6 ms·

Uh, I think if people seceded by a real public vote, they should be allowed to, regardless of what the constitution says. People in a region voted to be indepe

by jotm 11y ago

Uh, I think if people seceded by a real public vote, they should be allowed to, regardless of what the constitution says. People in a region voted to be independent, hence they are, they're their own nation. Forbidding that is a violation of their basic freedoms. Now, I do think that Russia influenced the Crimean vote and plunged Ukraine into chaos, but if it was an honest, impartial vote, they should be allowed to self-govern or join the Russian federation, it's their choice...

ddlatham 11y ago
If the Confederate States of America held a public vote to secede - do you think it would have passed? If it passed, do you think the United States should have let them secede?
- tomjen3 11y ago
  Did the states vote on the issue? Either way I cannot reconcile saying no to them not being allowed to secede with Wilsons 14 points (and, on a personal point, I very much enjoyed my childhood in Southern Jutland, which was one of the areas that voted to join another country after WWI) or even the American revolution. I also can't argue against going to war with them to end slavery but that shouldn't necessarily mean that they should be forced to join the union afterwards.
  - afarrell 11y ago
    To my knowledge, states did not hold plebicites. However, their legislatures did vote on the issue. You can read the ordinances of secession passed by the legislatures here: http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp Note that what is shown are excerpts. click the links to view the full measures passed. Note the ones that include the defense of the institution of slavery as their primary motivation.
  - pnut 11y ago
    Looks like quite soon after the civil war ended, the US Supreme Court ruled that secession was not allowable per the Constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
  - panglott 11y ago
    Secession had been a topic of politics in the South for decades, and was was unpopular for a long time. After the South Carolina Fire-Eaters forced the issue in 1861, a wave of secession fever swept the South. Most seceding legislatures passed secession with large majorities, except for edge cases like Kentucky (where the state government rejected secession then basically collapsed). None of this was democratic, of course, because many Southern states had large black majorities. IIRC, More than 80% of Mississippi and 65% of South Carolina, by population, was black. Nearly all those people were enslaved and/or disenfranchised. These were not nations of the people, but states run by and for the slaveowners. The only reason that contemporary Southern states had a majority-white population is because the wave of state terrorism and terroristic violence caused a massive exodus of black Southerners, the Great Migration.
    - pluma 11y ago
      Of course it was democratic. It's easy to forget that the definition of who is or isn't a citizen and who is or isn't eligible to vote is historically impermanent. It's not even comparable to women's suffrage: women were citizens who couldn't vote because of their gender, whereas slaves were in an entirely different category. The closest equivalent in the modern US would be prisoners (except their status is not intrinsic but temporary). In terms of human rights, slaves weren't really treated as human. Slaves are property, not unlike cattle and livestock. This mindset is obviously appalling from a human rights point of view, but it's misleading to call a state undemocratic just because it doesn't categorize a large segment of its population as people (the "demos" in "democratic"), even if we wouldn't consider it democratic by our (mostly superior) modern ideas of who should or shouldn't be represented in a representative democracy. The secessions happened around a time when those definitions began to change and more non-slaves became increasingly uncomfortable with the dehumanizing idea of slave ownership (in part carried by new religious ideas though it would be naive to thank religion for abolishing slavery). One of the reasons this change of mind was met less favourably in the seceding states was that they were the ones most economically dependent on slave ownership and therefore most threatened by any legislation that would make the practice illegal or less viable. Heck, considering how latent racism still is in the modern US, it should be easy to imagine how the idea that black people are no different from white people except for irrelevant details like the colour of their skin wasn't actually widely accepted at the time. It's not like free slaves were treated as equals to white men either -- although at least recognizing them as human (and citizens) certainly was an improvement.
