Catalonia to move to declare independence from Spain on Monday

Reuters ^ | October 4, 2017 | Staff

[C19fan]

Catalonia will move on Monday to declare independence from Spain, a regional government source said, as the European Union nation nears a rupture that threatens the foundations of its young democracy and has unnerved financial markets.

Pro-independence parties which control the regional parliament have asked for a debate and vote on Monday on declaring independence, the source said. A declaration should follow this vote, although it is unclear when.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don’t think Lincoln believed what he said.

I think he believed it when he was applying the principle to others. I think he rejected the principle when it was applied to him.

[BigEdLB]

Just in time for the 2018 Winter Olympics... A New Anthem

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: " What is totally false is the oft repeated claim that Lincoln fought the war to free slaves or to 'preserve the union.' "

FRiend, the analogy to WWII is nearly perfect: so why did the US fight WWII?
Was it to make the world safe for Democracy?
Was it destroy Nazism, fascism & Japanese imperialism?
To found a replacement for the League of Nations?
To save the Jews & other untermenschen from slavery & extirmination?
Or save the British Empire or Nationalist Chinese?
Possibly even to build an American Empire, a new pax Americana to replace the pax Britannica & old pax Romana?

Sure, maybe all of those had something to do with it, but the immediate reasons were Hitler's war against our allies in Europe and specifically the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Without those Axis acts of war, none of the other reasons could come into play.
And so with the Civil War -- it started in response to Fort Sumter and other Confederate aggressions against Union properties, forces & territories.
Originally, April 15, 1861, Lincoln merely intended to restore those properties to Union control.
But in due time, as the war dragged on & on, other higher goals, including abolition, came into play.

And of course, you know all that, indubitably, but for some reason it excites you to focus on the difference between Lincoln's goals on April 15, 1861 and those of April 15, 1865.
And to pretend there's no explanation beyond some nefarious economic concerns of so-called Northeastern Power Broker Democrats.

Really??

[rockrr]

Lincoln’s sentiments were consistent with those of the founders. When he spoke the words that DegenerateLamp tosses out he was speaking in the same context ass the founders - the God-given right to shake off tyranny and fight for self-determination, not some impulsive or “at pleasure” upheaval of a stable nation.

[DiogenesLamp]

I am not going to indulge your “Pearl Harbor” nonsense. That is so ridiculous no rational person will countenance it.

[DiogenesLamp]

“at pleasure” upheaval of a stable nation.

The word's "at pleasure" are BroJoeK's favorite lie which he keep repeating.

Tyranny is in the eye of the beholder, and by asserting their effort to be independent was for a "whim" he is merely mocking the beliefs of people who very strongly believed they had tyranny imposed upon them.

It also directly contradicts what the Founders signed in the Declaration of Independence, which clearly states people can leave for any D@mn reason they please.

"Consent of the Governed." Look it up some time BroJoeK.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I am not going to indulge your “Pearl Harbor” nonsense.
That is so ridiculous no rational person will countenance it."

No, the analogy is totally 100% accurate, and you yourself would quickly see that if it weren't so devastating to the rest of your pro-Confederate mythology.

But the comparison just one of several key facts which invalidate your fantasies and so you steadfastly close your eyes to them.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The word's "at pleasure" are BroJoeK's favorite lie which he keep repeating.
Tyranny is in the eye of the beholder, and by asserting their effort to be independent was for a "whim" he is merely mocking the beliefs of people who very strongly believed they had tyranny imposed upon them."

No lie and not invented by yours truly.
The term "at pleasure" comes from James Madison, who you may recall is referred to as "the Father of the Constitution", so his ideas carry some weight as to what our Founders originally intended.

Madison clearly distinguishes between "necessity" such as spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and "at pleasure" which later drove Deep South Fire Eaters to declare their secession.

Factually, there was nothing in 1860 remotely resembling the necessity which produced our Founders' Declaration of Independence.

And DiogenesLamp well knows that, but can't acknowledge it because it reduces the rest of his mythology to gibberish, right?

[DiogenesLamp]

Unprovoked attack, Nearly 3000 casualties, billions of dollars worth of damage, grave threat to the interests of the United States vs nothing like that in the case of Sumter.

Not going to indulge your ridiculous claim that Sumter was like Pearl Harbor. It makes you sound crazy when you say such things.

