My father told me that around the time of Ron Paul's farewell to congress speech " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q03cWio-zjk ", petitions for secessions started popping up, Texas having a whooping 117k votes while only 25k are needed.
I know just how intelligent the people here are, so I know I won't have to explain anything,
I voted my state out, and for many others to secede as well, I just don't see the federal government heading in a positive direction, what with Obama declaring war all on his own, the raid on Osama bin Laden (could've started ANOTHER war), the wars "in general", losing our military to the UN, ObamaCare, rigged elections via various sources mostly media, and of course the inability to fix a damn thing.
/That's my rant and I'm sticking to it.
-Discussion on thoughts-
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Good luck.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There's nothing like taking your ball and going home when you don't get your way.
I didn't hear a lot of secession talk in the 90s when Republicans were pushing Obamacare. I didn't hear a lot of secession talk in the aughts when Bush declared his wars. I didn't hear a lot of secession talk when Bush won despite failing to win the popular vote once, having a recount halted by the Supreme Court, and losing in an election where he was wildly unpopular.
Sure people were pissed, and there were threats to move to Canada, etc. But organized petition drives to secede? Nope.
And I don't even know what the hell that UN taking over our military nonsense is. The rest of the world seems pretty unified in throwing a hissy fit about how we use our military. We've never played well with the UN.
But if Texas wants to leave, good riddance. It'll help solve a big part of the logjam. I wouldn't mind handing over Alabama and Mississippi as well. The disposition of political power in this country is ridiculously lopsided, and if you all want to leave, it might finally mean something closer to one man one vote.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think those petitions work wonderfully as idiot detectors.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Republicans are so proud about the fact that Pres. Abraham Lincoln was a republican all those years ago. I wonder what Lincoln would think about states trying to leave the union?
Too bad we will never know.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Rawrain, is your actual intent to leave the Union (i.e. should these petitions work in a literal sense and those states seceed), or do you some how see this just as a way to send a message?
Hobbes Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
It's amusing to me to see the Bin Laden strike listed as a negative by a wingnut. If it was GWB who ordered that strike, it would have been considered his crowning achievement by the very same partisans.
I won't address the rest of the list, beyond mentioning the very literal face-palm it provoked.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Can we please just let them secede this time?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
That one surprised me. I've seen a lot of people write it off as having nothing to do with Obama (and thus shouldn't be counted under his "win" column), but this is the first time I've seen anyone claim it was a sign of bad leadership.
I'm not sure who the other party in this potential war is. Pakistan? I mean I don't know who else you could mean but really, you think Pakistan might have started a war with the United States?
Hobbes Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I saw that I think it was Austin made a petition to remain part of America and leave Texas if they seceded. :-)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Clearly they need to be reminded of the landmark decisive legal case of Sherman vs. Atlanta.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Can we please just let them secede this time?
Heck no. When they become a filthy countries of base lawlessness, guess who is going to have to foot the bill?
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Considering all the open petitions, small chance any of those there would be taken seriously, there's actually a petition to deport everyone who signed a petition to secede... I would be satisfied with actually leaving the US, but making a point would be a lot better than nothing at all.
If a secession is successful in that without violence any state is removed from the US, it proves the US is truly a free country, otherwise I sense military intervention in the later course of things, for example military dressed civilians at peaceful protests whom open fire on nearby soldiers as a means to start a riot, and have half the state executed, cause that's how our country rolls these days.
I'm simply tired of all this bullshit.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yeah thats the second point, if they secede then there's going to be millions of people who will be oppressed and forced to leave, which has its costs unless you close the border.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
from sometime around like two years ago:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Shoot and kill border patrol, this is America when we say don't trespass DON'T TRESPASS. Simple simple, and maybe before we deport them back to Mexico for strolling across the border we can educate them on how to do it legally ,_,
Rawrain, I'm getting the sense across the threads you participate in that you're kinda cute and real naive, like a budding libertarian in the pupal stage or something.
now we just need david attenborough to narrate rawrain's emergence from a chrysalis of privilege to have become a full-fledged libertarian in its adult phase
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
I am a libertarian I do change my mind a lot, but it always stays in the right direction..
Also Sam, Obama put a real stick in the mud, when he gave the majority of illegal immigrants amnesty. I lol'ed quite hard because it included those that served in the US military, then I wonder to myself, how the hell does an illegal immigrant join our military, yes our country is quite secure and now that they're forgiven for trespassing we can arrest the remaining for identity theft and/or fraud.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, you don't actually have to be stupid. You can try not to be.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Rawrain, you're bridging away from that 'amusingly naive and privileged' sort of ignorance into less fun territory.
