Do we have any clear, rational view on secession policy?
We have a general idea of support for 'self-determination'. See the colonies declaring independence from Britain in 1776.
Then it gets fuzzier. We left it pretty ambiguous after that, until the south tried to exercise a
right to secede in 1861, and we said no, you don't have that right.
So if there is any principle around the issue, it seems to suggest that people who don't have the power of democracy have a right to secede, but people who have democracy, don't.
That's a rather debatable set of rules. But even if you accept it, there are fuzzy issues.
What if you think the elections aren't valid? What if the group wanting to secede is an 'oppressed minority' whose democratic power gives them no protection from abuse by the majority?
(The south felt this way, that they were outnumbered and abused by the majority).
Now, we have secessionist movements around the world. Chechnya, Kurds, Catalonia...
In the absence of a principle-driven policy, it seems to be simply self-interests. Oh, we want the
military benefits of an alliance with strategically located Turkey, so we're against the Kurds.
So, though I'd toss this out for discussion - if nothing else, let's recognize we have no clear,
moral, principled view about this issue - unless someone wants to suggest one.
On the one hand, it's always seemed strange to tell a people, "because in one election, people who lived where you do voted to join us, you are bound by that decision" and call it self-determination.
On the other, how many problems would come from allowing any group to secede willy-nilly? How about individuals? Neighborhoods? Cities? States? Multi-state alliances?
Comments
Based on your analysis
It appears we have established that basic right:
Thanks for raising this issue for consideration. I don't have anything intelligent to add to the discussion, but look forward to reading, and learning from, others' thoughts.
FWIW, there's a rather anemic "organization" in Vermont that advocates for secession, but they seem never to gain any real traction. These days, I wish they would. (IIRC, someone here alerted me that its de facto leader is a racist; I haven't researched that).
Second Vermont Republic
break it down
can't see it as a matter of principle at this point. It is mainly about people taking back control of their lives. Forget the democracy distinction. people want it, rulers don't - no matter the state. Do you understand the concept of self interest? What is good for me and my people is good. TPTB want you to think what is good for them is good for everyone. Just no, on many levels. Convince me that this next war is good for us. Sorry, you wore out your welcome already.
or let's not. No matter how you slice and dice it, we do have morally principled views on most issues. Where the hell you going with this?
it is hardly so simple.
Yugoslavia tore itself apart because "leaders" within the sub-units understood that they could exploit ethnic and religious tribalism so as to get power unto themselves. Similarly, it's not particularly clear that the Slovaks enjoy a better society than had a gang of bigoted thugs not persuaded them to shake off the yoke of those horrible Czechs. It has also been compellingly argued that Quebec separatism was largely the creation of Quebec's elites -- particularly, "ultramontanes" in the Catholic clergy -- who wanted to maintain their cultural and economic stranglehold on the province. Their efforts were aided by the existence of a faction of Protestant fanatics, the Orange Order, in the centers of power in English Ontario.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
@QMSSorry, you wore out your
Comment removed, misread the addressing of the previous comment.
Thought provoking but somewhat ambiguous
This statement does not apply to the North or the South pre-Civil war. The north had wage slavery. The South had out and out slavery. The North was a bit closer to democracy. The South was most definitely NOT a democracy.
Your essay requires clarification.
Do we apply the principles of contract law to secession? Do we postulate a higher authority once a part is melded into a whole which then voids the original contract?
What benefit inures to secessionist elements if they are successful? By becoming a majority in their smaller subdivision, do then former minorities have the power to exercise the will of the new majority against the wishes of the new minority?
@Alligator Ed Those are similar to some
Those are similar to some of the questions I raised.
The north and south were democracies - for the purposes of those who wanted to view them as democracies to justify why secession was not an option.
They were also democracies in the sense of 'democracies which oppress minorities', a case I mentioned as one needing to be addressed.
What would you like clarified?