[DiogenesLamp]

The term "at pleasure" comes from James Madison, who you may recall is referred to as "the Father of the Constitution", so his ideas carry some weight as to what our Founders originally intended.

He contributed heavily to the Constitution, but he had absolutely no input on the document asserting the right to Independence, which was the Declaration of Independence.

Factually, there was nothing in 1860 remotely resembling the necessity which produced our Founders' Declaration of Independence.

In YOUR Opinion. In King George's opinion, and also in the Opinions of the Canadians and the American Loyalists, the founders did not have a necessity to leave.

The people who don't want *OTHER PEOPLE* to have independence, do not get to decide if their reasons are good enough. It is the people who *WANT* independence who get to decide if they do not wish to live under the rule of other people.

This is the damnable lie you keep trying to spread. You assert that in *YOUR OPINION* they didn't have a good reason, but this makes as much sense as the Southerners claiming that slaves didn't have any good reasons for wanting to be free.

The opinions of the oppressors do not count.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp:

1. "Unprovoked attack,
   
2. Nearly 3000 casualties,
   
3. billions of dollars worth of damage,
4. grave threat to the interests of the United States vs nothing like that in the case of Sumter."

1) No, as far as the Japanese were concerned, FDR moving our fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor was totally provocative, and FDR knew it!

2) 3,000 casualties were circa 2% of US forces on Oahu alone, far less than 1% of total US military in late 1941 and the US did not lose our base there!
At Pearl Harbor damages were quickly repaired and losses replaced many times over.

By contrast, casualties at Fort Sumter were 7% of the Union force there and Fort Sumter's loss was the most important remaining Union outpost in 1861, not recovered until war's end..

3) Fort Sumter was relatively as expensive and important to the Union in 1861 as was Pearl Harbor in 1941.

4) The loss of Fort Sumter was itself a grave threat to the Union, both because of its strategic location and because the battle motivated four more slave states to change & declare for secession & Confederacy.

Most important, both Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor were seen by everyone at the time as the beginning of all-out war.
Nobody knew then what the coming war would mean, but everybody understood war was now under way.

And of course you know all that, but refuse to acknowledge it because it makes rubbish out of your own pro-Confederate mythology.

[DiogenesLamp]

1) No, as far as the Japanese were concerned, FDR moving our fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor was totally provocative, and FDR knew it!

Pearl Harbor was not located in Tokyo, or in any place else on the Japanese homeland.

By contrast, casualties at Fort Sumter were 7% of the Union force there and Fort Sumter's loss was the most important remaining Union outpost in 1861, not recovered until war's end..

There were no fatalities caused by the Confederate attack. Casualties were caused by the insistence of the commander to fire off a symbolic volley. Ft. Sumter was not important at all. Lincoln's cabinet themselves said it was a pointless fort.

3) Fort Sumter was relatively as expensive and important to the Union in 1861 as was Pearl Harbor in 1941.

The Southerners paid for the costs of it far more than the Northerners did, and the fort was utterly useless to the Union for anything other than threatening the Southerners. It stands empty today, and other than a token symbolic force after the civil war, it has been empty ever since the war. And again, Lincoln's cabinet said it was useless.

4) The loss of Fort Sumter was itself a grave threat to the Union, both because of its strategic location and because the battle motivated four more slave states to change & declare for secession & Confederacy.

Which they would not have done if Lincoln had left the Charlestonians alone. The sending of the war fleet to attack them convinced other states that Lincoln was indeed a tyrant who didn't respect the independence of states, nor the founders original intentions regarding federalism.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "This is the damnable lie you keep trying to spread.
You assert that in *YOUR OPINION* they didn't have a good reason, but this makes as much sense as the Southerners claiming that slaves didn't have any good reasons for wanting to be free.
The opinions of the oppressors do not count."

No "damnable lie" and the only oppressors were slave-masters.
Indeed, their number one complaint was not that slave-masters were "oppressed", but rather that they could not themselves oppress more slaves.
They wanted more oppression of slaves in Western Territories, more oppression of runaway slaves and more oppression, via Dred-Scott, even of freed-slaves in Union states!

And that's not my "opinion" it's total fact, which you would fully recognize except that it turns your own mythology into total nonsense, and so you deny, deny, deny what is self-evidently true.
The Union in 1860 belonged to the Southern slave-masters and did what they wanted.
It did not "oppress" them, but did chafe a little under slave-holders' efforts to expand their own oppression outside the South.

