who support breaking off from the union- whither democracy?
Secession is contrary to the principles of Democracy.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 28, 2011, 10:21:33 PM
Secession is contrary to the principles of Democracy.
How so?
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 28, 2011, 10:23:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 28, 2011, 10:21:33 PM
Secession is contrary to the principles of Democracy.
How so?
Democracy is all about majority rule. Minorities breaking free goes against that.
Democracy is all about consent of the governed. Being unable to withdraw consent makes consent a meaningless concept.
America latched to China would be a tyranny of China, essentially. Saying America's right to withdraw from such a hypothetical union because that's be undemocratic is absurd.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 28, 2011, 10:23:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 28, 2011, 10:21:33 PM
Secession is contrary to the principles of Democracy.
How so?
A Democracy is meaningless if you can simply opt when laws are passed you don't like. A government, any government, has to be able to force people to comply with the law. Secession obstructs that. Even the Confederate recognized this and did not allow States to secede from the CSA.
Lettow, do you live in Clarksville TN, or anywhere near the I-24?
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2011, 10:36:17 PM
Lettow, do you live in Clarksville TN, or anywhere near the I-24?
Talk some sense in the boy, Maybe Lettow could join the army. Would probably do him some good. Maybe the Navy would be better. :hmm:
Unfortunately, Martin is at the solid western corner of the state. We are separated by just under 100 miles, or i'd be delighted to meet you.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 28, 2011, 10:20:34 PM
also, it's disheartening y'all actually speak approvingly of attacking people who support breaking off from the union- whither democracy?
In 1861 55% of the population of Mississippi were slaves. Real Democratic there.
They weren't citizens of the state- they had no role in the democracy, and were hardly unique in this respect.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 28, 2011, 10:40:36 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2011, 10:36:17 PM
Lettow, do you live in Clarksville TN, or anywhere near the I-24?
Talk some sense in the boy, Maybe Lettow could join the army. Would probably do him some good. Maybe the Navy would be better. :hmm:
I don't think Lettuce have what it takes to survive infantry
basic training.
Let alone all the other shit we have to go through to enhance and maintain our combat skills.
That's quite fine. I am a gentleman of letters- I could die bravely, I think, but I would never be a good soldier. Not enough discipline, or physical endurance either.
I think with some preparation I sure could get through basic, but i'll leave the posturing to you. You are one of this century's valiant warriors, after all :3
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 28, 2011, 11:23:41 PM
That's quite fine. I am a gentleman of letters- I could die bravely, I think, but I would never be a good soldier. Not enough discipline, or physical endurance either.
I think with some preparation I sure could get through basic, but i'll leave the posturing to you. You are one of this century's valiant warriors, after all :3
Actually, I see myself as a last century soldier.
I do not consider myself a warrior, since "warrior" in my original little corner of the world mean undisciplined dudes with weapons.
I am a professional of the sword, I do this for a living. I am a professional soldier.
I live by the rules, the "profession of arms", and the US Army values.
Can you survive basic training?
Of course. It is not that hard.
It is your mental actitud which I doubt.
You see, there is no room for the Confederancy in the real world.
Any wanna-be Timothy McVeigh will be crushed.
The Army will either make you a better human being, or break you.
You will be either be willing to fucking DIE for your fellow soldiers, to your left or right,
or you will descend into shit and drugs and find yourself chaptered out of the Army
with an dishonorable discharge, with no benefits and no GI Bill.
I have heard the soldier vs warrior thing before. From you, actually.
Timothy McVeigh wannabe? thats uh..an accusation, I guess :unsure:
Anyway, talking about willingness to die so excitably is great, and I don't doubt -you- mean it, but please understand you fight in a pretty incredible army with incredibly low casualties. Sure, be prepared to die, but also realize so many of you actually will.
I am not sure you'd last on the somme, siege. Or rather, I am sure you wouldn't.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 28, 2011, 11:50:56 PM
I am not sure you'd last on the somme, siege. Or rather, I am sure you wouldn't.
If there is anyone on this board that would be capable of having the "Jolly-Good, Can-Do" attitude towards almost-certain death in order to accomplish a military goal laid before him, Siege is it.
Yeah, I conceded as much in my post. I certainly believe his talk.
That still doesn't change the fact that he wouldn't last in the Somme, though. The American Army doesn't ask impossible situations of its soldiers where the only option is to die, fortunately enough.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 28, 2011, 11:50:56 PM
I am not sure you'd last on the somme, siege. Or rather, I am sure you wouldn't.
But that's the whole point.
If you want to survive, you'll hesitate when the time comes and die faster.
Believe me, there is no weapon on Earth that can kill me.
Do you know why?
Because I believe my cause is greater than my life.
Islam is the greatest enemy humankind have ever faced.
Muslims are drones, they have no sense of individuality.
They blindly follow their leaders.
They blindly follow a dude that by today standards would be a mass murderer.
But if we do not stop Islam, Islam will conquer our homes, it will infiltrate our democracies, our way of life.
We have no choice but to fight.
We did not chose this war.
We did not start this war.
But if we do not succeed in this war, there will be no "us" anymore.
It is up to you.
Do you want your children to be drones?
Do you want your granddaughters to wear hijab?
They will feel ashamed of the old pictures of their grandparents.
Do you think Egypt was always a muslim state?
It was part of the Eastern Roman Empire, what we call The Byzantine Empire.
Look at Egypt today.
That is what the muslims want for us.
Shall we bow to their wishes?
Er, Siege, you realize resolving to die does not make you invincible, right?
I sure hope you don't drink your own kool-aid as much as it seems. Muslims are not either drones. It isn't that simple.
Do you think Egypt was always part of the Byzantine Empire?
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 29, 2011, 12:14:21 AM
Er, Siege, you realize resolving to die does not make you invincible, right?
I sure hope you don't drink your own kool-aid as much as it seems. Muslims are not either drones. It isn't that simple.
Do you think Egypt was always part of the Byzantine Empire?
The people that conquered Egypt before Islam are not our enemies today.
Islam is.
Keep yourself grounded.
And the resolve to win no matter what, its your best chance for survival.
Hesitation will only get you killed, you and your buddies.
Do not overstimate the battle of somme.
Lots of soldiers died there, but lots of soldiers did survive.
The diference between you and me, is that you think caution can save your skin.
Quote from: Valmy on April 28, 2011, 10:57:21 PM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 28, 2011, 10:20:34 PM
also, it's disheartening y'all actually speak approvingly of attacking people who support breaking off from the union- whither democracy?
In 1861 55% of the population of Mississippi were slaves. Real Democratic there.
To be fair, in 1861 roughly half the people in every Union state (Confederate too, of course) were women, and couldn't vote either. :P
Were there any black women?
Quote from: The Brain on April 29, 2011, 01:11:54 AM
Were there any black women?
There were only the three.
Quote from: Siege on April 29, 2011, 12:23:53 AM
The diference between you and me, is that you think caution can save your skin.
Does this mean you photoshop bunny ears and a tail on your Miley pics?
Please, don't be absurd!
Cat ears show her to be demure, fickle, elegant, energetic- she is a mercurial thing, self-assured in her sexuality but also with an unattainable aura of refinement
Usagimimi, rather, show her to be a cheap slut. Stick with the cat ears.
Ratification of the Constitution is a holy covenant, Lettow. You break it, you must be purged with fire.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 28, 2011, 11:01:25 PM
They weren't citizens of the state- they had no role in the democracy, and were hardly unique in this respect.
The denizens of the South had declared themselves non-citizens of the US in declaring themselves independent, and so had no role in democracy any longer. Therefor it wasn't a violation of democracy to reclaim national territory from them.
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2011, 10:08:43 PM
Hey, I am living in Tennesse!
Fort Campbell is right in thee border between Tennesse and Kentucky.
If you can't kill Ayraæbs and Mooslimbs anymore will Jew Hatin' Rednex do?
American Rednecks don't mind Jews.
The good thing about Mississippi? It makes Alabama look good.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 28, 2011, 09:58:43 PM
The South has fallen pretty far to come up with only these numbers, but this is enough patriots to form the basis for independence.
A minority?
Its not really.
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2011, 11:41:57 PM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 28, 2011, 11:23:41 PM
That's quite fine. I am a gentleman of letters- I could die bravely, I think, but I would never be a good soldier. Not enough discipline, or physical endurance either.
I think with some preparation I sure could get through basic, but i'll leave the posturing to you. You are one of this century's valiant warriors, after all :3
Actually, I see myself as a last century soldier.
