RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into...

RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865

Message

General Quarters -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/4/2007 7:16:36 PM)
Jonathan, I'm not sure we differ all that much. Obviously, Lincoln put it in a way that was "dramatic." He had a great flair for words and the nation needed to hear things put dramatically. Whether it was "too dramatic" depends on your preferences in political rhetoric. As FDR was preparing his "one-third of a nation, ill-housed, ill-fed, ill-clad" speech, his economic advisor complained that it was really more like 23 percent. Wouldn't that have been a great speech? "23 percent ill-housed, 19 percent ill-fed, 21 percent ill-clad ..." FDR stuck to "one-third." Over the top? If I were advising FDR on this line and Lincoln on "testing whether this nation or any nation so conceived could long endure," I would say go for it. You are right that the statement about human rights goes farther, but to the extent that the only reliable protection for human rights is a democracy, and proposition that democracies could long endure was still being tested, it seems like an acceptably dramatic formulation to me. (Unlike, say, Wilson's "the war to end all wars," which is difficult to relate to any concrete reality.)

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/4/2007 7:58:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: General Quarters Jonathan, I'm not sure we differ all that much. Thank you, I'll go with that. Lincoln was a war leader and he needed to enthuse his people to carry on the struggle. Otherwise he would have been a failure. So some hyperbole is understandable. As long as people almost 150 years later don't take it too seriously, that's OK. I don't believe myself that the future of democracy was endangered by Southern secession, but if he professed to believe so in the trying times that he was experiencing, that's somewhat understandable. I rather doubt that he believed himself in all the things he was saying. I disagree with you somewhat when you say that "the only reliable protection for human rights is a democracy". A democracy is a dictatorship of the majority: if the majority decides to ignore human rights, human rights will be ignored by that democracy. For instance, a perfect German democracy in the 1940s would surely have done the Jews no good; and a perfect Serbian democracy in more recent times would surely have done the Bosnian Muslims and Kosovan Albanians no good. Furthermore, a perfect Confederate democracy in the 1860s would have done the black slaves no good...

christof139 -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/4/2007 8:22:16 PM)
It may be obvious to some and not to others that when Lincoln was referring to 'the end of democracy' it was in reference to his and our nation, which at the time he said that was engaged in a terrible civil war, so he may just have been being subjective and referrimg to just the USA and not other democracies that were extant at the time, but he was without a doubt sincere. His family too, was torn asunder by the ACW, and I believe the relative that fought for the CSA was killed, not sure off the top of my head. Words such as Lincoln spoke during those most terrible times came from his heart and soul, as did many other words spoken by many other people on both sides of the conflict. You better believe that Lincoln believed what he was saying. Look at his picture before the war started and then look at a picture 3-years into the war and then at the end of the war, and you will see the effects of that war upon his features. Usually when he wrote he wrote in solitude, to be alone with his own feelings. I imagine some people can't understand somethings because maybe they have not themselves experienced anyhting of terrible and deep magnitude in their lives, and/or they may be simply somewhat shallow betwixt the ears perhaps. Davis wrote some equally sincere thoughts, as did many, many others, from Privates and Civilians and Diplomats to commanding Generals. In times with events such as civil war occurring, and for those personally involved in such a war, what they write is sincere, from their heart and soul, and it matters not what side they fight on or ideas they believe in. And peoples' views and feelings do change over time as can also be discerned in their writings. Chris

Viewing -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/5/2007 1:17:32 AM)
quote: Consider this what-if: the Confederacy fights the Union to a bloody draw (outright victory was never very likely), and an armistice is concluded. My question is this: could the Confederacy expect to survive as a political entity? Its components were fanatical about states' rights, and equally fanatical in their opposition to a central government. Without inspirational leadership (Davis doesn't strike me as having been much of an inspiration), wouldn't the Confederacy have disintegrated from within, led by such likely candidates for further secession as Texas and Georgia? Doubtful. First, the whole Arcadian Ideal inherited by the South from the French was based on self-sufficiency in an agricultural base. The Confederacy loathed and mocked industrial culture, and many citizens even disliked the concept of mercantile businesses. Although Southerners complained vigorously and with some reason that their raw materials were providing greater income to Northern maunfacturies who changed them into finished goods for shipping overseas, they took no steps to build industries for processing their own raw materials. Second, while the Confederacy was busily repeating its King Cotton mantra, Britain was setting up its own cotton-producing plantations with slave labor--in third world nations where it was called manual labor under enlightened, Christian leadership. ;) So that had the Confederacy survived, they would still have had to deal with the loss of their cotton hegemony on the world markets. For what my opinion's worth, I think that to survive the Confederacy would have had to become the North, all the while stoutly maintaining some national myth based on its misty past. Much like every other nation I can think of.

