Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
The US signed off on the break up of the German, Russian and Austrian Empires after WWI. That included the creation of new nations of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Poland, Latvia, Finland and a few more.
When Czechoslovakia divided into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in the 1990s, I assume the US has recognized those two new states. That break up was nonviolent and orderly.
Did Erteria or Kosovo secede, or rebel, however? Rebel being defined as simply announce their independence and overthrow (or try to) authority, as distinct from leaving a confederation or the like.
Nasty wars in both places.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
The US signed off on the break up of the German, Russian and Austrian Empires after WWI. That included the creation of new nations of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Poland, Latvia, Finland and a few more.
When Czechoslovakia divided into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in the 1990s, I assume the US has recognized those two new states. That break up was nonviolent and orderly.
From an old post of mine buried on an old thread here on the Forum:
=====
This would be a very bad comparison for anyone arguing for the doctrine of a "right of secession" as invented in the 19th Century by various parties in the US.
For example, if you would compare this to the experience and practice of the Confederacy, you would find the Confederate secessionists consistently acted to use force to seize what they could or wanted, planning to "negotiate" a price for it somewhere down the line. That is completely contradictory to the experience and practice of the Czech-Slovak split.
In Czechoslovakia, this was a deal worked out by politicians. It is debatable whether or not the people of the nation actually favored the split when it happened.
Data for your consideration: In November 1992 -- with separation scheduled for December 31 -- a nationwide poll of Czechoslovakia found that 49% of Slovaks and 50% Czechs were against separation, while 40% of Slovaks favored separation. About 41% of Czechs and 49% of Slovaks favored deciding the issue with a national referendum, but no referendum was held.
I haven't found any incidents of Czechs or Slovaks seizing government posts and facilities, seizing arms from arsenals, taking over Customs posts, taking boats or other equipment, etc. But we do find a long record of 1860-61 Confederate secessionists acting that way.
Instead, we find that the separation of the Czech Republic and Slovakia was accomplished primarily by negotiations between leaders and legislation passed in the national legislature. Intense negotiations to this purpose were underway in mid-June, well before anyone declared independence, and an equitable disposition of property, revenues, etc. was accomplished without any of the seizures noted in 1860-61. This stands in complete and defiant contrast to the aggressive act-first-grab-what-you-can-threaten-the-other-side tactics of the Fire-Eaters and secessionist of 1860-61, acting before the newly elected Lincoln even started East to take the oath of office.
If this comparison shows anything at all, it shows that the violent acts of the seceding states to form the Confederacy are probably what caused them to fail. Perhaps their own arrogant and aggressive attitude is the primary reason they failed. If only they had acted peacefully and legally, I suspect they might indeed have ben allowed to separate in peace.
=====
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
The only recent one I know of was when Norway and Sweden decided to separate about 100 years ago.
As Scribe mentioned, secession implies legality. The US could have no objections (nor dogs in the fight) if any country were to divide itself by mutual agreement. For example, if Quebec were to secede from Canada, we'd likely be sorry, but there would be no question that Quebec would be recognized. Or if England agreed to let Scotland go.
From an old post of mine in an old thread on the Forum:
=====
As far as Norway and Sweden go, Sweden fought a war in 1814 to make Norway subservient to the Swedish crown. Note that this is really a case of two nations owning personal allegiance to a common monarch, not a union of sovereign states. The separation came down to a single man -- King Oscar II -- deciding what to do. Once he did, negotiations of the terms of separation began.
It is also worth noting that foreign intervention played a strong part here. No one is exactly sure of how big a part Great Britain played in all this. Many documents related to the diplomacy seem to have been destroyed by various parties shortly afterwards, or at least so it is said. All anyone can really say is that an independent Norway was immediately in the British spere of influence, and that to anyone looking at a war with Germany, British control of all the exits from the North Sea and Baltic was a very nice thing to contemplate.
In 1905, when Norway peacefully worked towards separation, there was still a period of a few months where many feared the Swedes would take military action to prevent it. Sweden was generally conservative and oriented towards internal commerce and political-economic alliance with Germany. Norway was more liberal, focused on foreign trade, and favored Great Britain. The crisis that split the two had been simmering for at least 10 years, since the "consular crisis" of 1895, and probably all the way back to 1814.
In those last 10 years, both Norway and Sweden increased military expenditures and built up their border forts (modernizing the existing ones and building new ones).
=====
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
In response to Battalion's question:
I can think of at least three recent cases:
a. Eriteria breaking away from Ethiopia in the 1990s.
