Was War Necessary After Secession?

[hawglips]

The reason why I am Secesh can be demonstrated in five very short sentences:

1. The right to self-determination, to self-government, is the one great political principle

2. The nation state exists in order to give expression to that desire for self-government.

3. The nation state has no purpose, identity or validity independent of that function.

4. Any group of human beings, forming a majority within a given area, who come to think of themselves as a distinct and separate people thereby actually become so.

5. Having become a separate people, their need for self-government cannot be fulfilled by the existing nation state, which therefore ceases to exist.

Mr. Torrens, such sound logic and careful reasoning is difficult to find fault with.

Hal

[hawglips]

Now if an Englishman surrenders his passport and gives up his citizenship because...say he doesn't like the idea of Prince Charles becoming king. Then he decides to take up, say Whales and call it his own Kingdom and all English law is moot. Along the way he recruits about a third of the military command. He happens to have enough friends to make it count and takes them w/ him as well. He then fires on any English bobby (sp?) who comes to say: "You bloody well can't do that chap!" I would expect the British govt to act similarly to President Lincoln. Is that a logical analogy?

Not at all. Unless the union is not a union of states, but rather an empire with a king.

Hal

[hawglips]

Now if an Englishman surrenders his passport and gives up his citizenship because...say he doesn't like the idea of Prince Charles becoming king. Then he decides to take up, say Whales and call it his own Kingdom and all English law is moot. Along the way he recruits about a third of the military command. He happens to have enough friends to make it count and takes them w/ him as well. He then fires on any English bobby (sp?) who comes to say: "You bloody well can't do that chap!" I would expect the British govt to act similarly to President Lincoln. Is that a logical analogy?

Not at all. Unless the union is not a union of states, but rather an empire with a king.

Hal

[bill_torrens]

Dear Hal,

Thanks. I'm glad these matters are equally simple and clear to both of us. How do we persuade our misguided friends?

Dear Shane,

Thanks for your response to my five principles. I agree with you that we probably part company at my Principle 4. I find your own expressed principles perfectly acceptable which is, naturally, rather disturbing. It suggests that something may be missing...possibly you would believe that no part of the nation state may realise its independence without the consent of (a) the majority or (b) all of the rest of the nation? There must be something along those lines, and of course that would be unpalatable to me.

"You bloody well can't do that chap!"

Forgive a momentary digression from the Civil War. This reminds me of Dick Van Dyke's hilarious attempt to portray a Cockney in Mary Poppins. In this country it is held as the benchmark for the most comic attempt by an American actor to mimic an English accent. It occurs to me that quite a few British actors and actresses have played American parts over the years. Whose accent was the most ludicrous? Who was the least convincing?

Anyway, I am really pleased that you have asked me this hypothetical question. I am keen to emphasise that I am entirely consistent in my application of the principle of self-determination. The scenario you describe is rather convaluted, so let's take it one step at a time:

1. When you talk about a former British citizen taking up Wales and calling it his kingdom I can only assume that you mean that he declares himself King of that Principality. How I feel about that depends entirely on how the people of Wales feel about it. If the majority of the people in the counties of Wales voted to secede from the United Kingdom I would be firm in my support of their desire for independence. Whether they want to make this bloke you describe their King is entirely up to them.

2. Having the support of any element of the armed forces is, democratically speaking, of no consequence at all. I take it that you mention military backing because you take it as read that there would be violent opposition to Welsh independence. I reject the supposition.

3. When you talk about having enough friends to make it count, it depends on what you mean by this. People win elections or referenda by having enough "friends", ie voters, to "make it count".


Would it make things any clearer if I state the following? I am firm in my support for any hypothetical combination of British people, constituting a majority within any given part of these islands, who wish to leave the United Kingdom and form their own country. If this means the effective dismantling of the United Kingdom I can live with that outcome without losing a moment's sleep.

[As it happens, I positively wish that Wales & Scotland were independent. I can't wait to be shot of them, and would support the idea of forcing independence on them whether they want it or not. This is particularly true in the case of Scotland - do you have any idea how much many English and Scottish people dislike each other? But this is, I suppose, somewhat beside the point.]