christof139 -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/5/2007 4:24:04 AM)
The South was beginning to become industrialized, and there were firms such as Tredagar etc. in the South, but on a smaller scale than the North. The South also processed large amounts of its raw materials such as making turpentine and molasses, and lumber and iron-ore and coal were being processed, and it would have taken some time to enlarge these industries and the South ws well on its way to doing that because of the war. Could be that if the South had become independent that the trend of industrialization would have continued out of necessity and the realization that profits could be made from this. Despite the North's industrialization, it was still Agraian but much more so was the South. Chris

General Quarters -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/5/2007 5:20:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey I disagree with you somewhat when you say that "the only reliable protection for human rights is a democracy". A democracy is a dictatorship of the majority: if the majority decides to ignore human rights, human rights will be ignored by that democracy. For instance, a perfect German democracy in the 1940s would surely have done the Jews no good; and a perfect Serbian democracy in more recent times would surely have done the Bosnian Muslims and Kosovan Albanians no good. Furthermore, a perfect Confederate democracy in the 1860s would have done the black slaves no good... These are interesting points. Majorities can be in favor of terrible things. But it is interesting that your examples are hypotheticals. It is hard to name an actual democracy that has engaged in anything like the Holocaust or ethnic cleansing. For the CSA to be a perfect democracy, it would have had to free the slaves and let them vote. Nevertheless, your basic point is valid. Tyranny of the majority is always a danger. I should have said democracy was "the most reliable," so as not to suggest that it was a totally reliable guarantor of human rights. And I probably should say something like "a constitutional democracy." The American Founders well knew that you need checks and balances, an independent judiciary, a bill of rights, separation of powers, federalism, senators with long terms, and so forth, to avoid tyranny of the majority. The Brits have long had similar checks on parliamentary sovereignty and other countries do as well. I guess we do disagree on whether democracy was vulnerable in the 1860s. I do not understand why you assume that it was already so established a success that the coming apart of the world's most notable (and almost only) experiment in democracy would not undermine it. The past always looks inevitable in retrospect. But it can usually go either way.

christof139 -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/5/2007 6:42:06 AM)
The Greeks, the popular Tyrant. So intellectual. Chris

christof139 -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/5/2007 7:45:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey I disagree with you somewhat when you say that "the only reliable protection for human rights is a democracy". A democracy is a dictatorship of the majority: if the majority decides to ignore human rights, human rights will be ignored by that democracy. For instance, a perfect German democracy in the 1940s would surely have done the Jews no good; and a perfect Serbian democracy in more recent times would surely have done the Bosnian Muslims and Kosovan Albanians no good. Furthermore, a perfect Confederate democracy in the 1860s would have done the black slaves no good... If there was a 'perfect' democracy in Germany in the 1940's there would have been no persecution of them by the totalitarian Nazi Party because the Nazi Party would not have been in power in a democracy, and did not come to power by a majority vote of the German people anyway. So, Germany under the Nazis was not a democracy in any sense of the word ancient or or modern. If there wa a 'perfect' democracy in either the USA or CSA then slavery wouldn't have existed, so there was not a 'perfect' democracy here, except for Caucasians and those Africans lucky enough to be set free and to a similar and much lessened degree some Native Americans or Indians or the First nations as the Canadian Government terms the Indians. So, we had only a limited, partial democracy in the modern sense of the word for only a certain racial group of people, the Caucasians. Chris