Clarification requested
In your definition of the ante-bellum South as a democracy. Would that be a theoretical democracy where an elite minority of property owners enjoyed representative government while slaves, white women and poor white men who made up the majority did not?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
@Anja Geitz Well, as I indicated,
Well, as I indicated, I think there are two definitions of democracy that apply.
One if a definition of convenience, to justify their not being allowed to secede.
There is some truth to it, that a subset of the people did have democracy. In terms of the problem that most did not, the irony is that black men (no women yet could) not being allowed to vote
would be used to argue it wasn't a real democracy - while the people who DID have democracy were
trying to use it to keep those black men from voting.
In other words, if you respected the wishes of those who DID have democracy, you'd be supporting their desire to deny democracy to others.
The second definition is as you described - a limited democracy denying the vote to most.
The definition of democracy
As I always understood it, comes from the idea where a majority enjoy representative government. A subset, be it in the antebellum South where one had to be white, male, and a property owner, or present day America where one has to have enough money to buy legislative influence, clearly does not fall under this definition. Moreover, to describe either scenario of what is in effect "representative" government for only the few as a democracy, feels a bit like saying I'm only a little pregnant.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
@Anja Geitz Well, it also
Well, it also wouldn't be correct to totally dismiss the minority who did get to vote and the partial democracy they had.
Saying they're the same as a country with no elections isn't accurate.
I don't think the 'little bit pregnant' analogy fits. I'm not sure what a 'little bit pregnant' would look like, but we have a pretty good idea what a partial democracy looks like.
I have the feeling we might not be communicating on the point I was making:
That you right to point out how flawed the democracy was, and that I was discussing how the amount of democracy that did exist was used to justify denying them all the right to secede.
The inconsistency of the country that seceded denying them that right was not lost on them.
They needed some justification for denying them that right.
And as far as I'm aware, found it be claiming that democracy justified denying it.
Using the original Greek root
Of the word "democracy", we get "rule of the people". Using your definition, we get "rule of the minority".
Which actually dovetails nicely into to your larger point about a rational policy on secession. If you consider yourself to be part of America's "partial democracy", I see two possibilities.
The first: secession is seen by the plutocrats as a diminishing return on their insatiable need for profit. The modus operandi in this case would be to unleash their propaganda machine to distract and divide the majority, use their considerable influence to kill any legislative effort before it begins, or if that fails, organize fraud at the ballot box.
The second possibility: secession is seen by the plutocrats as having the potential to increase their profits, in which case they will unleash their propaganda machine to create an illusion of consensus, throw in an army of lobbyist to write the legislation, and fill legislators war chests with money to pass the bill.
If, otoh, you are not including yourself part of the partial democracy, then this is more or less a purely academic discussion, or something an ex-boyfriend used to call mental masturbation. Respectfully.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Allowing any group to secede willy-nilly
could result in the break-up of many a Nation State, not only Spain. Legally, the Confederate States had every right to secede from the Union; they were simply bullied into submission. There is no clear, universal law to regulate these matters. In Kosovo, or Ukraine, or Syria/Iraq for example.
Now, with globalist entities and forces (transnational financing, global corporate conglomerates, etc.) seemingly poised to take full advantage of the situation, pressures on the integrity many Nation-States are becoming intense. I remember reading way back in the 80's, an interview with the CEO of a major Japanese corporation. He believed firmly that in the future, the world's destiny would be determined in corporate boardrooms, not in presidential palaces or legislative assemblies.
native
"Allowing any group
to secede willy-nilly
could result in the break-up of many a Nation State, not only Spain."
Good. Nation States are a big part of our problem.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
@Bisbonian OK - yet on the other
OK - yet on the other the history of human civilization is smaller societies warring to consolidate into larger, and tending to prosper after doing so.
I'd say we're headed more toward yet fewer nations in regional powers - America, Western Europe (Brexit notwithstanding), Asia around China, etc.