I do not consider myself a warrior, since "warrior" in my original little corner of the world mean undisciplined dudes with weapons.
I am a professional of the sword, I do this for a living. I am a professional soldier.
I live by the rules, the "profession of arms", and the US Army values.
Can you survive basic training?
Of course. It is not that hard.
It is your mental actitud which I doubt.
You see, there is no room for the Confederancy in the real world.
Any wanna-be Timothy McVeigh will be crushed.
The Army will either make you a better human being, or break you.
You will be either be willing to fucking DIE for your fellow soldiers, to your left or right,
or you will descend into shit and drugs and find yourself chaptered out of the Army
with an dishonorable discharge, with no benefits and no GI Bill.
Oh come now, lots of people muddle through the army. Not everyone is on the front lines fighting. Still, I think the physical exertion and regimentation my do his mind some good. Clear some of the cobwebs and help him focus on other stuff.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 28, 2011, 09:58:43 PM
The South has fallen pretty far to come up with only these numbers, but this is enough patriots to form the basis for independence.
Likewise, going by the handful of Mississippians I know (Scippy being the lone exception), I'm surprised it's not worse than this.
For those that did wish the South had won, I think that's just some residual sentimentality and an expression of regional pride more than a deep-seeded desire for a Confederacy. I think if most of them thought through all the ramifications (or were forced to live through them), they'd be less likely to long for it.
I do get a kick out of having a southern redneck-type explain to me how they reconcile their US patriotism with their propensity to fly or display the confederate flag.
Btw, with all the controversy surrounding the confederate flag, I think a great compromise would be for southerners to switch to the actual first national flag ("Stars & Bars") of the Confederacy rather than the battle flag. That way, they'd still get to display their Confederate pride or whatever, and hardly anyone else would have a clue as to what the hell the flag represents.
Quote from: derspiess on April 29, 2011, 10:05:05 AM
Btw, with all the controversy surrounding the confederate flag, I think a great compromise would be for southerners to switch to the actual first national flag ("Stars & Bars") of the Confederacy rather than the battle flag. That way, they'd still get to display their Confederate pride or whatever, and hardly anyone else would have a clue as to what the hell the flag represents.
This is exactly what Texas does for the 'Six Flags Over Texas'. We never use the battle flag.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_flags_over_Texas
Quote from: derspiess on April 29, 2011, 10:05:05 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 28, 2011, 09:58:43 PM
The South has fallen pretty far to come up with only these numbers, but this is enough patriots to form the basis for independence.
Likewise, going by the handful of Mississippians I know (Scippy being the lone exception), I'm surprised it's not worse than this.
For those that did wish the South had won, I think that's just some residual sentimentality and an expression of regional pride more than a deep-seeded desire for a Confederacy. I think if most of them thought through all the ramifications (or were forced to live through them), they'd be less likely to long for it.
Ramifications like Atlanta being firebombed by B-52s. :hmm:
I dunno, they have a nice aquarium, and a Six Flags.
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2011, 10:09:16 AM
This is exactly what Texas does for the 'Six Flags Over Texas'. We never use the battle flag.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_flags_over_Texas
Individuals don't do this much though, do they? I'm guessing there are relatively few Texans who fly the confederate flag at all, given the propensity to display the Texas flag.
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2011, 10:09:16 AM
This is exactly what Texas does for the 'Six Flags Over Texas'. We never use the battle flag.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_flags_over_Texas
That looks like some podunk African flag. Meh.
Quote from: derspiess on April 29, 2011, 10:14:14 AM
Individuals don't do this much though, do they? I'm guessing there are relatively few Texans who fly the confederate flag at all, given the propensity to display the Texas flag.
People do fly the Six Flags though. We have them waving above football stadiums and such across the State. But hardly anybody knows it is a Confederate Flag we are flying because well...it is the Stars and Bars.
For example it is not uncommon to have something like this on your desk: (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flagpro.com%2Fstore%2Fmedia%2F6-flags-over-texas.jpg&hash=41e3b1cfc848f8fc8614dc8f89ad51f2c6a1a547)
And people in East Texas, where southern identity is strongest, do fly the Confederate Flag but not nearly as often as they used to of course.
Quote from: derspiess on April 29, 2011, 10:05:05 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 28, 2011, 09:58:43 PM
The South has fallen pretty far to come up with only these numbers, but this is enough patriots to form the basis for independence.
Likewise, going by the handful of Mississippians I know (Scippy being the lone exception), I'm surprised it's not worse than this.
For those that did wish the South had won, I think that's just some residual sentimentality and an expression of regional pride more than a deep-seeded desire for a Confederacy. I think if most of them thought through all the ramifications (or were forced to live through them), they'd be less likely to long for it.
I do get a kick out of having a southern redneck-type explain to me how they reconcile their US patriotism with their propensity to fly or display the confederate flag.
Btw, with all the controversy surrounding the confederate flag, I think a great compromise would be for southerners to switch to the actual first national flag ("Stars & Bars") of the Confederacy rather than the battle flag. That way, they'd still get to display their Confederate pride or whatever, and hardly anyone else would have a clue as to what the hell the flag represents.
Well, about 20% in that poll also opposed interracial marriage.
Quote from: Tyr on April 29, 2011, 07:41:34 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 28, 2011, 09:58:43 PM
The South has fallen pretty far to come up with only these numbers, but this is enough patriots to form the basis for independence.
A minority?
Its not really.
What do you think the percentage of Americans supporting the American War of Independence were?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 29, 2011, 10:28:24 AM
Well, about 20% in that poll also opposed interracial marriage.
That is also lower than I would expect.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 29, 2011, 11:01:00 AM
Quote from: Tyr on April 29, 2011, 07:41:34 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 28, 2011, 09:58:43 PM
The South has fallen pretty far to come up with only these numbers, but this is enough patriots to form the basis for independence.
A minority?
Its not really.
What do you think the percentage of Americans supporting the American War of Independence were?
Percentage of
Americans?
100% of course. :P
Quote from: Habbaku on April 29, 2011, 11:01:00 AM
What do you think the percentage of Americans supporting the American War of Independence were?
Significantly more than the third that is frequently claimed.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 29, 2011, 11:41:19 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 29, 2011, 11:01:00 AM
What do you think the percentage of Americans supporting the American War of Independence were?
Significantly more than the third that is frequently claimed.
Link?
http://hnn.us/articles/5641.html (http://hnn.us/articles/5641.html)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 29, 2011, 11:51:41 AM
http://hnn.us/articles/5641.html (http://hnn.us/articles/5641.html)
That article is long on verbiage and very short on the actual issue. It seems to assume that the sole source of the 1/3 number is a letter written by Adams, then doesn't go on to provide any sources contradicting the number itself.
Why did you think that link would suffice, exactly?
Quote from: Habbaku on April 29, 2011, 12:12:04 PM
Why did you think that link would suffice, exactly?
Because I don't care overmuch and because it beats the link you've offered to contradict it. :mellow:
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2011, 10:19:43 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 29, 2011, 10:14:14 AM
Individuals don't do this much though, do they? I'm guessing there are relatively few Texans who fly the confederate flag at all, given the propensity to display the Texas flag.
People do fly the Six Flags though. We have them waving above football stadiums and such across the State. But hardly anybody knows it is a Confederate Flag we are flying because well...it is the Stars and Bars.
I know. And when I send the bombers, so will all of you.
I'm not Lettow's biggest fan around here, but he kind of hast a point.
By the early 20th century, it was generally held that people have a right to national self-determination. How many new countries have come into being in the mean time? and while generally the new countries have come from the break up of more or less authoritarian states, that ahs not always been the case - the dissolution of Czechoslovakia being the most obvious.
Now applying modern standards to 1861 (somewhat problematic, but here you go) there are two problems with southern succession. The biggest problem being the lack of any national referendum, which is pretty much universally seen as necessary. The second problem, going along with the first, was the lack of any rights to the very significant black / slave population. We generally held South Africa to be less than a true democracy for just this reason.
Nevertheless, if due to orbiting mind control lasers or some other equally improbable circumstance, a majority of southerners voted in favour of re-creating the CSA I can't see how the USA would have any moral or legal right to stand in their way.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 29, 2011, 02:10:49 PM
I know. And when I send the bombers, so will all of you.