From an old post of mine on an old thread here in the Forum:
=====
On Ethiopia and Eritrea, I assume you are just joshing us with this talk of peaceful secession. Eritrea became part of Ethiopia under Halie Selassie in 1952. When Selassie was overthrown in 1974 by military coup, Eritrea tried to secede and a nasty struggle followed. A new constitutional government was installed in 1987 under Col. Mengistu Mariam of Ethiopia. The Eritreans joined in the revolt to overthrow him because they saw it as an aid to their independence movement, and that revolt succeeded in 1991.
Eritrea became independent in 1993 and immediate border conflicts began and continue to this day. The US and Rwanda tried to broker a peace deal, but only got restrictions on the use of air power by the combatants. By 2000 a UN-backed "peace treaty" was negotiated, but fighting continued along the border. Which is why the UN established a 25-km wide "separation zone" with peacekeepers. Last I knew (December 2005) the UN had withdrawn the peacekeepers to get them out of the line of fire. By what stretch do you consider this 32 year history of conflict a workable example of peaceable secession?
=====
Still a mess down there today. The "joshing" comment was directed to JohnTaylor, which the original post was intended for.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Has the United States government ever recognized a seceding faction from a parent government where the act of secession violated the law of the parent government?
I think this is an overt gesture to Texas and Yucatan?
Hmmm, that didn't work out too well for Mexico, did it? (still a Third World basket case)
Why shouldn't the United States support the secession of certain areas when it serves our interest. Secession makes political entities inherently weaker. When the Soviet Union broke up, I wasn't crying for Soviet 'federalism' I was simply happier that our Cold War enemy was, at least theoretically much weaker and hence less of a threat (with conventional weapons at least, nuclear weapons make countries infinitely more stronger than they otherwise would be)
Essentially, what's the point? That favoring secession elsewhere somehow makes me a hypocrite? If that is your point, I disagree, I'm 'pro-American' down the line.
In this world there are 6.1 billion people, 300 million of which are American. I have been fortunate enough to do a fair amount of travelling and from my experience you scratch the surface of most foreigners and you'll find an 'anti-American' - I'd say probably 5 billion of them are on some level (obviously unscientific).
I don't say this from xenophobia, I have actually been to many of these places, speak a second language (German), have been all over Europe, Canada, Mexico, Belize, Argentina, Turkey, Japan.....
So, I would definitely take a certain amount of glee to see the province of Santa Cruz stick it to Evo Morales.
I would also love to see the Koreas reunify (without a regional war of course) under South Korea's banner (that would certainely take care of the North Korea problem)
And I would love to see Iran disintegrate into 50 fiefdoms.....
At the end of the day, US foreign policy has absolutely nothing to do with the legal relationship defined by the Constitution which exists between the Federal and state governments.
Essentially, what's the point? That favoring secession elsewhere somehow makes me a hypocrite? If that is your point, I disagree, I'm 'pro-American' down the line.
Quote:
Why shouldn't the United States support the secession of certain areas when it serves our interest.
Yes, that's what it all revolves around...
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
...At the end of the day, US foreign policy has absolutely nothing to do with the legal relationship defined by the Constitution which exists between the Federal and state governments.
I am in general agreement. However, we are signatories to the UN Charter, which has ramifications for "secession" -- but then the UN Charter is stronger for preservation of territorial integrity than it is for "secession" and self-determination. But if it ever became a problem for us, I'd guess any such issue in the UN would be likely to go through the Security Council, where we have a veto power.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
As much as can be known from the historical record, there was never a time when a majority of the Nat'l Gov't or a majority of citizens, or a majority of the individual states, that viewed secession as anything but revolution. This is especially true After the Union was under the Constitution.
Secession, was a theoretical and polemic construct by various politicians and/or factions (never a majority) trying to keep their options open for future political and/or financial aggrandizement.
As noted many times by many posters, the first years of Constitutional gov't in America, was marked by various people, politicians and states threatening or attempting to negate various acts ot the nat'l gov't. Every one was resisted by all the President's, up to and including the use of military force, whether from the South or North ( Historically, Most, if not all, the relevant President's, were from the south).
Those attempts to withdraw from the Union never enjoyed the support of the majority of the citizens of the nation, as a whole nor a majority of the states, in the Union. Even in 1860 - 1861.
Whatever, the FF believed about the kind of gov't they were constructing, the fact is that many if not most of the people involved in forming that gov't or studied what had, actually, been done, from Patrick Henry to De Toqueville, it was recognized that not only was the Union to be majoritarian, but that, the entry to the Union was one way i.e. it would not be possible to leave the Union the same way it was entered into.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