Berkut -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/5/2007 4:55:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey quote: ORIGINAL: tc237 He truly believed that if the North lost the war, the idea of Freedom would vanish from the Earth. Although I recognize Lincoln's point of view (which you express well), and I agree there was some risk of bad consequences following from a permanent split in the Union, nevertheless there is something odd about defending freedom by imposing an unwanted government on people who have rejected it. The right and the ability of a population to determine its own government is a valid and useful freedom, and to destroy that freedom with much violence in the name of some other freedom must be a somewhat controversial exercise. It was an odd war in that at least three different kinds of freedom were at issue in it: the individual freedom of the slaves, the freedom of American states to withdraw from the Union, and whatever sort of freedom Lincoln was fighting for (perhaps he had a clear picture of it in his own mind, but it's not clear to me from what I've read). Well, the thing to remember is that it isn't like the Southern states were all particulary gung ho even about secession. West Virginia split off from Virginia over the issue, and Eastern Tenessee was strongly pro-Union as well. Certainly the CSA had no qualms about using force to put down pro-Union sentiment in those locations. The secession movement within the South was driven by economics. "States rights" were a convenient rallying cry to get the masses riled up and enlisting. The question in regards to self-determination is problematic. Where does it end? Can a single household self determine that they do not wish to pay taxes? A city? State? The classic issue of self determination is usually raised when there is a minority that is not receiving political representation within the body politic that they exist under. That is where we see the legitimate demand for self-determination - where there is a need for it due to some intractable inability for some government to fairly represent the interests of some group. The South, of course, fails that case. They had fair an equal representation within the North, and the political structure they existed under represented them using the same rules as the Northern states. So a claim that they might need the right to self-determination fails under any kind of practical restraining principal. I think what would have happened in the South with regards to slavery is that it would have ended, but only in name. "Slavery" would be gone, but the enslavement of blacks would have continued for a long, long time. Perhaps they would be paid some token wage, or some such thing, in order to placate the Europeans and their own abolitionists, but the blacks would always be third-class citizens who would be kept as a cheap and exploitable labor force. Talk about a group needed the right to self-determination!

Berkut -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/5/2007 5:00:25 PM)
One thing to realize, in Lincolns favor, was that the US at the time was still something of an experiment, in the international view. England was still a monarchy (albeit one with declinign powers of the crown and increasing powers of Parliament). This idea of a completely democratic nation, where there was no inherited head of state, where the people had semi-direct (at least theoretically) ability to select their own leadership, was not taken for granted in the manner it is today. A defeat for this great experiment could have had serious repurcussions in the continued political evolution of the West towards more liberal, democratic institutions, and I think that, in great part, is what Lincoln was talking about.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/5/2007 5:15:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: General Quarters These are interesting points. Majorities can be in favor of terrible things. But it is interesting that your examples are hypotheticals. It is hard to name an actual democracy that has engaged in anything like the Holocaust or ethnic cleansing. Yes, my hypothetical examples were hastily conceived and not very good (except perhaps for the Yugoslavian ones). But I'm sure there must be real examples of democracies that have failed to protect human rights in particular ways. For instance, all sides in the Second World War committed deliberate mass killings of innocent civilians (mostly by bombing). I seem to remember that the USA imprisoned Japanese-Americans during the same war for no good reason. Wasn't Serbia a democracy throughout the unpleasant wars it fought in recent times? Including ethnic cleansing, massacres, rapes, etc. However, yes, I accept that democracies tend to be relatively well-behaved compared with other forms of government the world has known. Regarding British democracy, it may be worth noting that the British constitution is unwritten. People don't do certain things because, well, those things are just not done. Amazing, really, that it seems to work after a fashion. quote: ORIGINAL: General Quarters I guess we do disagree on whether democracy was vulnerable in the 1860s. I do not understand why you assume that it was already so established a success that the coming apart of the world's most notable (and almost only) experiment in democracy would not undermine it. The past always looks inevitable in retrospect. But it can usually go either way. Firstly, I don't think that the successful secession of some American states would have destroyed American democracy. It is possible, I suppose, that the USA and CSA might have gone on fracturing into smaller parts, that the small parts might have fought with each other, that dictators might have arisen, and that things might have got very bad indeed. But that's just one of many possibilities, and I'm optimistic enough to think that it wasn't very likely. Another possibility: the CSA plods on for a decade or two, probably seeing its standard of living decline with respect to the USA; decides in the end to fall in line with the rest of the world and give up slavery, and then applies to rejoin the USA. Secondly, I think progress towards democracy in other countries had its own independent momentum. Even in the worst case, in which democracy completely failed in America, I think other countries would merely have determined to do democracy in a somewhat different way -- as they have in fact done anyway. The British style of democracy has older roots and isn't based on the American way.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/5/2007 5:31:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Berkut The question in regards to self-determination is problematic. Where does it end? Can a single household self determine that they do not wish to pay taxes? A city? State? This is a general political question that I think takes us well out of the scope of this forum. Briefly, it's impractical to allow small groups of people to set up as independent countries. However, the CSA clearly had the size and the political structure to function perfectly well as an independent country, and there's nothing ridiculous about the idea. Personally, I'm in favour of allowing self-government to any sizeable region that desires it. I think that's the trend in Europe, at least. We could see an independent Scotland in the not-too-distant future -- and without any war over the issue.

