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

[Caliga]

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. 

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.

[Valmy]

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.

[Barrister]

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. 

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

[Caliga]

IMO Kentucky behaved: honorably.  But the Confederates fucked up and forced Kentucky into the Union.  Dumbass Leonidas Polk.

[Barrister]

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.

[Eddie Teach]

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. 

[Caliga]

Sorry, they wouldn't have passed the literacy test.

[Valmy]

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:

We 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.

[Valmy]

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.

[Berkut]

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.

[Barrister]

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:

The 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.

[Barrister]

Here we go:

Article 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.

[garbon]

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.

[Berkut]

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.

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.

From the headnote:

The 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.

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..."

[Berkut]

Here we go:

Article 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!"