Re: illegal immigrants in the military-first of all, it's clear you know...well very little about the topic. Two, how much time and effort in your life have you *ever* spent in service to others, to judge what the rewards for service should be?
Finally: anyone who says they only change their mind to become more right is very much full of something, and it ain't wisdom.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Forum dwellers share a mentality just like the rather religious folks share the same mentality even with different beliefs, and as thus I avoid forums because despite his potential belief in his uniqueness there's hundreds of folks just like Sam patrolling forums everywhere, waiting to take bites out of anyone that steps too close. -
I've kept an open mind when it comes to collecting information, but my decisions are narrow-minded , I have a version of the world I'd like to see to fruition, though it will never be exactly as I imagine it, I can give it a push in the right direction.
My main interest is making the world a better place, I'm glad I have your support hatracks finest, we can watch the world burn together :P
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Seeing as the last time rich conservatives threw such a tantrum over not getting their way it actually did end in quite a lot of things and people being burned...
Feel free to make a Meetup group, I'll bring the cookies.
[ November 26, 2012, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: AchillesHeel ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Rawrain, secession is entirely illegal under the US Constitution and has no bearing as to what makes the US a free or not free country. If you want something akin to an objective judge try freedom house.
The Articles of Confederation and the Northwest Ordanance, along with the other case of Texas v. White along with statements from Justice Scalia all pretty say the same thing; the Civil War decided that matter with finality, secession will never be legal in the United States unless they succeed with military force.
quote: In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".
The Supreme Court likely will refuse to even hear the case, even if they did hear it, they tend to side with the Federal government 80% of the time.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Blayne, you're doing it right.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Forum dwellers share a mentality just like the rather religious folks share the same mentality even with different beliefs, and as thus I avoid forums because despite his potential belief in his uniqueness there's hundreds of folks just like Sam patrolling forums everywhere, waiting to take bites out of anyone that steps too close.
My original intended post literally was me acting like an attenborough narration about your epic migration, inevitably to crazy libertarian friendly forums that don't challenge you, because everywhere else is full of meanies that call you an idiot for espousing incredibly stupid views.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
"You're an idiot." Won't lead to anywhere positive for either people.
So I am to know what it is that makes me stupid when this is the remark I receive. Thus those who say are also stupid, for having not an explanation.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Tom: You know better. Knock it off please.
Samprimary: Less talking about posters as being in the larval/pupal stage of some undesireable state if you please. It's degrading.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Rawrain: you are wrong in every detail, and secession would be a very bad idea for almost every state in the Union. What would you like to have explained to you?
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Presume, at least a 5th of the current states secede, other countries like China and Russia DO NOT get involved, list some of the most major downsides... it's a start .-.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
It keeps amazing me how much a lot of people who 'really love America' really... don't.
Also - a fifth of the states leave to form a new country together, or each one becomes a separate country? Either way, disaster, but I am interested.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Presume, at least a 5th of the current states secede,
Together or individually? And which states? Just the ones with petitions, or did you have a specific few in mind?
[Edited because I'm bad at simple math.]
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I may be wrong, but wasn't part of the deal when Texas became a state that they could leave at any time?
Let Texas leave, bring Puerto Rico in. That way we wouldn't have to change the flag.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Here's my quick non-source-cited argument against state secession.
It's a logistical nightmare. Let's pretend that ten states passed referendums to secede. I highly doubt that ten states would pass the referendums, but for the sake of the argument, imagine that they passed. I think it's entirely without question that the referendum would not be unanimous.
Let's pretend that in those ten states the "secede" vote only got 60%. What happens to that 40% of voters who didn't want to secede? Are they free to leave and move to another state? Why should they leave if they've lived there for generations? They have family, friends, a job, a mortgage, memories, etc.
Speaking of mortgages, how will businesses operate? What about all those mortgages in seceding states that were offered by FDIC insured banks? If you're in a state that has seceded, you are no longer tied to the federal government, so why would you have FDIC insurance from a government which no longer represents you?
What about all those other federal programs? Will those states create a new FDA? How will they manage their ports and airports? Will we need new passports? Are those states unifying into a single bloc as a new country? How would continental travel be affected?