Viewing -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/5/2007 5:47:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: christof139 The South was beginning to become industrialized, and there were firms such as Tredagar etc. in the South, but on a smaller scale than the North. The South also processed large amounts of its raw materials such as making turpentine and molasses, and lumber and iron-ore and coal were being processed, and it would have taken some time to enlarge these industries and the South ws well on its way to doing that because of the war. Could be that if the South had become independent that the trend of industrialization would have continued out of necessity and the realization that profits could be made from this. Despite the North's industrialization, it was still Agraian but much more so was the South. Chris We could argue the respective levels of industrialization in the South and the North forever, and come to no more sense of agreement than the lot who fight the entire War over and over. [:D] That said, have you read James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom? Because the statistics he presents for the extremely slow growth of Southern industrialization, along with strong opposition to it in some quarters, I found compelling.

christof139 -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/5/2007 5:59:12 PM)
quote: Yes, my hypothetical examples were hastily conceived and not very good (except perhaps for the Yugoslavian ones). But I'm sure there must be real examples of democracies that have failed to protect human rights in particular ways. For instance, all sides in the Second World War committed deliberate mass killings of innocent civilians (mostly by bombing). I seem to remember that the USA imprisoned Japanese-Americans during the same war for no good reason. The USA did have a sound basis for initially moving Japanese-Americans from the West Coast to detention camps, and this was also done with some Italian and German- Americans. There was a Japanese 5th Column in the USA, jus as there were Italian and German 5th Columns, and supposedly about 400 - 600 or so young Japanese were deported back to Japan, along with some Italians and germans I do believe. There were acts of sabotage in the USA by Axis collaborators and agents. However, after intitial screening there was not any reason to keep all those Japanese-Americans and Italian-Americans and German-Americans in detention camps. It was unnecessary and a waste of resources, besides being unnecessarialy demenaing after screening and clearing took place. Chris

christof139 -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/5/2007 6:11:50 PM)
quote: Personally, I'm in favour of allowing self-government to any sizeable region that desires it. I think that's the trend in Europe, at least. We could see an independent Scotland in the not-too-distant future -- and without any war over the issue. Great Britain, the USA and many other modern democracies are in effect already composed of semi-autonomous regions, states within states with differeing regional and local laws etc., all under the umbrella of a centralized and federal governmental apparatus. The Soviet Union was soemwhat similar to a much, much lesser degree, with much stronger local control by the central government. That's interesting about Scotland, but I wonder if it would be fully independent or a semi-autonomous nation, simialr to the Native American or Indian Nations here in the USA. Would the majority of Scots now seek to be fully independent, since there are many benefits of having a United Kingdom?? As for war, in the 1800s everyone was engaged in wars, and that's the case for previous times, as well as the 20th Century and the present 21st Century. Something the human race hopefully might someday won't engage in, but I don't have my hopes set too high about that. Chris