And perhaps toward more and more global governance as those powers agree on policies. All that points to secessionists receiving nothing but punishment.
But perhaps concentrating power
into the hands of transnational institutions, and the global banks that finance them, might create even bigger problems than Nation States do. Consider NAFTA, TPP, and similar treaties for example. By and large they were designed to benefit large corporate trading partners, at the expense of smaller, more local enterprises. As National control over international relations is ceded, to whom or to what is it being ceded?
Or NATO, another instance of a supra-national entity of dubious value, dominated and financed largely by America's MIC. I'm not at all sure that weakening of National governments is a good idea, at the same time the forces of global capitalism are on the rise.
native
Excellent topic, by the way.
Very timely.
native
Cascadia Forever!
Oh, come on, you folks knew I was going to spew my revolutionary rhetoric here.
And don't tell me that a late colonized area repressed by a powerful military can't ever be free...
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZku2REI-Xs]
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Whoa!
Since I live in the South, I am not sure I would like my new country. Florida is already three states in one. However, we may be forced into reconsidering if our country is simply too large and too diverse to be governed equitably. Still, all of this may be moot since we are already run by the oligarchs of the deep state who do not care about the people anyway.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
" However, we may be forced
into reconsidering if our country is simply too large and too diverse to be governed equitably."
I don't think that's even a question.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
We're too big to fail...
... with all of the concomitant sorts of negative implications that phrase has when applied to other institutions.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
@Bisbonian I don't think the
I don't think the obstacle to just and equitable government is size. An old south town of 100 was quite capable of governing without much justice or equality.
Power decides if it's "legal"
If you can whip the larger entity, physically or economically, then it's legal. If you can't then it's illegal.
@Shahryar Well, that might be a
Well, that might be a cynical or practical comment, but it's not very applicable to a 'rule of law' democracy.
But,
it's applicable to the present reality...which 'rule of law' is certainly not.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
@Bisbonian But right and wrong,
But right and wrong, I think, are suitable for discussion, however impractical.
True Dat
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Big mistake.
I'd pay south to get the hell out and take Texas with them.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
@dkmich I have said for a long
I have said for a long time that we lost the civil war, because that was our chance to be free of the south - no offense to the good people in the south.
As a practical matter think of the decades of compromises made to get the southern votes, think of our last several Republican presidents none of whom would have won without the south.
What a different country.
I once made an argument in a history seminar
at a UK uni (myself being the only Yank in the room) that the Civil War delayed civil rights for African Americans, because it created in the south a reactionary culture that would have been attenuated had the North allowed the South to go, and then sat back and watched the plantation economy collapse under its own unsustainability, while the North would have been free to liberalize without pandering for Southern Senators and Southern electoral votes.
I don't really know whether the argument holds water -- I made it to partly to see what sort of controversy it might generate in a rather placid intellectual setting -- but I was bemused by the dismissive amusement with which my argument was received.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
@UntimelyRippd I do think it's hard
I do think it's hard to tell, because we don't really understand all the factors in change.
Racism existed and exists for a variety of reasons.
There are a number of us here
who live in the South including yours truly.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
While lack of Parliamentary representation...
was often cited by the American Colonies as a reason for rebellion, the truth is the Colonies didn't want representation because they saw it as legitimizing the taxes they opposed.
Crown agent William Knox stated:
Representation in a larger entity can be a trap. True then. Truer now.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
@Not Henry Kissinger A very relevant and
A very relevant and useful point.
There's a bigger topic here, I think, generalizing about how democracy works better among more similar entities working out details, rather than very diverse entities with a tyranny of the majority.
That's where the limited role of democracy, with boundaries from strong constitutional individual rights, is critical for a system.
And even that's quite delicate, as we watch the constitution gutted by a radical right court.
It's a matter of proportion.
The bigger the group the less each individual vote counts, which means larger bodies are, by definition, less democratic. Bankers have a phrase for it: they call it 'diluting shares'.