[johan_steele]

William, I've never made the mistake of calling a Scotsman an Englishman... that might work too effectively to cut short my life span. Quite a few Scots I think would agree w/ you.

Forgive me if this seems a bit disjointed, I'm running on just two hours of sleep and am too wired to even think about sleep for a bit yet.

The most important thing in my eyes to keep in mind is that the CSA initiated the conflict by opening fire on Ft Sumter. Whether manipulated into it or not they fired first.

I think I missed in my attempt at anology when referencing the military, I was intending to bring up the oath taken by Officers, to lift arms against Britain I believe would be viewed as treason. Though I'm not certain on that mark today, it certainly was in the 19th century.

What if that group that decided to take Whales w/ it on creating a new kingdom had sizeable minorities w/in who didn't wish to leave the Commonwealth as in North Alabama, East Tennesee etc. Then this group opted to seize armories, mints, treasuries, warships and expel UK soldiers from Whales (minus much of their equipment). I'm fairly certain the UK would act rather strongly.

I can see my attempt at an anology was a dismal failure... you didn't have to explain or clarify yours.

The South was far from universal in Secession, North Carolina was a close vote as were parts of Texas, Louisiana & Alabama.

I suppose I look at it as the South in irritation over the lost election of 1860 decided to leave the Nation, taking EVERY federal property located w/in their territory, imprisoned Regular troops including hanging one who had the audacity to vote against secession. They ignored a peacful election and there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't have a chance to pitch Lincoln out of the White House in four years. A minority decided to steer the fate of the nation. When they fired on Ft Sumter, they became to started the war. Without the spark of Ft Sumter, Secession might well have been a peaceful and succesful action, certainly up to that point a large portion of the North wasn't all that interested in a war to bring back the Confederacy. Though I'm inclined to believe if Ft Sumter hadn't been fired on the spark would have been in Missouri.

[johan_steele]

Hal, the only target that I see moving is... never mind. If you can't or won't answer the question then say why. But for Gods sake at least drop this "Empire America" crap, especially when you can't support your position. As I said it's rhetoric, and poor rhetoric at that.

Reference my posts on Jan & 13th. Slavery was an integral reason for Secession. As long as Slavery was going to be an issue then Seccession and the Civil War was inevitable. Could it have been a peaceful Secession, I admit to being torn on that note. However, w/ the actions of the CSA it was not peaceful.

[bill_torrens]

Dear Neil,

I'm still ploughing away at the British History homework which you set me. Will be back to you in due course.

Dear Shane,

What was the name of the courtly Virginian who led an army against the country whose uniform he had previously proudly worn? Oh, that's right. George Washington.

I agree that Southern Unionists in the Confederacy were in a difficult situation, and I feel genuine sympathy for them. But let's not forget the countless Loyalists whose property was confiscated at the end of the Revolutionary War. It's always reassuring to see respect for freedom of conscience getting off to a really good start in a new nation.

May I intrude for a moment in your discussion with Hal about imperialism? There are various definitions of this word, one of which is "a policy of extending your rule over foreign countries". A glaring example of this would be the Mexican War, when the U.S.A. deliberately picked a quarrel with its weaker neighbour for the express purpose of stealing its territory. Yes, I know that the South was generally enthusiastic in its support for the war. Still doesn't make it right.

Back in our imaginary Britain suffering multiple secession, let's review the situation. Given the Welsh decision to secede, their expulsion of British troops is obviously legitimate. And I can't see how London could possibly claim continued ownership of buildings which are on Welsh territory. As for reserves of currency and portable assets like warships, the civilised solution would appear to be a convention of British and Welsh representatives to work out apportionment of the assets, probably on a pro-rata principle based on relative population size. Not so difficult, was it? No need for wholescale slaughter and pillage.

If the Scots have departed [and, joking aside for a moment, this is something which really could happen] they will probably decide that they need an army. Personally, I question the wisdom of giving loaded weapons to 50,000 alcoholics, but that is up to them. Their army will need officers, and those are bound to come from the Scotsmen currently serving in the British Army. Do I consider their departure a betrayal? All I can honestly say is: no, of course not.