Berkut -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/6/2007 1:58:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey quote: ORIGINAL: Berkut The question in regards to self-determination is problematic. Where does it end? Can a single household self determine that they do not wish to pay taxes? A city? State? This is a general political question that I think takes us well out of the scope of this forum. Briefly, it's impractical to allow small groups of people to set up as independent countries. However, the CSA clearly had the size and the political structure to function perfectly well as an independent country, and there's nothing ridiculous about the idea. Personally, I'm in favour of allowing self-government to any sizeable region that desires it. I think that's the trend in Europe, at least. We could see an independent Scotland in the not-too-distant future -- and without any war over the issue. If ability to self govern is the only criteria, then indeed many a small town can be their own government. Liechtenstein, for example, only has 30k people in it, and it seems to govern itself just fine. And I do not think there is any trend in Europe that includes this wave of self government - the Basques are still part of Spain, the Flemish haven't seperated, the examples could go one and on of small minority populations that are not allowed to simply decided they no longer wish to be part of the greater political organization. Self determination has been something the West has supported pretty exlucsively only in those cases where there is a disenfranchisement of a political class, an obvious historically invalid union of disparate people, or some danger of ethnic/religious genocide. Not wherever some group decides it doesn't want to be part of the larger nation, as long as they meet some arbitrary size. If that were the case, nations could not function.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/6/2007 7:58:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Berkut I do not think there is any trend in Europe that includes this wave of self government - the Basques are still part of Spain, the Flemish haven't seperated, the examples could go one and on of small minority populations that are not allowed to simply decide they no longer wish to be part of the greater political organization. Not a lot has happened yet, but I think attitudes are beginning to change. The breaking up of Yugoslavia was generally accepted, and the further breaking up of Serbia continues to be accepted (except perhaps by Serbs). Britain let go of most of its empire during the 20th century, and surveys apparently indicate that most English people would have no objection to Scottish independence. In Spain, most people seem hostile to Basque independence, but this is at least partly because they don't want to reward ETA after its long history of murder and extortion. Catalans have been getting increasing degrees of autonomy. Catalonia was a separate country once, and even had its own overseas empire. quote: ORIGINAL: Berkut Self determination has been something the West has supported pretty exclusively only in those cases where there is a disenfranchisement of a political class, an obvious historically invalid union of disparate people, or some danger of ethnic/religious genocide. Not wherever some group decides it doesn't want to be part of the larger nation, as long as they meet some arbitrary size. If that were the case, nations could not function. Why not? If the people of a region want to secede, it's presumably because they expect to be better off that way. If they're right, then of course they should be allowed to do it. In some cases, they'll be wrong. In those cases, after they find out their mistake they can ask to rejoin. It's no big deal. The history of Europe is full of regions changing from one country to another, gaining and losing independence, etc. In the past, changes of status have often been violent, but maybe in the future we can learn to do things more peacefully. Even in North American history, there were events such as the USA seceding from Britain, and Texas seceding from Mexico. Don't you think it would have more pleasant if those things had happened peacefully?

Berkut -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/6/2007 12:25:09 PM)
Of course it would have been better if the successful revolutions had been done peacefully. That isn't really the point though. The historical "standard" for when secession is justfied has been largely defined by the capability of the new nation to defned itself. In Europe, this is actually extremely rare. There are very few (if any) examples of successful revolutions where a minority creates a viable new country. Certainly plenty of nations swapping areas, destroying nations, or even creating new ones, but rarely as a pure issue of secession. The question is: Under what circumstances can a minority group secede from a nation and form a new nation? You ahve placed the bar at simple will, but that is simplistic and problematic. Just look at the ACW - if the North had let the South secede peacefully, what would happen to Eastern Tenessee? West Virginia? Missouri? Kansas? Parts of Alabama, and likely every single Southern state that did NOT want to secede? The end result is a fractured nation. Dozens of splinter nations, none of which are truly viable, and lots of conflicts. When Eastern Tenessee secedes from Tenessee because they want to stay in the Union, and then the people there start fighting in an effort to force out those not loyal to one side or the other. There was some county in Alabama that actually "seceeded" from Alabama because they did not wish to leave the Union. Alabama ended up occupying them. Should they be allowed to remain in the Union under this "peaceful" plan? If kentucky goes south, and the Eastern Tenessee goes North, does the Union get a right of access to their now isolated territory? There is more to self determination than simple desire for it. How do you guarnatee the rights of the new minorities within these new nations? The questions go on and on and on.

christof139 -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/6/2007 3:29:36 PM)
quote: The history of Europe is full of regions changing from one country to another, gaining and losing independence, etc. In the past, changes of status have often been violent, but maybe in the future we can learn to do things more peacefully. Even in North American history, there were events such as the USA seceding from Britain, and Texas seceding from Mexico. Don't you think it would have more pleasant if those things had happened peacefully? Yes, would be nice if things were settled peaceably and there weren't wars. However, it hasn't worked that way in history. Great Britain would not let the Colonies secede and there was a war, Mexico would not let Texas secede and there was a war, etc. etc. etc. Maybe we could just flip a coin, but that wouldn't satisfy some people either. Chris

