posted
Are there still bitter sentiments surrounding the war of secession and the reconstruction efforts afterwards? I doubt there are in the North, but seeing as how the South was invaded, I still wonder if people are sore about it. Not the losing part, as much as the invaded part.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Texas, there's a group of people (a very small group) who maintain that the United States has no power here. We are the only state that has entered the Union as a seperate nation, and they maintain that we thus had the right to leave the Union. They say that we're really the Republic of Texas, as we were when we were a seperate nation. Seems like an excuse to not pay taxes to me...
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, all the original 13 colonies entered as sovereign nations, and pretty much remained so under the original Articles of Confederation. Early Constitutional law spent a lot of time reconciling the powers of the federal government over "sovereign" states.
It was well-established in these decisions that the federal government was formed by the people, not the states, and that the federal government did have superiority over certain aspects of the states.
Despite this, it was not until after the Civil War that the concept of states as separate, independent sovereigns was thoroughly quashed. But the underlying idea still echoes through the law even today.
posted
Yes, but it was an independent sovereign nation when the United States annexed it as a territory. It wasn't part of a different nation, like France or Mexico, or a region with a lot of unaffiliated tribes.
posted
You know, it's funny. In the U.S., your constitution provides for a very loose, decentralized government. All governmental powers that are not explicitly given to the federal government automatically fall to the states. In fact, before the civil war, some argued (especially in the south) that the U.S. was not a country at all, but a loose alliance of sovereign states.
In Canada, it's the other way around. Our constition is a literal dictatorship. All powers not explicitly delegated to the provinces fall on the federal government, which is very strong and centralized. Moreover, the Governor General, as the representative of the queen of England in Canada, has the right to veto anything and everything that parliament decides, and everything is subject to his/her approval.
But that's on paper. In practice, the U.S. has a very powerful, highly centralized federal government. In Canada, we have one of the most decentralized democracies in the world. The Federal government has very little say in what goes on in the provinces. The Governor General is nothing more than a rubber stamp (albeit a highly respected one). The queen can give her opinion, but nobody has to listen.
Funny how things work out, eh?
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
You can argue about the underlying reasons for the "War for Southern Independence" (as some of my relatives like to call it) but it can all be distilled into one central question--Do individual states have the right to secede from the union? The resounding answer was that no, they do not.
posted
An upshot of that, however, is that you americans are more unified than canadians can ever hope to be. You are all "American", no matter where you come from.
In Canada, well... Quebecers (french-canadians) have been trying to seperate for decades... ever since the british conquest in 1763, to be precise. The westerners are feeling alienated too, and some talk of seperation. Newfoundland and Labrador were admitted as a province in 1949, by a very narrow margin. Alot of them still regret it. The maritime provinces are their own entity as well (that's Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island). The native americans... well, they have their own territories, and they're always challenging the authority of all governments.
As far as I can tell, the only canadians that feel "Canadian" are ontarians. Where the capital is (which is Ottawa, by the way, not Toronto.)
That's the disadvantage of loose governments. There's no feeling of belonging (well, less anyway). We canadians are only patriotic to the extent that we're proud to not be americans. The U.S., on the other hand, doesn't have that problem. Ever since the civil war, you are all "American". It unified you like nothing else could. "Unamerican" is an insult in your country. In Canada, most of the country feels "Uncanadian". (Except if you're outside Canada, that is.)
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hehehe. Well, I just spent three weeks in the States, and it has just become almost a reflex with me, when talking to Americans, to specify that the capital is not Toronto. I do it because it was very often needed.
Not that I blame people for not knowing. We are rather insignificant way up there. Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As to whether states have the right to secede, I think they do. They have to give up all rights and priveleges associated with membership in the USA, it would be a dumb, dumb thing to do, and the South had a crappy, crappy reason for wanting to do it the first time around, but the only reason the answer is "No, they don't." is because the North won. It's not an answer from logic or history, reason or law. It's an answer from a gun.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not an answer from logic or history, reason or law.
I disagree. The democratic social contract is fundamental at odds with the right of secession. In a democratic society we are given the right to voice our opinions and to vote, in exchange we agree to abide by the will of the majority. This system cannot work if people our groups of people are allowed to leave whenever they are not part of the majority. From the ratification of the constitution up until the election of Lincoln, the southern slave states were able to effectively control the legislature and the executive branch. On numerous occasions, for example the fugative slave laws, they forced their will on the northern. As soon as it became apparent that they would no longer be able to control the country as the majority, they decided to take their toys and go home. Democracy can not work under this system.
If you want to argue that the democratic social contract is unfair, I might agree, but I can not agree that the decision against the right of secession has no basis in reason or law.
I would also like to add that until the southern states were not the only ones invaded during the civil war. The south invaded northern states as well.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I disagree. The democratic contract theory didn't bond America.
What bonded the country was a pledge:
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
That was the foundation, and that was the pledge and a sense of fidelity, commitment for the sake of commitment itself held this country together. This was a pledge with each other, not a pledge under a government.[ A voluntarily entered pledge buttressed by pledges and trust down through the ranks to the people. The laws on top of that were just gravy. This was a marriage for better or for worse, not a contract or for faster or for looser.
Revolutions and governments were bloody and instable all over the world for the last two hundred years because they lacked this voluntary pledge as the fundamental foundation. The French seemed to have twenty or so revolutions for this same reason. You can't have a democratic contract based on mere interest in an age of revolution, especially when the go vernment is the result of a revolution. The democratic contract was trumped immediately by the fact that it came from a democratic revolution.
America was a marriage. And in the Civil War, the husband wanted to cheat and wife was going to hold this famiily together, and wasn't afraid to slap him around a little bit, slavery was just the mistress that the wife had already accepted, but she resented the flagrancy. _____________________________________
I thik a problem in American politics is that black people were conspiciously ignored in this pledge and are still sore about it, kind of like the southerners are about the Civil War. They are wary the white america in a similar fashion that southerners are still wary of northerners.
______________________________________
This is also a problem with the UN. I think it can also explain the Iraqi insurgency. This initial pledge isn't something that can be voted on, it's something that needs to be voluntarily entered into in a respect for fidelity.
quote:Hehehe. Well, I just spent three weeks in the States, and it has just become almost a reflex with me, when talking to Americans, to specify that the capital is not Toronto. I do it because it was very often needed.
Not that I blame people for not knowing. We are rather insignificant way up there.
It didn't even seem relevant to me, let alone "needed". But since I seem to have been the only one bothered by it, I guess it doesn't matter.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