Just think I have to endure not one but TWO Bourbon royal flags all over my State :grr:
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 02:17:43 PM
Now applying modern standards to 1861 (somewhat problematic, but here you go) there are two problems with southern succession. The biggest problem being the lack of any national referendum, which is pretty much universally seen as necessary.
:hmm: Maybe not an actual referendum, but IIRC all of the Southern state legislatures voted to secede, and these were duly-elected representatives of the people at the state level. Exceptions being Kentucky and Delaware... I think maybe the Missouri and Maryland legislatures tried to vote to secede but were blocked by the intervention of federal troops. Memory of all of this is kind of fuzzy.
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 02:17:43 PM
By the early 20th century, it was generally held that people have a right to national self-determination.
And what a fine instrument of mass genocide that principle has been. Individual rights are what is important not what nationality the majority feel they belong to.
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2011, 02:19:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 02:17:43 PM
Now applying modern standards to 1861 (somewhat problematic, but here you go) there are two problems with southern succession. The biggest problem being the lack of any national referendum, which is pretty much universally seen as necessary.
:hmm: Maybe not an actual referendum, but IIRC all of the Southern state legislatures voted to secede, and these were duly-elected representatives of the people at the state level.
Very few examples of widely accepted independence movements arising from a mere legislative vote.
Our own Supreme Court of course very famously looked into the very concept of succession (of course in the context of Quebec). A referendum was implicit in the right of Quebecers to be independent.
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1998/1998canlii793/1998canlii793.html
IMO Kentucky behaved: honorably. But the Confederates fucked up and forced Kentucky into the Union. Dumbass Leonidas Polk. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2011, 02:21:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 02:17:43 PM
By the early 20th century, it was generally held that people have a right to national self-determination.
And what a fine instrument of mass genocide that principle has been. Individual rights are what is important not what nationality the majority feel they belong to.
You can say that if you wish, but it doesn't make it true. Rights to national self-determination are well established by now.
There's no way the secessionists would have lost plebiscites in any of the states that seceded. Well, barring letting the slaves vote that is. :P
Sorry, they wouldn't have passed the literacy test. :(
Texas actually had a referendum.
But even though the election was a landslide I do not regard it as legitimate because, well as the declaration of secession itself says:
QuoteWe hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
The only legitimate reason for independence and secession is if individual rights are being suppressed. Independence for any other purpose, but especially for the purpose of denying them, can never be legitimate no matter how popular it might be.
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 02:29:19 PM
You can say that if you wish, but it doesn't make it true. Rights to national self-determination are well established by now.
And it is a great force for evil in the world and it has been consistently since its establishment.
Beeb, you are really, really wrong.
There is no established and unilateral right to self-determination. This is kind of obvious, since if there were such a thing, every nation on the planet would be fragmenting.
Hell, I am quite sure I can find, today, some defined geographical area where a majority of the people wish to form some separate nation within just about any nation on the planet. Then, I could find some geographical area within that new nation, where some majority there would want to rejoin the old nation, or even form yet another new nation. You could literally repeat this pretty much forever.
There is not "right to self-determination" recognized by any international body. There is a principle that people, as a group, have interests in being fairly represented, and if in fact they are not being so represented, they have some right to attempt to rectify that situation - potentially even violently if there are not other means to do so.
But the evaluation of that is very, very, VERY based on the particulars of the actual situation - not on any kind of generic "principle" that says that if you can find a area where 50%+1 of the people want to be some other country, then they can do so.
There is a difference between some Poles wanting to be free of Nazi Germany and some Quebecois wanting to be free of Canada, for example.
Quote from: Berkut on April 29, 2011, 02:54:09 PM
Beeb, you are really, really wrong.
There is no established and unilateral right to self-determination. This is kind of obvious, since if there were such a thing, every nation on the planet would be fragmenting.
Hell, I am quite sure I can find, today, some defined geographical area where a majority of the people wish to form some separate nation within just about any nation on the planet. Then, I could find some geographical area within that new nation, where some majority there would want to rejoin the old nation, or even form yet another new nation. You could literally repeat this pretty much forever.
There is not "right to self-determination" recognized by any international body. There is a principle that people, as a group, have interests in being fairly represented, and if in fact they are not being so represented, they have some right to attempt to rectify that situation - potentially even violently if there are not other means to do so.
But the evaluation of that is very, very, VERY based on the particulars of the actual situation - not on any kind of generic "principle" that says that if you can find a area where 50%+1 of the people want to be some other country, then they can do so.
There is a difference between some Poles wanting to be free of Nazi Germany and some Quebecois wanting to be free of Canada, for example.
Berk, I'm really, really not wrong.
I even cited a Supreme Court of Canada decision which proced I am not wrong.
Now I should correct you - the holding in the Quebec Independence reference was not that there was a
unilateral right to independence. That is a phrase you used, and which I pointedly did not.
From the headnote:
QuoteThe Constitution is more than a written text. It embraces the entire global system of rules and principles which govern the exercise of constitutional authority. A superficial reading of selected provisions of the written constitutional enactment, without more, may be misleading. It is necessary to make a more profound investigation of the underlying principles animating the whole of the Constitution, including the principles of federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minorities. Those principles must inform our overall appreciation of the constitutional rights and obligations that would come into play in the event that a clear majority of Quebecers votes on a clear question in favour of secession.
The Court in this Reference is required to consider whether Quebec has a right to unilateral secession. Arguments in support of the existence of such a right were primarily based on the principle of democracy. Democracy, however, means more than simple majority rule. Constitutional jurisprudence shows that democracy exists in the larger context of other constitutional values. Since Confederation, the people of the provinces and territories have created close ties of interdependence (economic, social, political and cultural) based on shared values that include federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minorities. A democratic decision of Quebecers in favour of secession would put those relationships at risk. The Constitution vouchsafes order and stability, and accordingly secession of a province "under the Constitution" could not be achieved unilaterally, that is, without principled negotiation with other participants in Confederation within the existing constitutional framework.
Our democratic institutions necessarily accommodate a continuous process of discussion and evolution, which is reflected in the constitutional right of each participant in the federation to initiate constitutional change. This right implies a reciprocal duty on the other participants to engage in discussions to address any legitimate initiative to change the constitutional order. A clear majority vote in Quebec on a clear question in favour of secession would confer democratic legitimacy on the secession initiative which all of the other participants in Confederation would have to recognize.
Quebec could not, despite a clear referendum result, purport to invoke a right of self-determination to dictate the terms of a proposed secession to the other parties to the federation. The democratic vote, by however strong a majority, would have no legal effect on its own and could not push aside the principles of federalism and the rule of law, the rights of individuals and minorities, or the operation of democracy in the other provinces or in Canada as a whole. Democratic rights under the Constitution cannot be divorced from constitutional obligations. Nor, however, can the reverse proposition be accepted: the continued existence and operation of the Canadian constitutional order could not be indifferent to a clear expression of a clear majority of Quebecers that they no longer wish to remain in Canada. The other provinces and the federal government would have no basis to deny the right of the government of Quebec to pursue secession should a clear majority of the people of Quebec choose that goal, so long as in doing so, Quebec respects the rights of others. The negotiations that followed such a vote would address the potential act of secession as well as its possible terms should in fact secession proceed. There would be no conclusions predetermined by law on any issue. Negotiations would need to address the interests of the other provinces, the federal government and Quebec and indeed the rights of all Canadians both within and outside Quebec, and specifically the rights of minorities.
The negotiation process would require the reconciliation of various rights and obligations by negotiation between two legitimate majorities, namely, the majority of the population of Quebec, and that of Canada as a whole. A political majority at either level that does not act in accordance with the underlying constitutional principles puts at risk the legitimacy of its exercise of its rights, and the ultimate acceptance of the result by the international community.
The task of the Court has been to clarify the legal framework within which political decisions are to be taken "under the Constitution" and not to usurp the prerogatives of the political forces that operate within that framework. The obligations identified by the Court are binding obligations under the Constitution. However, it will be for the political actors to determine what constitutes "a clear majority on a clear question" in the circumstances under which a future referendum vote may be taken. Equally, in the event of demonstrated majority support for Quebec secession, the content and process of the negotiations will be for the political actors to settle. The reconciliation of the various legitimate constitutional interests is necessarily committed to the political rather than the judicial realm precisely because that reconciliation can only be achieved through the give and take of political negotiations. To the extent issues addressed in the course of negotiation are political, the courts, appreciating their proper role in the constitutional scheme, would have no supervisory role.