Yet it's these larger bodies to which we allocate the most power. Local jurisdictions are subject to state law and states to National.
The reverse is not true. Federal agencies, for instance, can raid medical marijuana dispensaries at their discretion and there isn't a thing the local or state governments can do about it.
The underlying flaw in the current representative system is that it inversely allocates power. We need to devolve more power to local units so that each person has a more effective say in the governing of his or her life.
We also need to rethink the idea of legal Supremacy that says larger bodies are not subject to the laws of their constituent parts.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Absolutely!!!
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
@Not Henry Kissinger The point I was
The point I was making wasn't about size, but diversity.
For example, 10 million white Christians might have a democracy that's less divided than one million people split in two groups hostile to each other, or where 80% oppress the other 20%.
I don't think the answer is reducing supremacy; for example, imagine a reduced supremacy so the federal government could not force southern states to respect black people's rights.
Rather, the answer is more in strong rights the laws cannot violate.
So, for example, regardless of even the federal government respecting people's rights, the idea is the courts will block the federal or local governments from violating them.
Of course this is why courts are so critical and the right-wing takeover of them so dangerous.
And how has that worked out?
I know people of a certain generation were raised to believe in the nobility of the Federal government in ensuring the rights of its citizens, and that experience colors their thinking, but those days are long gone. In this age, the central government is far more likely to be a violator of individual rights than a protector of them.
Indeed, even at the time the USG was no hero. The same Federal government that sent white troops to Mississippi to open schools to black students drafted those same students to fight an imperialist war less than a decade later, using a selection process that was just as racist as any Jim Crow era rule.
And let's face it, in spite of the propaganda, Federal desegregation efforts of the fifties and sixties actually changed very little in terms of power relationships. The most obvious and archaic discriminatory practices were abolished (miscegenation, bathrooms, restaurants, etc.), but in terms of achieving equal protection and due process or ending economic injustice, large body coercion not only failed to achieve any real progress, it created a backlash that has empowered some of the most reactionary elements ever since.
Meaningful political and social progress does come from large governmental entities forcefully imposing their will on smaller ones, because the very fact of imposition means that the progress has no local legitimacy and therefore will last only as long as the larger entity has the will to apply that force. Sooner or later the will fades and the reactionaries take over. Then in many ways we are worse off than when we started.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
It really doesn't matter...
what the policy toward secession is.
Political decentralization is a worldwide megatrend that no one can stop. It's happening everywhere and is picking up steam.
The only question of policy is whether violence is ever appropriate to either forestall or accelerate the trend toward smaller political units.
IMO, the answer is no.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
@Not Henry Kissinger What would you suggest
What would you suggest in lieu of violence to the societies wanting secession for decades or centuries without any legal, peaceful options that get it?
West Virginia pulled it off, but had help
When Virginia seceded in spring 1861, the northwestern (mountain area) counties dug in their heels and voted a) not to secede from the Union and b) to secede from Virginia instead. Virginia was pissed off but too busy elsewhere (see Civil War battles in Virginia) to do a lot about it. And the Union welcomed the "new state" with open arms, in 1863.
This, incidentally, showed hypocrisy on both sides: from the Confederacy, in not allowing secession when it didn't suit them, and from the Union, in allowing secession when it was to their military-political advantage.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
@TheOtherMaven True enough -
True enough - another case as I mentioned about 'interests' governing policy rather than principle. But that doesn't seem a case that can be used for other groups.
I would suggest...
they listen to Gandhi:
I'd also tell them to just keep paddling. The historical tide is with them.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
@Not Henry Kissinger I suspect that the
I suspect that the tide toward justice can't be counted on going forward. The means of control are ever-strengthening. I'm not suggesting violence; but exploring other options.
The tide is toward decentralization...
which creates opportunities for greater justice.
Centralization will do that to you.
Non violence does not mean non-militancy. It just forecloses a certain counterproductive tactic.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?