Posted on 12/06/2017 6:29:08 AM PST by Kaslin
Officials in Catalonia, Spain's richest and most highly industrialized region, whose capital is Barcelona, recently held a referendum in which there was a 92 percent vote in favor of independence from Spain. The Spanish authorities opposed the referendum and claimed that independence is illegal. Catalans are not the only Europeans seeking independence. Some Bavarian people are demanding independence from Germany, while others demand greater autonomy. Germany's Federal Constitutional Court ruled: "In the Federal Republic of Germany ... states are not 'masters of the constitution.' ... Therefore, there is no room under the constitution for individual states to attempt to secede. This violates the constitutional order."
Germany has done in Bavaria what Spain and Italy, in its Veneto region, have done; it has upheld the integrity of state borders. There is an excellent article written by Joseph E. Fallon, a research associate at the UK Defence Forum, titled "The Catalan Referendum, regional pressures, the EU, and the 'Ghosts' of Eastern Europe." Fallon writes that by doing what it's doing in Bavaria, "Berlin is violating international law on national self-determination. It denies to Bavaria what it granted to the 19 states that seceded from Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. In fact, Germany rushed to be first to recognize the independence of Slovenia and Croatia." It did that, according to Beverly Crawford, an expert on Europe at the University of California, Berkeley, "in open disregard of (a European Community) agreement to recognize the two states under EC conditionality requirements."
The secessionist movements in Spain, Germany, and Italy have encountered resistance and threats from the central governments, and in Catalonia's case, secessionist leaders have been jailed. The central governments of Spain, Germany, and Italy have resisted independence despite the fact that they are signatories to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which holds that "all peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
Fallon notes the hypocrisy of Spain, Germany, and Italy, as well as the entire European Union. Back in 1991, the EC -- the precursor to the EU -- "issued its conditions for recognizing the unilateral declarations of independence by states seceding from Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union." Fallon argues that these same guidelines should be applied to the states of Catalonia, Bavaria, and Veneto. Isn't it double talk for members of the EU to condemn independence movements today, given that they welcomed and supported independence movements for states that were members of the communist bloc?
Catalonia, Bavaria, and Veneto are relatively prosperous jurisdictions in their countries. They feel that what they get from the central governments is not worth the taxes they pay. Each wants the central government off its back. They think they could be far more prosperous on their own. That should sound familiar. Some of the motivation for secessionist movements in Europe is similar to the motivation found in the Confederacy's independence movement of the early 1860s.
Throughout most of our nation's history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. In the 1830s, the North used its power in Congress to push through massive tariffs to fund the government. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. The Southern states were primarily producers of agricultural products, which they exported to Europe. In return, they imported manufactured goods. These tariffs fell much harder upon the export-dependent South than they did upon the more insular North. In 1859, Southern ports paid 75 percent of federal tariff revenue. However, the majority of the tariff revenue generated was spent on projects that benefited the North.
Tariffs being a contributing cause of the Civil War is hardly ever mentioned. Using the abolition of slavery as an excuse for a war that took the lives of 620,000 Americans confers greater moral standing for the Union.
Good grief. Read the various articles of secession where the states lay out their reasons for seceding. Tariffs get hardly a mention.
They are very clear. It is, not just about slavery, but the right to spread slavery to the western states. The American West was the prize.
It goes much, much deeper than that. Catalans and Basques have been struggling for independence from Spain for centuries. This isn't something that just popped up post-Brexit.
Tariffs being a contributing cause of the Civil War is hardly ever mentioned. Using the abolition of slavery as an excuse for a war that took the lives of 620,000 Americans confers greater moral standing for the Union.
Gee, I wonder why that is? /sarcasm
The slavery issue was not raised until after the war had begun, and it began due to the onerous taxation on the southern slave owning states to the overwhelming benefit of the northern states. Who actually held mixed emotions on the issue of slavery in the south.
Not saying I support slavery because I don't. It was an economic issue that caused the Civil War. If the Federal Government had offered to compensate the money invested in slavery to free the slaves in a fair & equitable manner, then succession & Civil War could have been avoided completely.
I like Walter. I do not dispute the little bit of history he covers at the tail end of his article - the role of tariffs in the mid-1800s disputes between the states of the United States.
However, his larger, more basic argument - the hypocrisy in the present political elites of Europe over the application and meaning of the “right of self-determination”, does not require it.
To me, it becomes a diversion that will cost him a broader audience that would be more responsive to his core message. I’d like to see his core message get that audience. I think the tail end of his article will cause that to not happen.
Preamble of the Bavarian Constitution:
„Angesichts des Trümmerfeldes, zu dem eine Staats- und Gesellschaftsordnung ohne Gott, ohne Gewissen und ohne Achtung vor der Würde des Menschen die Überlebenden des Zweiten Weltkrieges geführt hat, in dem festen Entschlusse, den kommenden deutschen Geschlechtern die Segnungen des Friedens, der Menschlichkeit und des Rechts dauernd zu sichern, gibt sich das bayerische Volk, eingedenk seiner mehr als tausendjährigen Geschichte, nachstehende demokratische Verfassung.“
English:
Mindful of the physical devastation which the survivors of the 2nd World War were led into by a godless state and social order lacking in all conscience or respect for human dignity, firmly intending moreover to secure permanently for future German generations the blessing of Peace, Humanity and Law, and looking back over a thousand years and more of history, the Bavarian people hereby bestows upon itself the following Democratic Constitution.
U.S. Declaration of Independence:
When, in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another [...]
Q.E.D.
Regards,
When I saw your post, I had just pulled up the ordinances of secession from the Civil War Home Page http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp and read through some of them. I have already done research that has led me to believe that, as you say, the war was really over an economic situation that had reached a boiling point. However, I wanted to check the words in those Declarations that seem to support the slavery argument.
There is much mention of slavery. They were slave holders, as abhorrent as we find that now, and the casual reader who only wants to affirm that Lincoln was a hero could find plenty of fodder there. There is mention of other oppression from the Union, but the word slave is just such a hot button, that the other issues seem to be minimized by today’s way of thinking. It is extremely important to go back several years before those Ordinances and Articles were written to find the true beginnings of that boiling cauldron that took so many lives.
The Southern States make much mention of the North terrorizing them. Terrorism, plain and simple. Burning, raping, looting. The War of Northern Aggression began even before the South seceded. The North had been whipped into a frenzy of hatred for the South by the PR of the day that made them believe it was all about slavery. It was effective motivation for Lincoln’s sympathizers and also provided a nice cover for the real reason Lincoln couldn’t afford to lose the South.
We are still living with the smoldering fires of that hatred today. Neither black nor white has ultimately benefited from that emotional extreme. A different leader in the Union might have provided a way to break the back of slavery without so much hatred.
Had ending slavery been the sole objective, negotiations and talks and compromises with the Southern States would have been chosen over terrorism. Slavery would have been phased out. Compensation would have been made to the South for its economic loss. The slaves would have been freed, trained and integrated into society in those early years. As stated in the Mississippi Declaration of Immediate Causes about the intention of the North “It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.”
The South was bludgeoned, their homes and lives were destroyed and they, understandably, dug in their heels.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.