And I disagree with your concept that we will necessarily see states fragment and atomize. We have seen a little bit of that in Africa and the Balkans, but such movements have been pretty limited all in all. First of all even in areas with some level of historic greivance, or distinct sense of national identity, we have not seen majorities voting in favour of independence. Quebec has voted against it. The Scottish nationalists have never held a referendum, knowing they would lose. Puerto Rica has voted and listed independence as a distant third option.
Second people know independence is highly disruptive and the outcome uncertain. You'd better have some pretty good reasons to want to jump off that particular ledge.
I'm also pretty sure the UN Charter says something about self-determination, but I can't find the reference yet.
Here we go:
Quote from: United Nations CharterArticle 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 03:06:31 PM
Puerto Rica has voted and listed independence as a distant third option.
I'm not sure this is the best example though because Puerto Rico's top choice was non of the above and the current status was one of the above choices. :P
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 03:06:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 29, 2011, 02:54:09 PM
Beeb, you are really, really wrong.
There is no established and unilateral right to self-determination. This is kind of obvious, since if there were such a thing, every nation on the planet would be fragmenting.
Hell, I am quite sure I can find, today, some defined geographical area where a majority of the people wish to form some separate nation within just about any nation on the planet. Then, I could find some geographical area within that new nation, where some majority there would want to rejoin the old nation, or even form yet another new nation. You could literally repeat this pretty much forever.
There is not "right to self-determination" recognized by any international body. There is a principle that people, as a group, have interests in being fairly represented, and if in fact they are not being so represented, they have some right to attempt to rectify that situation - potentially even violently if there are not other means to do so.
But the evaluation of that is very, very, VERY based on the particulars of the actual situation - not on any kind of generic "principle" that says that if you can find a area where 50%+1 of the people want to be some other country, then they can do so.
There is a difference between some Poles wanting to be free of Nazi Germany and some Quebecois wanting to be free of Canada, for example.
Berk, I'm really, really not wrong.
I even cited a Supreme Court of Canada decision which proced I am not wrong.
The decision you cited said nothing about what you claimed though - that Letttuce "had a point" and that there was some kind of right of self-determination that existed in some fashion that mean that people had some right to simply decide on their own that they want to be separate.
Quote
Now I should correct you - the holding in the Quebec Independence reference was not that there was a unilateral right to independence. That is a phrase you used, and which I pointedly did not.
Well, your point means nothing if we are not talking about the right of unilateral independence. Then you are just saying "Hey, we should consider what people want when it comes to self-determination". Well, yeah. Of course we should. That doesn't mean that the simple fact that a majority wishes to be separate means much of anything though.
Quote
From the headnote:
QuoteThe Constitution is more than a written text. It embraces the entire global system of rules and principles which govern the exercise of constitutional authority. A superficial reading of selected provisions of the written constitutional enactment, without more, may be misleading. It is necessary to make a more profound investigation of the underlying principles animating the whole of the Constitution, including the principles of federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minorities. Those principles must inform our overall appreciation of the constitutional rights and obligations that would come into play in the event that a clear majority of Quebecers votes on a clear question in favour of secession.
The Court in this Reference is required to consider whether Quebec has a right to unilateral secession. Arguments in support of the existence of such a right were primarily based on the principle of democracy. Democracy, however, means more than simple majority rule. Constitutional jurisprudence shows that democracy exists in the larger context of other constitutional values. Since Confederation, the people of the provinces and territories have created close ties of interdependence (economic, social, political and cultural) based on shared values that include federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minorities. A democratic decision of Quebecers in favour of secession would put those relationships at risk. The Constitution vouchsafes order and stability, and accordingly secession of a province "under the Constitution" could not be achieved unilaterally, that is, without principled negotiation with other participants in Confederation within the existing constitutional framework.
These pretty much completely agrees with what I said. The opinion of the majority is interesting, but hardly compelling.
And hence, no, Lettuce did NOT "have a point", since the entirety of his point was that democracy should somehow imply that the South had the unilateral right to secede.
Quote
Quote
Our democratic institutions necessarily accommodate a continuous process of discussion and evolution, which is reflected in the constitutional right of each participant in the federation to initiate constitutional change. This right implies a reciprocal duty on the other participants to engage in discussions to address any legitimate initiative to change the constitutional order. A clear majority vote in Quebec on a clear question in favour of secession would confer democratic legitimacy on the secession initiative which all of the other participants in Confederation would have to recognize.
Quebec could not, despite a clear referendum result, purport to invoke a right of self-determination to dictate the terms of a proposed secession to the other parties to the federation. The democratic vote, by however strong a majority, would have no legal effect on its own and could not push aside the principles of federalism and the rule of law, the rights of individuals and minorities, or the operation of democracy in the other provinces or in Canada as a whole. Democratic rights under the Constitution cannot be divorced from constitutional obligations. Nor, however, can the reverse proposition be accepted: the continued existence and operation of the Canadian constitutional order could not be indifferent to a clear expression of a clear majority of Quebecers that they no longer wish to remain in Canada. The other provinces and the federal government would have no basis to deny the right of the government of Quebec to pursue secession should a clear majority of the people of Quebec choose that goal, so long as in doing so, Quebec respects the rights of others. The negotiations that followed such a vote would address the potential act of secession as well as its possible terms should in fact secession proceed. There would be no conclusions predetermined by law on any issue. Negotiations would need to address the interests of the other provinces, the federal government and Quebec and indeed the rights of all Canadians both within and outside Quebec, and specifically the rights of minorities.
The negotiation process would require the reconciliation of various rights and obligations by negotiation between two legitimate majorities, namely, the majority of the population of Quebec, and that of Canada as a whole. A political majority at either level that does not act in accordance with the underlying constitutional principles puts at risk the legitimacy of its exercise of its rights, and the ultimate acceptance of the result by the international community.
The task of the Court has been to clarify the legal framework within which political decisions are to be taken "under the Constitution" and not to usurp the prerogatives of the political forces that operate within that framework. The obligations identified by the Court are binding obligations under the Constitution. However, it will be for the political actors to determine what constitutes "a clear majority on a clear question" in the circumstances under which a future referendum vote may be taken. Equally, in the event of demonstrated majority support for Quebec secession, the content and process of the negotiations will be for the political actors to settle. The reconciliation of the various legitimate constitutional interests is necessarily committed to the political rather than the judicial realm precisely because that reconciliation can only be achieved through the give and take of political negotiations. To the extent issues addressed in the course of negotiation are political, the courts, appreciating their proper role in the constitutional scheme, would have no supervisory role.
And I disagree with your concept that we will necessarily see states fragment and atomize. We have seen a little bit of that in Africa and the Balkans, but such movements have been pretty limited all in all. First of all even in areas with some level of historic greivance, or distinct sense of national identity, we have not seen majorities voting in favour of independence. Quebec has voted against it. The Scottish nationalists have never held a referendum, knowing they would lose. Puerto Rica has voted and listed independence as a distant third option.
Second people know independence is highly disruptive and the outcome uncertain. You'd better have some pretty good reasons to want to jump off that particular ledge.
I'm also pretty sure the UN Charter says something about self-determination, but I can't find the reference yet.
If we considered that people have the right to secede based on only some "right" to self-determination, of course we would. You are arguing that in fact the South DID have the right to unilaterally secede.
It has not happened precisely because nobody agrees with you that "Lettuce has a point..."
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 03:10:25 PM
Here we go:
Quote from: United Nations CharterArticle 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
Nothing there that anyone should read and think "Holy shit, Lettuce has a point! The South DID have the right to secede!"
So the South has (or had) no possible right to seceed? :huh:
The SCC said that while Quebec couldn't just do a UDI, neither could Canada just ignore the clearly expressed wished of Quebec - there would be an obligation on Canada to negotiate the terms of Quebec's exit from confederation.
You want to focus on the word "unilateral". I don't think that's the best focus.
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?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 29, 2011, 01:54:26 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 29, 2011, 12:12:04 PM
Why did you think that link would suffice, exactly?
Because I don't care overmuch and because it beats the link you've offered to contradict it. :mellow:
I love the way we could hear the crickets after you noted this! :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 05:19:14 PM
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?
Yes. The US is a union. Many groups have tried, at various times, to declare themselves to be independent of the US. Under US law, these declarations have no weight whatsoever.
I understand that Canada is different. A little research will allow you to understand that, as well.
Where is the justice or liberty in a union that, once you have acceded to it, it is binding for your progeny even unto the seventh generation?