- mikeash 11y ago
  I think it all hinges on what "a public vote" is. The problem most people have with Crimea, as far as I've seen, is not that there was a vote to secede. It's that the vote was heavily rigged and in no way reflects the popular sentiment of the people living there. Similarly with the Confederates, I'm sure a public vote on secession would have passed, if you had limited it to people who were already eligible voters. But what if you had extended it to all the poor people and slaves? I'm going to hazard a guess that allowing the ~40% of the population that was enslaved to vote on the issue would have tipped the balance against secession.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    >I think it all hinges on what "a public vote" is. While true, it's somewhat of a red herring. If Texas held a vote today and voted to secede, I imagine the position of the federal government would be "Nope, you can't do that." Of course, it's hard to say how that particular scenario would play out given that--whatever wild rhetoric occasionally floats out of Austin--there is approximately zero likelihood such a vote would take place. So one would have to assume a significantly different political and cultural landscape than actually exists. That said, it's fair to say that there's a widespread presumption in western democracies that if a region of a country holds a legitimate vote to split off, they should be allowed to do so. If Quebec decides to leave Canada at some point, I'd expect Canada would have little real choice but to let them. In the case of the Confederacy though, I doubt it would have made much difference even had there been a hypothetical vote in which a majority of the entire population voted to secede. The North would almost certainly still have gone to war to preserve the Union.
    - arandomafrican 11y ago
      >That said, it's fair to say that there's a widespread presumption in western democracies that if a region of a country holds a legitimate vote to split off, they should be allowed to do so. Somaliland did and is not recognized by anybody. The actual assumption is that if a region of a country holds a legitimate vote that is recognized as so by the rest of the country, then it should be allowed to do so. Votes in Quebec, Scotland, South Sudan, Erythrea, Timor Leste were recognized by the main country before they happened. The only exception is Kosovo where Serbia opposed the vote.
btilly 11y ago
At what point do you think that a majority vote should overrule the Constitution? And what are the consequences if it happens? It is worth comparing the US and French revolution. Both happened in the late 1700s. The US wound up with the attitude that the Constitution was sacrosanct and the current democratic will of the people is secondary. France wound up with the belief that what the majority wants should happen. Since then the US has had one nasty civil war, but is still on its first republic. France by contrast has been an absolute monarchy, a constitutional monarchy, an empire, and a republic. Each several times. (I think they were also briefly communist.) They are now a republic for the 5th time. There is something to be said for a rule of law that can supersede the democratic whims of the moment.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Since the revolution, France has been an Empire twice, a monarchy other than an Empire once, plus the five republics; it has not been each form several times. And the changes to non-republic forms were not through democratic wind of the moment overturning the rule of law. Also, the US had been through at least one change since the revolution parallel to the change between the fourth and fifth republic in France, that between the US under the Articles of Confederation and the US under the Constitution.
  - btilly 11y ago
    My count differs. France was an empire under Napoleon 1 from 1804 to 1814, again for a few months in 1815 (and that time he took over due to overwhelming popular support), and again under Napoleon III from 1852 to 1870. Both in 1815 and 1852, the emperor took power with public support. (Napoleon I invited the soldiers sent to stop him to kill him, and they joined him instead. Napoleon III was democratically elected then changed the form of government.) There were more monarchies as well. When the Revolution happened it first briefly became a constitutional monarchy before the First Republic. It was made a monarchy when Napoleon fell, then the monarchy was restored after Napoleon fell again. You make a good point about the adoption of the Constitution in the US. Furthermore it is unfair for me to not note that several of France's changes of government were imposed from without. But still I've noticed a sharp difference of attitude between what people in different countries believe democracy to be.