What about the military? There are military bases in these states that want to secede, do they get to keep them?
What about trade relations? As a new country, you won't have trade agreements in place with other countries. What's more, it's plausible that you won't have the resources necessary to sustain the first-world comfortable lifestyle you have now.
What about our national debt? Will you take on a share of it? Part of the reason states signed on to the constitution is that the federal government holds the national debt and would absorb the state debts incurred to foreign powers. When you leave, are you willing to take your fair share of the national debt?
What if my brother lives in a state that secedes? Do I get to visit him freely? Can he visit me freely?
The short of it is this: It's a bad idea. Even if states had the freedom/right to secede, it does not make it a prudent decision to practice that right. But I will say this: These petitions for secession are the very reason that I do love this country. This is the freedom of speech taken to its greatest level of dissent. And you're free to petition this without fear of being beaten by a government goon-squad.
I'm also sympathetic to your being frustrated with the state of affairs. For full disclosure, had Governor Romney won, I would have stayed to see what his presidency shaped out to be(there was no way to tell what he'd be like from the campaign), but if I didn't like what I saw, I'd consider moving out of the country for a while. So I get the frustration. If the tables were turned, I'd probably feel much of the same frustration.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I may be wrong, but wasn't part of the deal when Texas became a state that they could leave at any time?
Let Texas leave, bring Puerto Rico in. That way we wouldn't have to change the flag.
Hey Texaco, oh sorry, Texas. I keep forgetting that you changed your name after you were stolen from me by people who had denounced their American citizenship, only to make you part of the U.S. It's okay, I forgive you for all those nasty things you've been saying about me. I want you to know that if you finally see the error of your ways, I'll still take you back. Whether you like it or not.
-Mexico
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
good list of downsides, seems more like a hassle and less of a deal breaker... Request amnesty of debt to ownd countries, many times in the past this has been done with foreign countries in order to help growth, setting up trade relations with foreign countries may not be all that hard, but I see it being circumstantial to where you live, my state is a pretty heavy exporter in lead sadly..
Considering how our country currently work, we can fresh slate and just wipe out all mortgages and get rid of our current fail-banking system fed.res. .......
Perhaps similar to the UN, the US could become the United Countries of America, as our states are kinda supposed to be independent (government wise) anyways.
( I thought Romney was WORSE than Obama /: ) How about some about some upsides?
* Achilles that made me lol.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I was curious to check out the petitions page. Oy vey, this country. I think my favorite was the petition to the White House to impeach President Obama. I kind of want to create a petition to require a test of basic civics for people to be allowed to create a petition.
Rawrain, given that you support secession, whereas as far as I can tell no one else on the thread does, wouldn't it be up to you to present the upsides?
edit:
Also, my impression of you is that English is your primary language. Is that correct? If so, I think you may want to take more time composing your posts. You come across, at least to me, as someone who is not a native English speaker.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: we can fresh slate and just wipe out all mortgages and get rid of our current fail-banking system fed.res. .......
Well, that answers the question of whether you are making a serious suggestion or not.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
In fairness, I believe there are a couple upsides to secession. The biggest of which would be, theoretically, greater accountability in your elected officials. As our nation keeps becoming more populous, any particular person's voice matters less and less. Secession would create a more localized government with a smaller population. Now, I'm not one of those who believes local government is inherently better than federal government. It can be better, but it is by no means a guarantee. A tyrant in DC can easily be replaced with a tyrant in Houston.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
I have a hard time articulating my thoughts, smaller government is somewhat harder to corrupt and easier to notice when it is corrupt.. very hard to track how many senators and members of congress are being bought off by major companies, this should have been made illegal long ago, but you know.. it won't ever be.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: I have a hard time articulating my thoughts, smaller government is somewhat harder to corrupt and easier to notice when it is corrupt.. very hard to track how many senators and members of congress are being bought off by major companies, this should have been made illegal long ago, but you know.. it won't ever be.
We have yet to phonetically articulate the sounds I made while reading that, at least within the rules of hatrack.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I may be wrong, but wasn't part of the deal when Texas became a state that they could leave at any time?
Let Texas leave, bring Puerto Rico in. That way we wouldn't have to change the flag.
Completely wrong, see the court case of Texas vs White.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Can we please just let them secede this time?
Heck no. When they become a filthy countries of base lawlessness, guess who is going to have to foot the bill?