Secession has only been widely recognized as "something with no weight whatsoever" in the aftermath of the South's failed secession, which was crushed by force of arms.
The union army was a mighty thing, but I am not sure it is the proper interpreter of constitutional law.
America has something glorious. Millions of people have come here because they wanted to do so. The idea of a section wishing to withdraw and being denied that right is antithetical to liberty, self-determination, and the ideas so many people associate with the American republic.
Why should a State have the power to leave the union but not say, a City? Or a County? Or just one guy's property?
The Southern cause was not helped at all by seizing federal property and shooting at federal soldiers. If they just had a policy of non-compliance and forced the Federal government to fire first they might not gotten so many soldiers in the US to volunteer to stop them.
Yeah, that might be true. the South was/is too rash and violent for its own good. It'd be interesting to see if a less violent path would have led to Southern independence, but I doubt it- the North wasn't as enthusiastic for the war as the South was, but they were plenty enthusiastic by yankee standards, in early 1861. There was desire on both sides to see blood spilled.
The State was conceived as a sovereign, largely autonomous political entity that voluntarily gives up some of its rights in the interest of the common welfare- if it does not feel it is being represented, it can withdraw.
For what its worth, Memphis's county has an ongoing secession issue. I tend to support the state constitution being amended to make secession more practical, but this creates a slew of administrative problems and such.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 29, 2011, 07:21:13 PM
Where is the justice or liberty in a union that, once you have acceded to it, it is binding for your progeny even unto the seventh generation?
Actually, it is binding beyond that.
QuoteSecession has only been widely recognized as "something with no weight whatsoever" in the aftermath of the South's failed secession, which was crushed by force of arms.
The union army was a mighty thing, but I am not sure it is the proper interpreter of constitutional law.
The Constitution was silent on the subject, so the matter was resolved via a higher tribunal. When a group of men decide to take something that belongs to a sovereign, they can only do so by force. In the case of the secessionists, they were much too feeble to do so.
QuoteAmerica has something glorious. Millions of people have come here because they wanted to do so. The idea of a section wishing to withdraw and being denied that right is antithetical to liberty, self-determination, and the ideas so many people associate with the American republic.
Pretty much anyone can depart the country at their leisure. What they cannot do is force others to do so. The US concept of law doesn't recognize the rights or powers of anything called a "section." It is clearly absurd to argue that group of people, or "section" if you prefer, can unilaterally declare that the rights of every other American are null and void in some designated geographic area merely because this "section" of people declare it to be so.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 29, 2011, 07:43:43 PM
The State was conceived as a sovereign, largely autonomous political entity that voluntarily gives up some of its rights in the interest of the common welfare- if it does not feel it is being represented, it can withdraw.
States don't have rights and they cannot feel.
I think it would be cool, so that I could carry on a guerilla war against the racist fuckwits who worship the Lost Cause. Then die a glorious martyr to personal freedom, executed for peeing on a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest.
It's funny, because the CSA's own constitution does not give individual States the power to secede. So they did not believe they were defending or exercising a legal "Right" to secede. They knew what they were doing was illegal, which is probably why they felt the need to seize federal arsenals and shoot at federal soldiers. They also felt the need to murder citizens of their states that did not agree with the state's actions as evidenced by the wave of lynching that occurred through out the South at the beginning of the Civil War.
In a sense though it's good that the Civil War happened. If it had not happened or it had been shorter then it was it would have been difficult to abolish slavery which would have been a moral and economic mill stone around the neck of the US.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 29, 2011, 08:23:52 PM
In a sense though it's good that the Civil War happened. If it had not happened or it had been shorter then it was it would have been difficult to abolish slavery which would have been a moral and economic mill stone around the neck of the US.
Abysmal failure of Reconstruction = a moral economic millstone around the neck of the US, though. :sleep:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latinamericanstudies.org%2Fslavery%2Ffreedmans-bureau.jpg&hash=df6d2ed042d9d6081c098c56295b6ee11e5d21d8)
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 05:19:14 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2011, 10:52:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 05:19:14 PM
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?
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 11:27:52 PM
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?
:ph34r:
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 11:27:52 PM
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 am not threatened by this in a US context this is a principal I believe in on a world scale. This national self-determination (NOT self-determination for individuals) thing defines people as parts of a groups designed to struggle for political dominance where the biggest group has the rights and the smaller has none. That goes against practically everything I believe. People are individuals and have rights as individuals. Groups of people do not. I do not support something, like national self-determination, that promotes genocide, ethnic cleansing, and nationalism. Is believing strongly in something and being repelled by something on a moral level make me threatened by it? Nah I just have a strong opinion in this area. Well that and the Civil War issue is not completely dead in this country as you can see by the Mississippi poll.
But I am just one dude with no power.
Seriously the Philipines? They were being dictated to by a government in which they had no representation in direct violation of human rights.
Quote from: katmai on April 29, 2011, 11:44:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 11:27:52 PM
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?
:ph34r:
The closest Alaska has been to independence was a bad Craig T. Nelson tv miniseries from the 90's.
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2011, 12:02:42 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 11:27:52 PM
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 am not threatened by this in a US context this is a principal I believe in on a world scale. This national self-determination (NOT self-determination for individuals) thing defines people as parts of a groups designed to struggle for political dominance where the biggest group has the rights and the smaller has none. That goes against practically everything I believe. People are individuals and have rights as individuals. Groups of people do not. I do not support something, like national self-determination, that promotes genocide, ethnic cleansing, and nationalism. Is believing strongly in something and being repelled by something on a moral level make me threatened by it? Nah I just have a strong opinion in this area. Well that and the Civil War issue is not completely dead in this country as you can see by the Mississippi poll.
But I am just one dude with no power.
Seriously the Philipines? They were being dictated to by a government in which they had no representation in direct violation of human rights.
You've bitched about almost every new independent state since the creation of languish though.
And (having googled it before I made the reference) the Phillipines had been granted some regional autonomy back in the 30s - they had some representation. My point still stands.
The corollary to my point is Puerto Rico - do they have the right to demand independence? Votes on the topic have been allowed.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 30, 2011, 12:02:46 AM
Quote from: katmai on April 29, 2011, 11:44:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 11:27:52 PM
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?
:ph34r:
The closest Alaska has been to independence was a bad Craig T. Nelson tv miniseries from the 90's.
Like i'd talk about this in front of a federal stooge like you.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 30, 2011, 12:02:46 AM
Quote from: katmai on April 29, 2011, 11:44:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 11:27:52 PM
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?
:ph34r:
The closest Alaska has been to independence was a bad Craig T. Nelson tv miniseries from the 90's.
Didn't Alaska elect a AIP Governor at one point?
Quote from: katmai on April 30, 2011, 12:15:06 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 30, 2011, 12:02:46 AM
Quote from: katmai on April 29, 2011, 11:44:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 11:27:52 PM
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?
:ph34r:
The closest Alaska has been to independence was a bad Craig T. Nelson tv miniseries from the 90's.
Like i'd talk about this in front of a federal stooge like you.
I think Alaska (Anchorage and Fairbanks anyway) is pretty much dominated by us federal stooges. :P
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2011, 12:16:35 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 30, 2011, 12:02:46 AM
Quote from: katmai on April 29, 2011, 11:44:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 11:27:52 PM
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?
:ph34r:
The closest Alaska has been to independence was a bad Craig T. Nelson tv miniseries from the 90's.
Didn't Alaska elect a AIP Governor at one point?
Sorta, he was former Republican who when decided to run again went under the AIP. By the way met Coghill on this last job.
QuoteIn 1990, an open primary nominated Alaska State Senator Arliss Sturgulewski as the Republican candidate for Governor of Alaska, facing the Mayor of Anchorage, Tony Knowles, a Democrat, in the general election.
Sturgulewski was criticized by many Republicans for her positions on issues such as abortion and capital punishment. Alaskan Independence Party chairman Joe Vogler seized on this discontent to offer the seats on the AIP ticket to Hickel and to Jack Coghill, who had been nominated as the Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Alaska, but who had serious compatibility issues with Sturgulewski. John Howard Lindauer and Jerry Ward, replacement AIP candidates, stepped aside, citing the illness of Lindauer's wife. Hickel and Coghill prevailed in the general election.
Although he had common ground with the Alaska Independence Party in fighting restrictions on land use imposed by federal environmentalism, Hickel had been one of the most influential historical proponents of Alaska statehood and never endorsed the AIP's secessionism, prompting some party faithful to petition for his recall. He rejoined the Republican Party in April 1994, near the tail end of his term.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 29, 2011, 10:20:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 29, 2011, 08:23:52 PM
In a sense though it's good that the Civil War happened. If it had not happened or it had been shorter then it was it would have been difficult to abolish slavery which would have been a moral and economic mill stone around the neck of the US.