by jotm 11y ago

ddlatham 11y ago

If the Confederate States of America held a public vote to secede - do you think it would have passed? If it passed, do you think the United States should have let them secede?

tomjen3 11y ago
Did the states vote on the issue? Either way I cannot reconcile saying no to them not being allowed to secede with Wilsons 14 points (and, on a personal point, I very much enjoyed my childhood in Southern Jutland, which was one of the areas that voted to join another country after WWI) or even the American revolution. I also can't argue against going to war with them to end slavery but that shouldn't necessarily mean that they should be forced to join the union afterwards.
- afarrell 11y ago
  To my knowledge, states did not hold plebicites. However, their legislatures did vote on the issue. You can read the ordinances of secession passed by the legislatures here: http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp Note that what is shown are excerpts. click the links to view the full measures passed. Note the ones that include the defense of the institution of slavery as their primary motivation.
- pnut 11y ago
  Looks like quite soon after the civil war ended, the US Supreme Court ruled that secession was not allowable per the Constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
- panglott 11y ago
  Secession had been a topic of politics in the South for decades, and was was unpopular for a long time. After the South Carolina Fire-Eaters forced the issue in 1861, a wave of secession fever swept the South. Most seceding legislatures passed secession with large majorities, except for edge cases like Kentucky (where the state government rejected secession then basically collapsed). None of this was democratic, of course, because many Southern states had large black majorities. IIRC, More than 80% of Mississippi and 65% of South Carolina, by population, was black. Nearly all those people were enslaved and/or disenfranchised. These were not nations of the people, but states run by and for the slaveowners. The only reason that contemporary Southern states had a majority-white population is because the wave of state terrorism and terroristic violence caused a massive exodus of black Southerners, the Great Migration.
  - pluma 11y ago
    Of course it was democratic. It's easy to forget that the definition of who is or isn't a citizen and who is or isn't eligible to vote is historically impermanent. It's not even comparable to women's suffrage: women were citizens who couldn't vote because of their gender, whereas slaves were in an entirely different category. The closest equivalent in the modern US would be prisoners (except their status is not intrinsic but temporary). In terms of human rights, slaves weren't really treated as human. Slaves are property, not unlike cattle and livestock. This mindset is obviously appalling from a human rights point of view, but it's misleading to call a state undemocratic just because it doesn't categorize a large segment of its population as people (the "demos" in "democratic"), even if we wouldn't consider it democratic by our (mostly superior) modern ideas of who should or shouldn't be represented in a representative democracy. The secessions happened around a time when those definitions began to change and more non-slaves became increasingly uncomfortable with the dehumanizing idea of slave ownership (in part carried by new religious ideas though it would be naive to thank religion for abolishing slavery). One of the reasons this change of mind was met less favourably in the seceding states was that they were the ones most economically dependent on slave ownership and therefore most threatened by any legislation that would make the practice illegal or less viable. Heck, considering how latent racism still is in the modern US, it should be easy to imagine how the idea that black people are no different from white people except for irrelevant details like the colour of their skin wasn't actually widely accepted at the time. It's not like free slaves were treated as equals to white men either -- although at least recognizing them as human (and citizens) certainly was an improvement.
mikeash 11y ago
I think it all hinges on what "a public vote" is. The problem most people have with Crimea, as far as I've seen, is not that there was a vote to secede. It's that the vote was heavily rigged and in no way reflects the popular sentiment of the people living there. Similarly with the Confederates, I'm sure a public vote on secession would have passed, if you had limited it to people who were already eligible voters. But what if you had extended it to all the poor people and slaves? I'm going to hazard a guess that allowing the ~40% of the population that was enslaved to vote on the issue would have tipped the balance against secession.
- ghaff 11y ago
  >I think it all hinges on what "a public vote" is. While true, it's somewhat of a red herring. If Texas held a vote today and voted to secede, I imagine the position of the federal government would be "Nope, you can't do that." Of course, it's hard to say how that particular scenario would play out given that--whatever wild rhetoric occasionally floats out of Austin--there is approximately zero likelihood such a vote would take place. So one would have to assume a significantly different political and cultural landscape than actually exists. That said, it's fair to say that there's a widespread presumption in western democracies that if a region of a country holds a legitimate vote to split off, they should be allowed to do so. If Quebec decides to leave Canada at some point, I'd expect Canada would have little real choice but to let them. In the case of the Confederacy though, I doubt it would have made much difference even had there been a hypothetical vote in which a majority of the entire population voted to secede. The North would almost certainly still have gone to war to preserve the Union.
  - arandomafrican 11y ago
    >That said, it's fair to say that there's a widespread presumption in western democracies that if a region of a country holds a legitimate vote to split off, they should be allowed to do so. Somaliland did and is not recognized by anybody. The actual assumption is that if a region of a country holds a legitimate vote that is recognized as so by the rest of the country, then it should be allowed to do so. Votes in Quebec, Scotland, South Sudan, Erythrea, Timor Leste were recognized by the main country before they happened. The only exception is Kosovo where Serbia opposed the vote.

btilly 11y ago

At what point do you think that a majority vote should overrule the Constitution? And what are the consequences if it happens? It is worth comparing the US and French revolution. Both happened in the late 1700s. The US wound up with the attitude that the Constitution was sacrosanct and the current democratic will of the people is secondary. France wound up with the belief that what the majority wants should happen. Since then the US has had one nasty civil war, but is still on its first republic. France by contrast has been an absolute monarchy, a constitutional monarchy, an empire, and a republic. Each several times. (I think they were also briefly communist.) They are now a republic for the 5th time. There is something to be said for a rule of law that can supersede the democratic whims of the moment.

dragonwriter 11y ago
Since the revolution, France has been an Empire twice, a monarchy other than an Empire once, plus the five republics; it has not been each form several times. And the changes to non-republic forms were not through democratic wind of the moment overturning the rule of law. Also, the US had been through at least one change since the revolution parallel to the change between the fourth and fifth republic in France, that between the US under the Articles of Confederation and the US under the Constitution.
- btilly 11y ago
  My count differs. France was an empire under Napoleon 1 from 1804 to 1814, again for a few months in 1815 (and that time he took over due to overwhelming popular support), and again under Napoleon III from 1852 to 1870. Both in 1815 and 1852, the emperor took power with public support. (Napoleon I invited the soldiers sent to stop him to kill him, and they joined him instead. Napoleon III was democratically elected then changed the form of government.) There were more monarchies as well. When the Revolution happened it first briefly became a constitutional monarchy before the First Republic. It was made a monarchy when Napoleon fell, then the monarchy was restored after Napoleon fell again. You make a good point about the adoption of the Constitution in the US. Furthermore it is unfair for me to not note that several of France's changes of government were imposed from without. But still I've noticed a sharp difference of attitude between what people in different countries believe democracy to be.