Intro-3 The American Experience establishing Independence
Those politicians in Russian Empire in the late 1980s calling for the end of the Empire--because of its financial and social liabilities--were not war-mongers, in my opinion. They simply reasoned the Empire was not viable and needed to evolve into something other.
The model that intrigued them was the historical account of the US thrust into independence. They discerned that the Americans could form into regional units called states; and the entire country of states be called "The United States." At first the States were coalesced into a federation of states, then because of financial problems, were more strongly held together in the more traditional top-down structure: the President, a representative Congress and an independent federal judiciary the three body-supremes. But what of the state organization, each state having the same functions at the state level as at the national level? That thorny question has never been addressed to satisfy either the imperialists or nationalists; or the federalists or states rights' people.
But there is a further problem with the United States model towards freedom and independence from England. There was war between the Americans and the British. The Brits regarded the American war an act of rebellion against the Crown of England. Accordingly, they attempted to wipe the American revolt out by force. The British put up a gallant campaign on American shores, but could not overcome the logistical problems of fighting on the enemy's soil' plus many Brits were reluctant to wage war with the Americans, previously, British citizens.
The question still remains, could the colonists have rebelled peacefully to set up its own form of government? Note that Britain did subsequently let go its colonies in New Zealand, Australia, and Canada (among others).
Nevertheless, the satellites in the Russian Empire did move toward each's own independence and established a Russian Federation in 1992 (or, thereabouts). The road toward independence need not always include a chaotic period of war, necessarily.
Therefore, I do not argue that the road toward independence of a region, i.e., an identifiable group of people, must result in hostility and warfare, but only that a people have a right to live in accord with their own cultural principles and activities and way of life short of impinging on others so engaged.
The model that intrigued them was the historical account of the US thrust into independence. They discerned that the Americans could form into regional units called states; and the entire country of states be called "The United States." At first the States were coalesced into a federation of states, then because of financial problems, were more strongly held together in the more traditional top-down structure: the President, a representative Congress and an independent federal judiciary the three body-supremes. But what of the state organization, each state having the same functions at the state level as at the national level? That thorny question has never been addressed to satisfy either the imperialists or nationalists; or the federalists or states rights' people.
But there is a further problem with the United States model towards freedom and independence from England. There was war between the Americans and the British. The Brits regarded the American war an act of rebellion against the Crown of England. Accordingly, they attempted to wipe the American revolt out by force. The British put up a gallant campaign on American shores, but could not overcome the logistical problems of fighting on the enemy's soil' plus many Brits were reluctant to wage war with the Americans, previously, British citizens.
The question still remains, could the colonists have rebelled peacefully to set up its own form of government? Note that Britain did subsequently let go its colonies in New Zealand, Australia, and Canada (among others).
Nevertheless, the satellites in the Russian Empire did move toward each's own independence and established a Russian Federation in 1992 (or, thereabouts). The road toward independence need not always include a chaotic period of war, necessarily.
Therefore, I do not argue that the road toward independence of a region, i.e., an identifiable group of people, must result in hostility and warfare, but only that a people have a right to live in accord with their own cultural principles and activities and way of life short of impinging on others so engaged.
Comments
Post a Comment