Abysmal failure of Reconstruction = a moral economic millstone around the neck of the US, though. :sleep:
Not nearly as bad as Slavery was. The Civil War also led the path to Federal supremacy which was key to the civil rights movement. There really wasn't a legal means to get rid of slavery before the Civil War.
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 11:27:52 PM
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 think It was assumed early on that the US would only be a "caretaker" of the Philippines. I think by 1920 they were already putting in plans for the US to give the Philippines independence. It should be noted, that the difference between Texas and the Philippines is that Texas joined the US voluntarily, while the Philippines did not.
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 11:27:52 PM
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?
Are you just making this shit up as you go? The US explicitly took on the PI as a temporary measure and explicitly renounced permanent control. The PI was like Cuba and the Mandates; a non-incorporated territory.
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 11:27:52 PM
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?
Why are you making this so personal? Why claim Valmy is "so threatened by this?" Why not just have an intellectual discussion?
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 11:27:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2011, 10:52:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 05:19:14 PM
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.
Do you guys say "Mississippi" when counting seconds?
Either that or -one thousand.
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2011, 10:23:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 11:27:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2011, 10:52:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 05:19:14 PM
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. :mellow:
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.
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2011, 08:45:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2011, 10:23:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 11:27:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2011, 10:52:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 05:19:14 PM
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. :mellow:
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).
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2011, 09:07:43 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2011, 08:45:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2011, 10:23:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 11:27:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2011, 10:52:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2011, 05:19:14 PM
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. :mellow:
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?
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2011, 09:17:17 AM
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.
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 01, 2011, 08:50:50 AM
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.
"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..
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 01, 2011, 09:40:40 AM
"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.
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.
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 01, 2011, 09:40:40 AM
"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.
Quote from: The Brain on May 01, 2011, 10:01:31 AM
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.
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 01, 2011, 09:40:40 AM
"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.
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2011, 10:27:59 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 01, 2011, 10:01:31 AM
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?
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2011, 10:30:10 AM
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 01, 2011, 11:02:11 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2011, 10:30:10 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 01, 2011, 09:40:40 AM
"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.
:huh:
Quote from: Faeelin on May 01, 2011, 11:09:46 AM
But since this extends to the concept of secession as well, I'm not sure what your point is.
That as they are an idealized fiction they are amenable to being defined however those in power choose.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 01, 2011, 11:02:11 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 01, 2011, 10:30:10 AM
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.
Not according to the philosophy of the Constitution.
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2011, 10:21:34 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 01, 2011, 09:40:40 AM
"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.
Yes- even I. The South was wrong to practice slavery, although at least it was comparatively humanitarian when set aside slavery as practiced further south in the western hemisphere. I do not believe the great sin of slavery made the South's pursuit of independence wrong or its national consciousness any less valid.
Actually, enslaving part of your population and not allowing them to have a political voice does make their national conscience less valid.
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 01, 2011, 01:48:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2011, 10:21:34 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 01, 2011, 09:40:40 AM
"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.
Yes- even I. The South was wrong to practice slavery, although at least it was comparatively humanitarian when set aside slavery as practiced further south in the western hemisphere. I do not believe the great sin of slavery made the South's pursuit of independence wrong or its national consciousness any less valid.
So you acknowledge that the slavery was wrong, but do not think that the pursuit of "independence"
in order to secure the future of slavery was wrong? Or that it's "national consciousness" was based on that "peculiar institution"?
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 01, 2011, 08:50:50 AM
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.
:lol: Irony isn't just the opposite of wrinkly.
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 01, 2011, 01:48:58 PM
I do not believe the great sin of slavery made the South's pursuit of independence wrong or its national consciousness any less valid.
The great sin of slavery made the South's pursuit of independence and its national consciousness, period. No slavery = no need for independence and no shared sense of guilt to tie Southerners together.
I've cultivated a reputation for pedantistry and nasty little back-and-forths? Well, I never mean't to-
But yeah Berkut- I acknowledge that slavery was wrong. I also acknowledge slavery was an enormous factor in the pursuit of independence, but I still believe in the southern people as a seperate culture and civilization, even if its differences are largely informed by the existence of slavery. Thinking of the South as a distinct entity, with differing values, needs and goals than America, I can't help but support it's independence.
Similarly, if I were a Chechnyan, I would support the independence of my state, even though I have no love for the islamic values the chechen rebels by and large fight for.
Edit: I'm not sure I agree that no slavery = / no distinctive South. That's what I have to say about that.
The problem is the South did not think of itself as a different civilization then or now. The people of the United States shared a cultural heritage, the same language, the same history, and broadly the same religion. The only real difference was that the South kept a colonial style economy while the North had changed into a modern Industrial Democracy. No where is this better demonstrated then the places in the South where the "peculiar institution" had little strength. In these places, Southerners were often loyal Unionists. That fact puts lie to any notion of clashing cultures and civilizations.
Those places generally had reasons for doing so that included economic resentment to planters, mining economic links to the north, and being disagreeable mountain folk.
Religous differences had always been somewhat pronounces, and came to a head in 1860. The South wasn't terribly different theologically from most of the North, but New England was off the wagon gained disproportionate influence.
I agree that the South doesn't think of itself as a different civilization now, of course. If it did not in 1860 is hard to say. Certainly i'd say it did by 1865. Still, even if it didn't, I would say that _I_ think that way, and lament the lack of national awakening in my countrymen. Sleepy ottomans, when they ought to be young turks. We could massacre Orthodox Christians or something.
You have it backwards, economic reasons didn't make Unionists in the South resentful of their countrymen. Economic reasons made them loyal to their countrymen. Economic reasons made the Southern Elite resentful of their countrymen. They simply didn't see them selves as different peoples. Probably because they weren't. People from the South and the North had more in common with each other then most other peoples of other nations. The people of the nation of England have far greater regional differences then the people of the United States.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 01, 2011, 03:32:04 PM
You have it backwards, economic reasons didn't make Unionists in the South resentful of their countrymen. Economic reasons made them loyal to their countrymen.
what about the economic reasons that turned northern men into confederate sympathizers?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 01, 2011, 02:16:35 PM
Actually, enslaving part of your population and not allowing them to have a political voice does make their national conscience less valid.
So the USA should still be part of Britain?
Quote from: JonasSalk on May 02, 2011, 12:14:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 01, 2011, 02:16:35 PM
Actually, enslaving part of your population and not allowing them to have a political voice does make their national conscience less valid.
So the USA should still be part of Britain?
No, because anything is valid if you win.
Quote from: JonasSalk on May 02, 2011, 12:14:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 01, 2011, 02:16:35 PM
Actually, enslaving part of your population and not allowing them to have a political voice does make their national conscience less valid.
So the USA should still be part of Britain?
Well, since it was pretty clear that Britain was perfectly ok with slavery in the colonies at the time, we can safely conclude that in fact the issue of slavery was not really relevant to the issue of American independence from Britain.
If the US was in fact attempting to free themselves from British rule in order to maintain slavery, then yes, it would be a huge mark against their ethical justification for rebellion. As it is, the hypocrisy of the "...all men are created equal..." rationalization for rebellion is in fact a moral black mark against the American Independence movement, albeit not a decisive one.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 02, 2011, 12:45:23 AM
Quote from: JonasSalk on May 02, 2011, 12:14:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 01, 2011, 02:16:35 PM
Actually, enslaving part of your population and not allowing them to have a political voice does make their national conscience less valid.
So the USA should still be part of Britain?
No, because anything is valid if you win.
There is that as well. :P
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2011, 02:32:47 PM
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 01, 2011, 08:50:50 AM
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.
:lol: Irony isn't just the opposite of wrinkly.
I'm not sure that you actually know what the word 'irony' means.
Quote from: Neil on May 02, 2011, 08:41:21 AM
I'm not sure that you actually know what the word 'irony' means.
There are a great many things that you rightfully should not be sure about. If that is one, then I can certainly live with that. It is only important that
I am sure that I know. :hug:
Quote from: grumbler on May 02, 2011, 10:55:59 AM
It is only important that I am sure that I know. :hug:
Sounds like something Raz might say.