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/7/2007 9:10:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Berkut Of course it would have been better if the successful revolutions had been done peacefully. That isn't really the point though. The historical "standard" for when secession is justified has been largely defined by the capability of the new nation to defend itself. The fact that things have been done in a certain way historically doesn't mean that we should go on doing them that way forever. At one time, absolute monarchies were the norm, but we got over that. The USA itself was a very non-traditional kind of country in the 18th century. quote: ORIGINAL: Berkut In Europe, this is actually extremely rare. There are very few (if any) examples of successful revolutions where a minority creates a viable new country. Certainly plenty of nations swapping areas, destroying nations, or even creating new ones, but rarely as a pure issue of secession. Looking only at Scandinavian history, Sweden seceded from the Kalmar Union in the 16th century, then itself took over Norway in the early 19th century. Norway seceded from that union in 1905. These were not exactly new countries, but then if Catalonia seceded from Spain it wouldn't be a really new country either, because it's been an independent country before. I mention in passing that Texas was an independent country for nine years, until it voluntarily joined the USA. quote: ORIGINAL: Berkut The question is: Under what circumstances can a minority group secede from a nation and form a new nation? My answer would be: whenever the new arrangement is practical and workable, and satisfies more people in the territory in question than the old arrangement. quote: ORIGINAL: Berkut You have placed the bar at simple will, but that is simplistic and problematic. Just look at the ACW - if the North had let the South secede peacefully, what would happen to Eastern Tenessee? West Virginia? Missouri? Kansas? Parts of Alabama, and likely every single Southern state that did NOT want to secede? I think enclaves belonging to one country entirely surrounded by another country should probably be ruled out for impracticality, although there are some historical precedents (e.g. West Berlin, where I lived for a while in 1976-77). But it was easy and feasible for West Virginia to secede from Virginia, because it bordered on the USA. Obviously, any secession will leave some dissatisfied people who didn't want to secede: witness all the British loyalists after the American war of independence, who fled to Canada. But would you say that the USA should have stayed British, to keep those people happy? I would say no, because those dissatisfied by secession were in a minority. Note that I don't count the opinions of people in Britain, who would have outvoted the secessionists. Their opinions weren't relevant because they didn't live in the territory in question. Similarly in the 19th century, the opinions of Northerners shouldn't have been relevant to Southern secession, because they didn't live in the territory in question. (Of course, the opinions of Southern slaves should have been relevant, but weren't taken into account at the time.) quote: ORIGINAL: Berkut There is more to self determination than simple desire for it. How do you guarantee the rights of the new minorities within these new nations? I'm afraid there's no firm guarantee of minority rights in any nation. Any nation can trample on a minority if the majority really wants to do so. However, there's no reason to think that minorities are any worse off in new nations than in old ones. Sometimes the new nation may have a more enlightened political setup than the old one.

christof139 -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/7/2007 4:49:09 PM)
If a nation is to remain as a single entity then secession can't exist. The arguments for and against the legitamcy of secession are a matter of interpretation of the Constitution etc., and people still debate the issue, which to me is a waste of time now. The past does affect the present and future, but this affect should be a learning and conciliatory experience, hopefully. Sometimes I interpret and feel the South had the right to secede and sometimes I interpret things the opposite. However, it doesn't matter how I interpret things because it won't change history nor actually affect the present and future all that much except on a very small scale. Who knows what will happen in the future?? Chris