Shane, I do assure you that you can't catch me out on this. The five principles which I outlined as the reasons Why I Am Secesh are ones which I would apply at any time in any place, even if the consequences were disadvantageous to Britain. That is because, when push comes to shove, those principles mean more to me that Britain does. Your country is an accident of birth, whereas your principles define who you are.

Bill

William,

"May I intrude for a moment in your discussion with Hal about imperialism? There are various definitions of this word, one of which is "a policy of extending your rule over foreign countries". A glaring example of this would be the Mexican War, when the U.S.A. deliberately picked a quarrel with its weaker neighbour for the express purpose of stealing its territory."

This is expressly true. Let's not forget the use of the Monroe Document to exercise control and effective rule over South America. Or the later Spanish American war and grabbing Cuba and even the Philippines etc. Panama, the Boxer Rebellion.....But I guess I must have dreamed the US doing all that.

Imperialism at it's best. I cannot see how it cannot be seen except unless just someone is so blindly patriotic they just are obstinately refusing to acknowledge the obvious. A complete disregard for actual history. It is pointless to argue it. Hal presented some wonderful material of the times to support his position. Historical observers pointing out the obvious.

You referring to Welsh secession. I think the places that private citizens and the British Heritage society own should still be their possessions. At least reparations would be in order.. As to arming the Scots. No fear. They’d be soon fighting the favorite enemy, the Scots.

YMOS
tommy

(Message edited by aphillbilly on January 16, 2004)

[hawglips]

Bill,

Your clarity is so refreshing.


Shane,

I am quite willing to answer any of your inquiries, unless you previously exhibited an intolerance for discussing the point openly.

As for empire, let us be honest. Our central government's record is not a very admirable one, though we tend to envision ourselves as the world's champion of liberty, justice and self-government. Bill correctly characterizes our war to acquire a very large chunk of Mexican territory (which imperialistic warfare took place only a few years prior to Lincoln's war to retain Southern territory). And don't forget our forays into Canada during the War of 1812 for the same imperialistic end. And how did we end up with territory across the seas in Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico; and even in Panama, Cuba and the Philippines, as Tommy points out? I am not sure what else to call that.

One cannot blame the British newspapers of Lincoln's day for calling a spade a spade.

Let us be big enough to admit it. As Bill so beautifully said in his last post, "...your principles define who you are."

Hal





(Message edited by hawglips on January 16, 2004)

[johan_steele]

Incidently, do you know the reason God created Whiskey? So the Scots wouldn't counquer the world. Do you know why God created beer? So the Irish wouldn't either. And God created the English to give the Scots & the Irish an enemy they could hate w/ a clear conscience. A bad joke from a good Scot.

Why yes Hal, my principles do define me, I see Williams point of view, we see things differently. William, I'm not trying to catch you out, I'm attempting to clarify my view. I can see I failed.

Certainly, you do not lack the courage of your convictions... something often sadly lacking.

I appreciate the discourse William.

Hal, I'm sorry when Empire as you mention it is discussed I am reminded of Rome, the Shang, Mandarin and yes England and there is NO comparison. The beauty of the US Constitutiuon is that can be changed, and no one man, or woman, controls the destiny of this nation. That is the beauty of a Democratic Republic, while it's a far cry from perfect it's quite a bit better than any other option out there.

Slavery defines a large part of the Civil War, I'm willing to discuss it, why aren't you Hal? I call a spade a spade... something guaranteed not to make me popular.

I've said it often, the Men of 1776 commited Treason against England, they won and because they won tghey became patriots. That's the difference between the founders of the CSA and the founders of the US.

If the CSA had won, they wouldn't have been treasonous, they would have been Patriots. I understand it's a minor difference, but it is a difference.

was War neccessary after Secesion? I thought that was the purpose of this thread, I would think a discourse of the causes of Secession would be important in deciding whether or not War was necessary after Secession.

I bid you a good day.