Quote from: garbon on May 02, 2011, 11:04:23 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 02, 2011, 10:55:59 AM
It is only important that I am sure that I know. :hug:
Sounds like something Raz might say.
Patton, Grumbler and I are of one mind. Hopefully with enough treatment I can whittle it down to just me with that mind.
Quote from: garbon on May 02, 2011, 11:04:23 AM
Sounds like something Raz might say.
I bow to your superior expertise on the topic. :cool:
Quote from: garbon on May 02, 2011, 11:04:23 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 02, 2011, 10:55:59 AM
It is only important that I am sure that I know. :hug:
Sounds like something Raz might say.
Raz would have left a random word out.
Quote from: grumbler on May 02, 2011, 11:10:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 02, 2011, 11:04:23 AM
Sounds like something Raz might say.
I bow to your superior expertise on the topic. :cool:
I wasn't in a psychiatry club in college though. :(
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2011, 12:10:04 AM
The corollary to my point is Puerto Rico - do they have the right to demand independence? Votes on the topic have been allowed.
They should either be given independence or join as a full state. I am not particularly fond of different rules for different people inside the same country. Everybody should be equal. Hopefully the days of 'territories' and 'Commonwealths' and such measures will soon be over. They may have been a necessary measure during the frontier days but no longer. This is my opinion on all the remaining (inhabited) special territories the US. But this has nothing to do with something as disgusting as the rights of peoples to have a state. It is simply the best way to handle these territories.
Puerto Rico has never demanded independence btw.
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2011, 12:10:04 AM
You've bitched about almost every new independent state since the creation of languish though.
Only the ones that have been created thanks to nationalist movements either provoking violence or commiting it themselves for that purpose. But nationalist groups merely stirring up hatred for other groups and creating myths of persecution by others to achieve political action is also something I regard as contemptible and worthy of my scorn.
And rightfully so.
Quote from: grumbler on May 02, 2011, 10:55:59 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 02, 2011, 08:41:21 AM
I'm not sure that you actually know what the word 'irony' means.
There are a great many things that you rightfully should not be sure about. If that is one, then I can certainly live with that. It is only important that I am sure that I know. :hug:
Then you are misusing the word.
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2011, 11:21:44 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2011, 12:10:04 AM
The corollary to my point is Puerto Rico - do they have the right to demand independence? Votes on the topic have been allowed.
They should either be given independence or join as a full state. I am not particularly fond of different rules for different people inside the same country. Everybody should be equal. Hopefully the days of 'territories' and 'Commonwealths' and such measures will soon be over. They may have been a necessary measure during the frontier days but no longer. This is my opinion on all the remaining (inhabited) special territories the US. But this has nothing to do with something as disgusting as the rights of peoples to have a state. It is simply the best way to handle these territories.
Puerto Rico has never demanded independence btw.
Puerto Rico votes on independence every once in a while. It never gets much of a vote. While the US has not said that the votes carry the power of law, I imagine if they want to leave the US would let them. There's not much of a reason to want to keep them.
I would argue that Puerto Rico, being culturally and linguistically distinct from the US is a separate nation. Unlike the South which is not.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 02, 2011, 11:38:56 AM
Puerto Rico votes on independence every once in a while. It never gets much of a vote. While the US has not said that the votes carry the power of law, I imagine if they want to leave the US would let them. There's not much of a reason to want to keep them.
I would argue that Puerto Rico, being culturally and linguistically distinct from the US is a separate nation. Unlike the South which is not.
Eh so was Louisiana and I do not see any particular reason why cultural and linguistic differences cannot exist in the same nation particularly in ours which has no official language.
In any case I know they have votes from time to time but they have been not just votes on indepence but on the status of Puerto Rico in general. They probably would be a state already if they had not given the Ricans a chance to 'no-vote' in the last election. Naturally I would want a vote that simply says 'Join the Union or Become Independent?' Join the Union would win in a landslide IMO but I am not in charge :P
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2011, 11:51:16 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 02, 2011, 11:38:56 AM
Puerto Rico votes on independence every once in a while. It never gets much of a vote. While the US has not said that the votes carry the power of law, I imagine if they want to leave the US would let them. There's not much of a reason to want to keep them.
I would argue that Puerto Rico, being culturally and linguistically distinct from the US is a separate nation. Unlike the South which is not.
Eh so was Louisiana and I do not see any particular reason why cultural and linguistic differences cannot exist in the same nation particularly in ours which has no official language.
In any case I know they have votes from time to time but they have been not just votes on indepence but on the status of Puerto Rico in general. They probably would be a state already if they had not given the Ricans a chance to 'no-vote' in the last election. Naturally I would want a vote that simply says 'Join the Union or Become Independent?' Join the Union would win in a landslide IMO but I am not in charge :P
I'm not saying that being a different nation means you
have to become independent. I'm saying it would give you a legitimate reason to do so. Puerto Ricans have little interest in leaving. As a separate nation and as a territory they should have the power to do so. Whether they want to exercise this power is up to them.
The Issues with Indian tribes is a bit more problematic, though most of those have a degree of autonomy.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 02, 2011, 12:00:16 PM
I'm not saying that being a different nation means you have to become independent. I'm saying it would give you a legitimate reason to do so. Puerto Ricans have little interest in leaving. As a separate nation and as a territory they should have the power to do so. Whether they want to exercise this power is up to them.
Eh even if they were a bunch of California valley girls living on that island their independence would be no less legitimate. They are not fully part of the United States ;)
QuoteThe Issues with Indian tribes is a bit more problematic, though most of those have a degree of autonomy.
There is nothing particularly problematic about them. We should respect our treaties with them so long as they want us to do so and make sure they have full equal rights with everybody else.
Some of those treaties were signed under duress. I find that problematic.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 02, 2011, 12:13:04 PM
Some of those treaties were signed under duress. I find that problematic.
As I said so long as they want us to respect those treaties.
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2011, 12:03:48 PM
There is nothing particularly problematic about them. We should respect our treaties with them so long as they want us to do so and make sure they have full equal rights with everybody else.
You don't see anything problematic with the fiction that Indian tribes are sovereign nations, even though their citizens are now also US citizens, and so Congress can pass laws over-riding "national sovereignty" in these sovereign "nations?" I see huge problems, and so does pretty much everyone who has to deal with them. Sometimes state laws apply in them, and sometimes they don't. The treaties are binding unless Congress explicitly changes them...
You should be accurate and say instead that
you don't see anything "particularly problematic about them."
Quote from: grumbler on May 02, 2011, 12:22:06 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2011, 12:03:48 PM
There is nothing particularly problematic about them. We should respect our treaties with them so long as they want us to do so and make sure they have full equal rights with everybody else.
You don't see anything problematic with the fiction that Indian tribes are sovereign nations, even though their citizens are now also US citizens, and so Congress can pass laws over-riding "national sovereignty" in these sovereign "nations?" I see huge problems, and so does pretty much everyone who has to deal with them. Sometimes state laws apply in them, and sometimes they don't. The treaties are binding unless Congress explicitly changes them...
You should be accurate and say instead that you don't see anything "particularly problematic about them."
First nations sovereignty is
sui generis. That is how they are nations, and have some aspects of sovereignty, but not others.
Quote from: grumbler on May 02, 2011, 12:22:06 PM
You don't see anything problematic with the fiction that Indian tribes are sovereign nations, even though their citizens are now also US citizens, and so Congress can pass laws over-riding "national sovereignty" in these sovereign "nations?" I see huge problems, and so does pretty much everyone who has to deal with them. Sometimes state laws apply in them, and sometimes they don't. The treaties are binding unless Congress explicitly changes them...
You should be accurate and say instead that you don't see anything "particularly problematic about them."
I always speak for myself and myself only. I do not see why I need to specify that since it applies 100% of the time. Maybe I should put a disclaimer in my sig?
But ok I guess there might be a few problematic things in there.
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2011, 12:33:21 PM
I always speak for myself and myself only. I do not see why I need to specify that since it applies 100% of the time. Maybe I should put a disclaimer in my sig?
"I make up some of my 'facts'" in your sig would do the trick.
Quote from: grumbler on May 02, 2011, 01:58:07 PM
"I make up some of my 'facts'" in your sig would do the trick.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2011, 12:03:48 PM
Eh even if they were a bunch of California valley girls living on that island their independence would be no less legitimate. They are not fully part of the United States ;)
What's wrong with California valley
girls? :angry:
Quote from: garbon on May 02, 2011, 04:23:32 PM
What's wrong with California valley girls? :angry:
I was just trying to think of a population that was quintessentially American.