Berkut -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/8/2007 4:07:31 AM)
quote: My answer would be: whenever the new arrangement is practical and workable, and satisfies more people in the territory in question than the old arrangement. This is one of those things that sounds good in theory, but is in reality often completely unworkable. Satisfys more people based on what decision to draw the lines, and where do they get drawn? Take Northern Ireland, for example. Depending on where you draw the lines, you will get completely different majorities about whether the people want to be part of the UK or Ireland. If you draw the line in such a way as to create a majority for one, then your new nation will just go through the exact same things, as the new minority draws a line that makes them a majority, and then secedes again, back to the old nation! And you can just sit there and draw these lines ad infinitum! This is in fact exactly why NI was such a mess for so long - because people drew the lines such that their faction would have a slim majority, while encompassing the greatest amount of space. Of course, even at that, there were enclaves in the new political entity where the minority overall had clear local majorities. It is simply not workable! If the majority of Tenessee wants to secede, then the majority of people in Eastern Tenessee vote to rejoin, then a majority of people in one town in Eastern Tenesse vote to be back in the seceded Tennesse, then what? The idea of unrestricted and essentially free self determination is equivalent to the idea that all government should cease to exist at anything higher than the base local level - something near to anarchy.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/8/2007 9:11:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Berkut Satisfies more people based on what decision to draw the lines, and where do they get drawn? This is not as complicated as you seem to think. Generally speaking it becomes quite obvious when there is strong public support for regional secession (especially given the frequent use of public opinion polls). If there seems a good case for a referendum, then you hold a referendum in the region in question, and the region secedes if more than 50% are in favour. Or perhaps some higher figure such as 60% might be required. If there are then subregions that want to secede from the new entity, you can repeat the process at a lower level -- but with the constraint of practicality. If some small town wants to secede and become a completely-enclosed enclave, probably it should be told, "No, forget it." quote: ORIGINAL: Berkut Take Northern Ireland, for example. OK, I will -- although I've never been there and have only "general knowledge" about the place. If my process had been followed, perhaps Northern Ireland as it is would have seceded from the Republic as it did historically; and immediately afterwards its southern counties would have seceded from Northern Ireland and rejoined the Republic. We would therefore have the border in a more sensible place than it is now, and more people would be happy with the result. There would still be enclaves of dissatisfied people on both sides of the border, but there's no way of avoiding that. One can only try to minimize the number of dissatisfied people. It is after all possible for individuals to move home and go to live on the other side of the border, if they feel strongly enough about it. quote: ORIGINAL: Berkut If the majority of Tennessee wants to secede, then the majority of people in Eastern Tennessee vote to rejoin, then a majority of people in one town in Eastern Tennessee vote to be back in the seceded Tennessee, then what? Then at each stage a decision must be made about the practicality of the new arrangement. It should be possible to agree on rules about this, so that you don't end up with a country consisting of various disconnected bits and pieces, or a country consisting of one man and his dog. quote: ORIGINAL: Berkut The idea of unrestricted and essentially free self determination is equivalent to the idea that all government should cease to exist at anything higher than the base local level - something near to anarchy. You assert this without argument. I don't agree. The fact is that secession happens from time to time. It seems better to me to do it peacefully and according to sensible rules, than to do it violently with much killing and suffering and damage. Furthermore, if the majority of people in a region want to leave a country, I really don't see the point in oppressing them by keeping them in the country by force. What is the moral justification for it? Of course they could all get up as individuals and move to some other country; but if millions of people are involved this is not a sensible solution.

Berkut -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/8/2007 11:23:28 AM)
Your argument is simply on of scale. You say people should not be allowed, if it isn't "sensible". Well, if they disagree with your definition of what is or is not "sensible" they may attempt to do so via force, ignoring the "rules" you have created. Ahhh, why, that is exactly what we have right now! The US decided that the South becoming a seperate nation in order to continue enslaving a large portion of their population was not practical, and brokes the rules. They went ahead and did it anyway, war resulted. Your comment about Northern Ireland misses the point. The point is that you ahve an area with a mix of people desiring different things. There are not neat little lines wherein the vast majority in each region wish one outcome. If 60% fo teh people in some area want to be part of Ireland, you can bet that within that area are smaller areas where 60% of the people do not. And within THOSE areas are smaller areas where 60% of the people do. So, what is the "reasonable" size? You originally went with ability to self-govern. That could be as small as a small to medium sized city. I think that results in exactly the kind of fractured society I was talking about. And lots of small city-states has never resulted in stability or peace. I don't think that is an assertion without argument - I have in fact provided an argument. You might not agree with it, but the claim that it simply does not exist is, well, an assertion without argument.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/8/2007 2:11:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Berkut Your argument is simply on of scale. You say people should not be allowed, I like this theory. Think how much nicer and quieter and cleaner and all-around more pleasant the world would be if "people weren't allowed"......

christof139 -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/8/2007 6:37:30 PM)
quote: I like this theory. Think how much nicer and quieter and cleaner and all-around more pleasant the world would be if "people weren't allowed"...... I always wanted to be an Ant, not Atom Ant though. [:)] Chris