[DiogenesLamp]

No "damnable lie" and the only oppressors were slave-masters.

In *YOUR* opinion! The Founders believed the British were oppressors, the British and Canadians and Loyalists believed that they were not.

We do not let the oppressors decide if their oppression is tolerable or not. It is the people who feel that they are being oppressed who gets to decide if their oppression is tolerable, not the oppressors.

As I have tried to explain to you every time this topic comes up, "Oppression" is in the eye of the beholder.

[rockrr]

The opinions of the oppressors do not count.

How convenient.

[rockrr]

The “oppressors” were the Southern slavers. Now what are you gonna do?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Pearl Harbor was not located in Tokyo, or in any place else on the Japanese homeland."

Japanese saw the US Navy at Pearl Harbor as a vital threat to their own expanding Pacific Empire.
As such, it was at least as much a threat to Japan as Fort Sumter was to the Confederacy.
That's why they had to destroy it!

DiogenesLamp: "There were no fatalities caused by the Confederate attack.
Casualties were caused by the insistence of the commander to fire off a symbolic volley.
Ft. Sumter was not important at all.
Lincoln's cabinet themselves said it was a pointless fort. "

Confederates were ordered to "reduce" Fort Sumter to force its surrender, regardless of casualties.
In the process, the Union troops suffered 7% casualties, a higher rate than Pearl Harbor.

Fort Sumter's importance can easily be seen in the tenacity with which Confederates fought to keep it out of Union hands, until war's end.
Indeed, DiogenesLamp, your very argument about Union tariffs and "Northeastern financial interests" tells us it's potential importance to the Union.
But Lincoln's original interest seems to have been to preserve Fort Sumter as a bargaining chip, to trade "a fort for a state" as some point.

So your claim that Fort Sumter was not important is just nonsense.

DiogenesLamp: "The Southerners paid for the costs of it far more than the Northerners did, and the fort was utterly useless to the Union for anything other than threatening the Southerners. "

As we have demonstrated many times now, Southerners paid their fair share, nothing more.
And now you have just admitted that Fort Sumter was indeed quite important, both to South and North, right?

DiogenesLamp: "And again, Lincoln's cabinet said it was useless."

Sure, the Postmaster General would see no obvious use, but that is not true of the Secretaries of Navy or Treasury.

DiogenesLamp: "Which they would not have done if Lincoln had left the Charlestonians alone."

No, in fact, Confederates had prepared for months to assault & seize Fort Sumter, if necessary.
The only act which would stop the order to "reduce" Fort Sumter was a preemptive surrender by Union Major Anderson.

Just as Jefferson Davis promised in his February 1861 Inaugural Address, he intended to start war if Confederate "integrity" was "assailed".
So nothing could prevent him from taking Fort Sumter, one way or the other.

And you well know all that, but refuse to acknowledge it because the facts turn your ridiculous mythology into big lies, right?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "In *YOUR* opinion!
The Founders believed the British were oppressors, the British and Canadians and Loyalists believed that they were not."

But there's no "opinion" about it: our Founders were factually correct that British oppressed them, and Canadians were factually correct that Brits did not oppress Canadians.
US loyalists were a different matter -- they believed that regardless of oppression, they should remain loyal to Britain.
But they were a very small minority.

DiogenesLamp: "We do not let the oppressors decide if their oppression is tolerable or not.
It is the people who feel that they are being oppressed who gets to decide if their oppression is tolerable, not the oppressors. "

But if and only if the oppression is real, not some fantasy or mythological delusion.
Factually, in 1860 there was no oppression -- none, zero, nada -- of Southern slave-masters because they ran the show in Washington DC, and had since roughly 1800, almost exclusively.
Nothing happened which they strongly opposed and what they seriously wanted, they got.

The only "oppression" was their fear of what might happen under Black Republican "Ape" Lincoln in the future.
And that, by definition is secession "at pleasure", not approved, authorized or condoned by any US Founder.

DiogenesLamp: "As I have tried to explain to you every time this topic comes up, "Oppression" is in the eye of the beholder."

And as you have been instructed now many times, "oppression" is not just a feeeeeeeeeeling, it's a legal condition based on material facts such as those spelled out in our Declaration of Independence but totally absent in 1860.