I don't know, we're talking about Louisiana and Florida here. Aren't they already in a state of filthy base lawlessness that we are footing the bill for?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: I have a hard time articulating my thoughts, smaller government is somewhat harder to corrupt and easier to notice when it is corrupt.. very hard to track how many senators and members of congress are being bought off by major companies, this should have been made illegal long ago, but you know.. it won't ever be.
It depends on how you define smaller government. If you make government smaller by reducing redundancies, streamline agencies, and put more authority in few people, it's easier to corrupt the government. When you have less people you need to influence and these people have more power than before, it's far easier to get your agenda through. If you mean a smaller government by decreasing the scope and power of the government, then it may be true that there would be less harm from its corruption--but it's just as easy to corrupt those in charge. But if you decrease the power of government, you're increasing the power of the private sector. If you trust the free market to act in accordance with a moral code, then I suppose this would be preferable. But the way I see it, you'd be giving power to groups who are even harder to hold accountable than government.
As for identifying corruption, it depends, again. If a person has very little power, it's hard to see them being corrupt because they can do so little as a corrupt agent. On the other hand, if you make the government smaller by decreasing the total number of people in government, it is easier to see who is corrupt. Unfortunately, while it's easier to see that they're corrupt, it's easier to see because their corruption can do far more damage.
If your concern with the government is that it's corrupt and unaccountable, secession is no guarantee that you'll get a government that is accountable. There are many smaller countries than the US with far more authoritarian governments. Their being "local" governments doesn't make it any easier to create change. Rather than focus your energy on secession, I think the better approach to take is reform.
I agree that our federal government lacks accountability. I also agree that corruption is a huge problem what with the influence of wealth interest groups in the campaign process. Secession, or even the talk of secession, won't bring about the reforms to address these problems. Talking about secession is a resignation to the status quo, not a call for reform. But I do appreciate the passion these secessionists have. Hopefully this energy can be directed into more positive venues.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:What about the military? There are military bases in these states that want to secede, do they get to keep them?
Yeah, I think if it ever got that far, the seceding Texans (or whoever) would be a little taken aback by the fact that they don't actually get to keep all their tanks, planes,and ships currently situated there.
Not to mention the nukes. That right there might be a deal-breaker by itself. I don't think I'd be comfortable with a new nuclear power on my doorstep.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I didn't hear a lot of secession talk [back when]
So, to be fair about it, that was before you could "petition to secede" with the click of a button. Bing, your little dose of satisfied outrage for the day. When "voting to secede" costs as much as clicking a Facebook 'Like' button, it's just as meaningful: 117k Likes and a nickel will buy you a nickel's worth of coffee, which isn't very much these days.
Now, it's a bit of a problem that you can get a little dose of "ha-ha, I stuck it to the other guy" and a mean little satisfaction from making this kind of gesture with the literal click of a button; that stuff is addictive. The politics of outrage are bad enough without allowing hoi polloi to join in effortlessly; at least in the past you had to sit down and actually write your little rant to get that satisfying burst of anger. But any specific manifestation of it is worth a "meh" at most. Today the right is clicking on secession petitions, six months ago it was the left liking the Kony 2012 thing, three months from now there'll be some other fad.
When this secession thing manages to get as many people out of their comfy chairs as Occupy Wall Street did - and where are they now, by the way? - it'll be worth a raised eyebrow. Clicking on web pages? Pff.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:What about the military? There are military bases in these states that want to secede, do they get to keep them?
Yeah, I think if it ever got that far, the seceding Texans (or whoever) would be a little taken aback by the fact that they don't actually get to keep all their tanks, planes,and ships currently situated there.
Not to mention the nukes. That right there might be a deal-breaker by itself. I don't think I'd be comfortable with a new nuclear power on my doorstep.
Well the seceeding southern states can keep their expanding welfare rolls and medical crises and just deal with it themselves without their federal welfare they'd been absorbing to keep afloat
(upon hearing this, the southern secessionist party suddenly freezes in place, guns still raised, as a record-scratch sound halts Bob Wills mid-croon and leaves only silence. the members glance around nervously with expanding worried frowns of dawning comprehension)
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:What about the military? There are military bases in these states that want to secede, do they get to keep them?
Yeah, I think if it ever got that far, the seceding Texans (or whoever) would be a little taken aback by the fact that they don't actually get to keep all their tanks, planes,and ships currently situated there.
Not to mention the nukes. That right there might be a deal-breaker by itself. I don't think I'd be comfortable with a new nuclear power on my doorstep.