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/8/2007 8:05:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Berkut Your argument is simply one of scale. You say people should not be allowed, if it isn't "sensible". Well, if they disagree with your definition of what is or is not "sensible" they may attempt to do so via force, ignoring the "rules" you have created. First you thought I was in favour of letting anyone secede who wanted to, and you accused me of promoting anarchy. Then, when I conceded that there may be some circumstances in which secession is absurd and shouldn't be allowed, you don't seem happy with that either. There's no pleasing you, it seems. In fact I'm not happy with "shouldn't be allowed" either. In principle it would be easier and better to let any group of people secede that wants to. If they create absurd countries, that's their problem. But I think in practice this could lead to too many political changes happening too frequently; people would get fed up with it; and politicians would pass laws to put a stop to it. So the totally-permissive solution isn't going to happen whether I want it or not. As for "the rules you have created", obviously I'm in no position to impose rules on anyone, so I haven't even bothered to formulate a set of rules. I merely suggest that a good set of rules agreed by most people is better than war. Before the Civil War, there was no agreed set of rules in the USA, hence the war. Most Southerners thought they were entitled to leave the Union whenever they wanted; most Northerners thought not. The USA's written constitution said nothing about the subject, and still says nothing (I've read it). Breaking the rules? What rules? quote: ORIGINAL: Berkut Your comment about Northern Ireland misses the point. I don't think so. It seems obvious to me that the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic was drawn too far south, and that drawing it further north would have resulted in greater numbers of people being on the side of the border that they preferred. I think such an improvement would have been useful, although it wouldn't have solved the whole problem of Northern Ireland by itself.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/8/2007 8:09:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl I like this theory. Think how much nicer and quieter and cleaner and all-around more pleasant the world would be if "people weren't allowed"...... Good point. I'm not a believer in God, but if there were a God you'd think this might have have occurred to Him, too; at least from time to time.

christof139 -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/8/2007 8:28:19 PM)
"As for "the rules you have created", obviously I'm in no position to impose rules on anyone, so I haven't even bothered to formulate a set of rules. I merely suggest that a good set of rules agreed by most people is better than war. Before the Civil War, there was no agreed set of rules in the USA, hence the war. Most Southerners thought they were entitled to leave the Union whenever they wanted; most Northerners thought not. The USA's written constitution said nothing about the subject, and still says nothing (I've read it). Breaking the rules? What rules? " It was the interpretation of those exisiting rules, laws, the Constitution etc. that the Union based its decision to stop the secession. Those rules. Obviosuly, some people had another and contrary interpretation. You have obviously not read enough of the subject to make a statement such as you did. Read more. Put the brain in gear before putting the mouth in motion. Chris

Bombsight -> RE: Could be a hornet's nest I'm sticking my hand into... (3/8/2007 9:22:27 PM)
I'm a late joiner to the thread. There are a couple of elements that I have noted in the discussion that need to be commented on. The commentary assumes a monolithic attitude of seccession by the Southern populace. This is not so. Major elements of the southern populace were disenfranchised from voting and felt little or no loyalty to The South. There was no "one man, one vote" in the civil war. Most states defined elgibility to vote by ownership of real property. As a consequence, the poor, hard-scrabble had no say-so in the state conventions for seccession. The poor whites felt little constraint at leaving camps at the drop of a hat. Ella Long in Desertion in the Civil War and Bessie Meyers' Rich Man's War, a dissertation on desertion of Alabama troops, (both books back in print after 50 years) reference this issue as a major reason why the South was forced to fight with over 30% (average) of it's troops on the muster as "Not available for Duty"! Any Southern force waiting at Fredricksburg for 18 months would waste away due to desertion, overstayed leaves and unauthorized furloughs. While, their was no instance of a seceeded state trying to leave the Confederacy. Georgia, Alabama and Miisissippee all requested a return of troops from the Eastern theatre to defend the states when invaded by the Union Western armies. Long in her book points out that major regions of almost every southern state turned into outlaw havens. Confederate Conscript officers would only enter these regions with substatial troop support. One Mississippee county tried to secede from the rest of the state a la West Virginia and had to be garrisoned. The northern tier of counties in Alabama and North East Texas were notorious in support of deserters. This was less prevalent in the North; but, western Pennsylvania and the Upper Peninsula in Michigan were deserter havens. A recent book on California in the Civil War does list the desire to dodge conscription as amajor incentive for wartime movement to the West. Forge of Fury tries to address these feelings with periods of "Unrest" in provinces and wastage between turns. All in all, this is an acceptable generalization to simplify playing the game. However, this lack of support on the home front is a major issue to consider before modifying the game to be more historical.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.9375