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2011, 04:26:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 02, 2011, 04:23:32 PM
What's wrong with California valley girls? :angry:
I was just trying to think of a population that was quintessentially American.
Alright. :hug:
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2011, 02:05:00 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 02, 2011, 01:58:07 PM
"I make up some of my 'facts'" in your sig would do the trick.
:bleeding:
I have the reply to any and all grumbler posts in my sig... the words are not mine, but they speak my mind well enough.
Edit: or at least I had the reply but it seems that sig didn't survive the move
Quote from: grumbler on May 02, 2011, 01:58:07 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2011, 12:33:21 PM
I always speak for myself and myself only. I do not see why I need to specify that since it applies 100% of the time. Maybe I should put a disclaimer in my sig?
"I make up some of my 'facts'" in your sig would do the trick.
Oh c'mon. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 12:26:22 PM
First nations sovereignty is sui generis. That is how they are nations, and have some aspects of sovereignty, but not others.
And this is what often gets overlooked. And, why it is so messy.
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2011, 07:54:03 AMWell, since it was pretty clear that Britain was perfectly ok with slavery in the colonies at the time, we can safely conclude that in fact the issue of slavery was not really relevant to the issue of American independence from Britain.
If the US was in fact attempting to free themselves from British rule in order to maintain slavery, then yes, it would be a huge mark against their ethical justification for rebellion. As it is, the hypocrisy of the "...all men are created equal..." rationalization for rebellion is in fact a moral black mark against the American Independence movement, albeit not a decisive one.
Since the USA and Lincoln were both okay with slavery in America at the time, doesn't that invalidate your first paragraph?
Your next one makes little sense. So long as America splits off from Britain for other reasons than slavery--but still maintains it--it's okay? How is it not a decisive black mark to maintain slavery for nearly 100 years in America after independence, despite the supposed claims of equality? The entire Constitution was a document that both directly and implicitly was designed to protect slavery, yet the CSA gets all the hate. Wtf?
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 12:26:22 PM
First nations sovereignty is sui generis. That is how they are nations, and have some aspects of sovereignty, but not others.
In the US, it is even worse: Some of the indian nations started (legally) as separate nations, exactly like their European counterparts, and their status changed over time. Other "nations" came into being from post-facto recognition by the US government. It is a mess, as you note; today they are all without a doubt
sui generis.
Quote from: JonasSalk on May 03, 2011, 01:22:21 AM
Since the USA and Lincoln were both okay with slavery in America at the time, doesn't that invalidate your first paragraph?
Your next one makes little sense. So long as America splits off from Britain for other reasons than slavery--but still maintains it--it's okay? How is it not a decisive black mark to maintain slavery for nearly 100 years in America after independence, despite the supposed claims of equality? The entire Constitution was a document that both directly and implicitly was designed to protect slavery, yet the CSA gets all the hate. Wtf?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.velvetcache.org%2Fpages%2F2007%2F5%2F25%2Fits-a-trap%2Ftarp-30198.jpg&hash=2855ae0d848668cf84f5df27f39a07be744d52ed)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cHsNnDfmDs
Both main reprises of this song were evoked in me by this wonderful thread
Edit: something something Forrest is so tsundere~
stonewall jackson the stern shrine maiden
Lee the refined yamato nadeshiko
yeah but now i'm going to bed probably
Dammit, don't post that shit.
Quote from: JonasSalk on May 03, 2011, 01:22:21 AM
The entire Constitution was a document that both directly and implicitly was designed to protect slavery, yet the CSA gets all the hate. Wtf?
The entire Constitution was a document that both directly and implicitly was designed to protect slavery, because the southern states (who later formed the core of the CSA) insisted that it be written that way, and the northern states compromised on the issue.
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 03, 2011, 06:52:49 AM
Edit: something something Forrest is so tsundere~
stonewall jackson the stern shrine maiden
Lee the refined yamato nadeshiko
yeah but now i'm going to bed probably
If Lee, Jackson and Forrest could see this coming from one of their partisans, they would regret ever fighting to preserve the South.
So . . . I guess it's a good thing. :unsure:
Quote from: JonasSalk on May 03, 2011, 01:22:21 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 02, 2011, 07:54:03 AMWell, since it was pretty clear that Britain was perfectly ok with slavery in the colonies at the time, we can safely conclude that in fact the issue of slavery was not really relevant to the issue of American independence from Britain.
If the US was in fact attempting to free themselves from British rule in order to maintain slavery, then yes, it would be a huge mark against their ethical justification for rebellion. As it is, the hypocrisy of the "...all men are created equal..." rationalization for rebellion is in fact a moral black mark against the American Independence movement, albeit not a decisive one.
Since the USA and Lincoln were both okay with slavery in America at the time, doesn't that invalidate your first paragraph?
Not at all, since even if the USA and Lincoln were "ok" with slavery (which isn't really true at all of course), the reason the war was fought was because of slavery. Slavery was the reason the union was threatened. Lincoln and the north fought to preserve the Union, but slavery was why the union was in jeopardy to begin with. We are talking about the South's reasons for rebellion, not the North's reasons to oppose that rebellion.
Quote
Your next one makes little sense. So long as America splits off from Britain for other reasons than slavery--but still maintains it--it's okay?
What is ok? Slavery? Of course not. But there were lots of things happening in America that were probably not ok, but had nothing to do with the American Revolution. Slavery was one of them.
Quote
How is it not a decisive black mark to maintain slavery for nearly 100 years in America after independence, despite the supposed claims of equality?
It is not a decisive black mark
against the justification for rebellion. Of course it is a nasty black mark against the American nation in general.
Quote
The entire Constitution was a document that both directly and implicitly was designed to protect slavery, yet the CSA gets all the hate. Wtf?
We are talking about justification for rebellion. The South gets the hate because they were the ones willing to break the Union in order to maintain and expand slavery. That pretty much destroys any moral or ethical validation for their rebellion. It isn't really that complicated.
Quote from: Berkut on May 03, 2011, 10:50:25 AM
Not at all, since even if the USA and Lincoln were "ok" with slavery (which isn't really true at all of course), the reason the war was fought was because of slavery. Slavery was the reason the union was threatened. Lincoln and the north fought to preserve the Union, but slavery was why the union was in jeopardy to begin with. We are talking about the South's reasons for rebellion, not the North's reasons to oppose that rebellion.
...
What is ok? Slavery? Of course not. But there were lots of things happening in America that were probably not ok, but had nothing to do with the American Revolution. Slavery was one of them.
...
It is not a decisive black mark against the justification for rebellion. Of course it is a nasty black mark against the American nation in general.
...
We are talking about justification for rebellion. The South gets the hate because they were the ones willing to break the Union in order to maintain and expand slavery. That pretty much destroys any moral or ethical validation for their rebellion. It isn't really that complicated.
You are making quite an error here.
Is it responding to Jonas Salk in the first place?
Quote from: JonasSalk on May 02, 2011, 12:14:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 01, 2011, 02:16:35 PM
Actually, enslaving part of your population and not allowing them to have a political voice does make their national conscience less valid.
So the USA should still be part of Britain?
The South had representation in the U.S. Congress and could vote for the President, America did not have representation in the British Parliament. If America had had representation in Parliament then they would have no justification for rebellion.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 03, 2011, 09:02:32 PM
If America had had representation in Parliament then they would have no justification for rebellion.
They would have needed a different justification, but that's not the same as having no justification at all.
Quote from: grumbler on May 03, 2011, 09:05:10 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 03, 2011, 09:02:32 PM
If America had had representation in Parliament then they would have no justification for rebellion.
They would have needed a different justification, but that's not the same as having no justification at all.
That's true, a revolutionary can always find another justification. But would a justification have been found that could have swayed the masses like "representation" could have? Especially when the very existence of representation imbues in people the belief that political problems can be solved through negotiation rather than war, especially when demographic trends trends are on your side.
Their justification was the altering of the charter of the colony of Mass. When that happened all the the other colonies realized that London could change their colonial charters and remove their rights with out any due process.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 03, 2011, 09:09:54 PM
But would a justification have been found that could have swayed the masses like "representation" could have? Especially when the very existence of representation imbues in people the belief that political problems can be solved through negotiation rather than war, especially when demographic trends trends are on your side.
Almost certainly. The DoI was full of charges that would sway public opinion - that is why they were there. The mercantilist British approach to the economy and trade was probably enough by itself.