Or the people, any active duty personnel who refuse to leave when ordered would be ordered to stand before a military court. If they run they would be international fugitives and a danger to the United States of America. If we take our military out of a place, we don't leave soldiers and the like behind just because they feel like it.
What about companies? Would they be compensated by Texaco if their property were sequestered or (heaven forbid) they did not want to operate in the newly formed country and its laws? Is it the responsibility of the remaining states to compensate the company and or corporation for every piece of land, building, equipment and projected losses due to the secession or does the responsibility lie with the seceded.
Surely this would inhibit the ability of the seceded nation/nations to successfully participate in international business. Knowing that investing in the Texacan economy may result in a complete loss of all property and fiscal assets is quite the red flag to international corporations.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Some of these questions have surely been answered before, with actual balkanization in the past. I wonder how some of these things have been handled in the real world. The USSR collapse would seem to be a good first place to look.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I observe that in 1860, the actual war did not start until the South fired on one of the military bases that the Union still occupied. The secession, as such, did not kick off hostilities.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Were there many international corporations in the USSR? Wasn't that a large problem for them as a developing modern society in contrast to Europe and North America?
Few American based companies would be willing to take active losses to help build the seceded states, and considering the entire possibility of the whole thing causing a recession that would put our recent one to shame neither would any others who profit almost exclusively from the first world.
If you knew that secession would result in a complete loss of all first world technologies (and I'm not just talking about cellphones, all of it) would you feel comfortable with seceding?
A new question, what would be the expected fallout from a seceded state? not just the ones who refuse to give up their American citizenship but those who secede and want to come back?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wonder if there are any good books on what happened in the four months between secession and Ft. Sumter.
Sounds like an interesting time.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Let's pretend that in those ten states the "secede" vote only got 60%. What happens to that 40% of voters who didn't want to secede? Are they free to leave and move to another state? Why should they leave if they've lived there for generations? They have family, friends, a job, a mortgage, memories, etc.
Dude, total status-quo bias. Run it the other way: Suppose a secession petition fails because 60% of the people vote against it. What happens to the other 40%? Oh right, sucks to be them. That's the nature of a democracy, or indeed of any form of public decisionmaking. Sometimes a decision goes against you and it sucks to be you. You can't make that a reason to just keep the status quo at all times.
Additionally, please observe that at the time of the American Rebellion, roughly one-third of the population were committed Loyalists and another third didn't really care about the issue. You don't hear a lot about those people, partly because the other guys won and partly because they were intimidated by mob tactics and outright terrorism. So, by your logic, the colonies should not have revolted against George III. A point I quite agree with, actually; but I suspect nobody else does. So, what exactly is different about the situation in 1779, such that "what about the minority" is not compelling? Especially since, in that case, it was actually a majority that didn't particularly want to secede.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You know, you don't actually have to be stupid. You can try not to be.
Actually, I am afraid he can't. More's the pity.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Jones County Mississippi voted against secession, but being almost entirely inhabited by dirt farmers who could barely produce extra crops to sell after tending to their families no one cared. That is until the confederacy needed bodies holding guns, then they remembered very well where the poor farmers who couldn't afford to buy their way out of the draft were.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Let's pretend that in those ten states the "secede" vote only got 60%. What happens to that 40% of voters who didn't want to secede? Are they free to leave and move to another state? Why should they leave if they've lived there for generations? They have family, friends, a job, a mortgage, memories, etc.
Dude, total status-quo bias. Run it the other way: Suppose a secession petition fails because 60% of the people vote against it. What happens to the other 40%? Oh right, sucks to be them. That's the nature of a democracy, or indeed of any form of public decisionmaking. Sometimes a decision goes against you and it sucks to be you. You can't make that a reason to just keep the status quo at all times.
Additionally, please observe that at the time of the American Rebellion, roughly one-third of the population were committed Loyalists and another third didn't really care about the issue. You don't hear a lot about those people, partly because the other guys won and partly because they were intimidated by mob tactics and outright terrorism. So, by your logic, the colonies should not have revolted against George III. A point I quite agree with, actually; but I suspect nobody else does. So, what exactly is different about the situation in 1779, such that "what about the minority" is not compelling? Especially since, in that case, it was actually a majority that didn't particularly want to secede.
I admit to having status quo bias. But I will note that my point was that it's a logistical nightmare. It may be the case that it's worth it. It's something that needs to be considered when evaluating whether secession is a good idea. Either way, someone is getting a bum deal.
ETA: And you're not the only one.
[ November 26, 2012, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I point out KoM that the non issue of minority issues and pointing that out does smack a bit of historical relativism. Sure no one cared back then due to enduring concepts such as the Westphalian order made it so. However the situation isn't true today because now we do ingrained in international law even, the conceptual ideal of the right of self determination of minorities. In Quebec this is significant because of how narrow the margin of oui/non was for separation of Quebec from Canada would likely leave a soon to be oppressed anglophone minority in its wake (not hyperbole). Right now one of the strongest arguments against and one that manages to rally the anglophone community against the idea of separation is the mounting evidence that the Parti Quebecois would not be even handed stewards of a united Quebec, but would aim to benefit the French tribe over the English tribe.
So sure, back then no one cared, but now there is a rather enduring push back of "hey, minorities, shouldn't they get a say?" For example geopolitics notwithstanding there's always South Ossetia as a good example.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: ... the colonies should not have revolted against George III. A point I quite agree with, actually; but I suspect nobody else does.
Suspicion wrong.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I don't know. Hard to fault anyone wishing to no longer be governed by an *aristocracy* of all things, and if a revolution is needed...
I'm considering it as read, btw, that yes the replacement bore many very real similarities to a nation of aristocrats, but it was a decisive step in the right direction. It's very difficult to say what the world would have been without it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Britain was just as laissez faire as the United States for the longest time, and much more progressive. Likely slavery would've been abolished much sooner despite the likely larger pro-slavery lobby in Whitehall as a result of the Americans. Dominion status would've been a given sometime mid 19th century simply because of economic and demographic factors as the population reached the British and surpassed it. The Indians would've likely still retained their fully soveriegn nations in the hinterlands and Canada would be larger (we would likely have Ohio valley).
WWI would've likely still been an Entente victory simply due to the fact that nothing short of chronic warfare or natural disaster would've given the historical fact of British laissez faire economics and free trade stopped the American 19th century economic boom. Huge industries and population would've meant that the American Commonwealth would've likely deployed soldiers and significant munitions much sooner, Russia might remained stable and not collapsed into revolutionary war if say, the war ended early 1917 wherein I believe the Germans were first beginning to run out of steam.
However likely no League of Nations, not unless "Prime Minister Woodrow Wilson" was still a politician in position to suggest it, maybe the British would have had the economy to keep Germany down maybe not. WWII gets fairly iffy but Russia if it remained stable might have became a sort of pre Cold War antagonist much sooner if the Leninist New Economic Policy of some form could have taken off in roughly the same time period.
Even if Russia excited the war victorious I don't see it stopping Russia reforming into a Constitutional Monarchy guided by the mensheviks of the original provisional government resulting in economic growth with peace of some form, especially with Germany so weakened.
But after that speculation becomes rather useless.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Only after that, eh?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... it was a decisive step in the right direction.
Hard to say, given the pretty high cost to the world of what actually did happen. It is always of course possible that we could have a "going back in time to kill Hitler, turns out Gobbels was even worse!" outcome where the alternative is even more horrifying, but the optimist in me likes to think that the US would have eventually have had a much more agreeable Canadian-like Negotiation of Independence as opposed to a War of Independence.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Do you think the fact of the War of Independence had any impact on making negotiations for Independence more amicable and smooth?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I don't think it was in Trudeau's mind in 1982 if that's what you mean.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... it was a decisive step in the right direction.
Hard to say, given the pretty high cost to the world of what actually did happen. It is always of course possible that we could have a "going back in time to kill Hitler, turns out Gobbels was even worse!" outcome where the alternative is even more horrifying, but the optimist in me likes to think that the US would have eventually have had a much more agreeable Canadian-like Negotiation of Independence as opposed to a War of Independence.
That supposes that, with the full power of the United States at Britain's disposal, history would have turned out exactly the same. That seems unlikely.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I don't think it was in Trudeau's mind in 1982 if that's what you mean.
I was thinking of the smaller steps taken over two hundred years more than the official conclusion-particularly the Constitution Act which, if memory serves, was the first time Canada had a representative form of government and was made law in...well, the late 18th century I know, I want to say mid 1790s?
Allow me to echo with emphasis Lyrhawn's 'unlikely', too.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... it was a decisive step in the right direction.
Hard to say, given the pretty high cost to the world of what actually did happen. It is always of course possible that we could have a "going back in time to kill Hitler, turns out Gobbels was even worse!" outcome where the alternative is even more horrifying, but the optimist in me likes to think that the US would have eventually have had a much more agreeable Canadian-like Negotiation of Independence as opposed to a War of Independence.
That supposes that, with the full power of the United States at Britain's disposal, history would have turned out exactly the same. That seems unlikely.
Actually for most of the 19th century history would've stayed the largely the same. Britain's role as a 'balancer' nation more concerned with its colonial upkeep with the occassional bit of continental diplomacy means that even with "America" still British, it isn't going to cause Britian to still rock the boat. It's the other nations who see such a supremely stronger Britain that might react differently.
There are trends and fairly extensive analysis of Britain's priorities available during the height of their Imperial strength and ambitions, it isn't one that is likely to have changed even if you doubled their relative share of GDP. They're not going to invade Europe or needlessly antagonize European Great Powers but do what they always did since before the American Rebellion and thats play ombudsman to Europeans power politics.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Or, yano colonize Africa and the Middle East to a greater extent than they did?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Plus, without the American Revolution and its weakening of England, would the French Revolution have occurred, and if so, been successful? That might have had some slight effect on European history.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: ... but the optimist in me likes to think that the US would have eventually have had a much more agreeable Canadian-like Negotiation of Independence as opposed to a War of Independence.
That supposes that, with the full power of the United States at Britain's disposal, history would have turned out exactly the same. That seems unlikely.
I don't assume that at all. I don't think Britain would have had access to the "full power" of the United States any more than British Canada had access to the "full power" of Quebec. I can imagine a world where the US didn't violently separate, I can't really imagine a world where Americans would be enthusiastic about it
In other words, I fully expect that Britain and the proto-US would have bickered and quarrelled ala Quebec and the rest of Canada until a referendum event like we had in Quebec.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I was thinking of the smaller steps taken over two hundred years more than the official conclusion
If you're thinking of Confederation, Canada was actually less independent at that point than Hong Kong is of China today. You have to go well into the twentieth century before Canada gains control over its foreign policy and its constitution which I think are the real hallmarks of independence.
If another country can declare war for you (WWI) or literally change the highest law of your land, I don't think you're independent in any meaningful sense of the word. This was of course a source of tension between British Canadians who thought of themselves as British subjects and French Canadians.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Or, yano colonize Africa and the Middle East to a greater extent than they did?
Would have made Liu Xiaobo happy (not sure it would actually happen though)
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Some of these questions have surely been answered before, with actual balkanization in the past. I wonder how some of these things have been handled in the real world. The USSR collapse would seem to be a good first place to look.
Even that wouldn't seem very comparable.
The soviet countries didn't have private ownership of companies, or capitalistic economy. Most of them had their own languages, and their own national identity, despite decades of soviet rule.
Probably better examples could be found from colonial age, when countries seceded, yet kept the same language, culture and economic system they had before seceding.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Or, yano colonize Africa and the Middle East to a greater extent than they did?
Why would this happen? What aspect of British Imperialism made this desirable in Whitehall? That something happened ie as a result of WWI, doesn't mean that its something bound to happen "more" if only Britain was "more" powerful. Persia remained entirely independent for the longest time you know that right? Do you think this was only because Britain wasn't as strong as they could be?
Imperial interest doesn't automatically mean conquest, especially for an empire as mercantile as Britain's, it was sufficient to merely have preferential access to markets. Britain only resorted to the use of force in China because they couldn't have as much access.
quote: Plus, without the American Revolution and its weakening of England, would the French Revolution have occurred, and if so, been successful? That might have had some slight effect on European history.
The economics are different back then, this is pre-industrial revolution. It's not like an independent USA was a serious distraction or anything during 1812 or before that.
Also the population of the US wasn't as large as it was later, Britain already arguably made fantastic amounts of money off of trade and tarrifs during the Napoleonic Wars with the US; still having them as colonies wouldn't have been that large of an increase of a tax base, nor does it translate into increased willingness to wield imperial power. Why would it have been in British interest to intervene earlier? Britain was a balancer not an oppressor when it came to the continent, too many toes to step on no matter how powerful you are and the more you are the more you need to be careful.
Remember the British Empire may have made the rules but they followed them (generally), if they kept America most of their interests as far as most of the world is concerned I am highly doubtful would have changed.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)