68
Frequently.
Newfoundland and Labrador
The most recent example might be Newfoundland and Labrador, which in 1949 voted to join Canada as its tenth province. A Dominion from 1907, the Newfoundland Legislature voted the country out of existence in 1933 when collapsing fish prices led to the threat of default on its World War One debt. This returned the country ...
51
That's an interesting question. When India first gained independence from the United Kingdom on 15 August 1947 it was as The Dominion of India, with King George VI as king and Head of State.
India became a sovereign democratic republic when the Constitution of India came into force on 26 January 1950. This repealed the Indian Independence Act, and removed ...
44
The difference is that while Kosovo broke away from a country which had tried to exterminate its inhabitants, the slave states broke away so that they could continue to enslave some of their inhabitants.
As some repondents have pointed out, whether a breakaway or revolutionary state is considered legitimate depends on only
whether foreign countries are ...
39
The present US state of Texas was (at least in its own eyes) an independently sovereign country from 1836 until joining the US in 1846. Mexico never really recognized its independence and there was ongoing conflict, the US recognized it from 1837. It is worth noting that (at least in most tellings) the goal was always to join the US, but politics within ...
27
Another interesting example - though almost the opposite of voting to join another country - is Czechoslovakia, which voted to divide itself into two countries, Slovakia and the Czech Republic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakia
You could also include the reunification of Germany, or the various states of the Italian peninsula deciding to become a ...
26
Abyssinia / Ethiopia (the borders of which expanded and contracted frequently over the centuries) maintained its independence until 1936 by a combination of diplomatic skill in playing would-be colonizers off against each other, and military strength. These factors were, in turn, facilitated by centuries of diplomatic contacts with (as commented on by Denis ...
25
'Precedent' is a more or less meaningless word in international relations. Don't make the mistake of thinking that international relations are governed by any kind of set rules or that international law is like law in any meaningful sense.
Countries - some countries - may subscribe to international law, but that essentially amounts to mutual voluntary ...
23
Short answer: The latest flareup is the most recent of many that have taken place over the centuries.
More details are found in this wiki article on Catalonia. But basically, Catalonia was always the "non-mainstream part of Spain. It formed the heart of the Kingdom of Aragon, which was united to the rest of Spain (Castile) by the marriage of Ferdinand of ...
13
To summarize @semaphore's comments which should be the accepted answer:
Technically, Russia was not the USSR (just like England is not Britain or UK.)
Of course, de-facto, USSR was just a re-branding of the old Russian Empire, just like the modern Russian Federation is the heir to the Soviet Union.
However, the Soviet state structure was a weird ...
13
a response from a mostly neutral, catalan born citizen.
TL;DR:
Catalonia isn't suffering a rise of nationalism, but of neo-autonomism / pro-independence, mainly due to loss of civil rights, economic power,and, or, more correctly, the final and uttermost understanding that those rights and power were never there in first place.
By looking at the past, and ...
13
Britain (sort of)
In 410 CE, the Roman emperor Honorius refused to send soldiers to the island to defend it, basically leaving it to fend for itself against the invaders from across the sea. This effectively led to the end of Britannia as a Roman province.
13
In 1707, the parliament of the sovereign state that was Scotland (with its own currency, parliament and legal system) voted to join an incorporating Union with England. This led to Scottish MPs going to the Parliament in Westminster.
The vote was highly suspect; Scottish MPS were openly bribed with land and money to vote for the Union. As a result, a ...
12
Frankly, Korea's history has been so defined by external powers that it would be difficult to imagine what things would have been like without them. You are getting seriously into realms of speculative history.
For the most part, the reason people band together into large states or countries is so that they can deal with other such large entities. So it is ...
11
In 1938 Austria had a referendum on becoming part of Germany.
The vote was not democratic as Austria had been occupied by Germany at the time, but it still led to the „Anschluss“ of Austria to Germany.
10
Henri Christophe might fit the bill, although he is not counted among the Libertadores and only had a bit part in the American Revolution.
As a drummer boy, he participated in the Chasseurs Volontaires de Saint Domingue. This was a group of at least 500 free black volunteers from the French colony of Saint-Domingue who fought in the Revolutionary War. ...
10
Patel himself withdrew from the race on Gandhi's request. As for why this request was made by Gandhi, this is a matter of speculation since Gandhi would rarely give reasons for his decisions. People speculate that it could be due to either Patel's close relations with the Hindu right-wing, and his acrimony with the leftist leaders. Though Nehru had never ...
10
'Do or Die' is a very common phrase in India which almost never infer violence. Google interpret this phrase as 'persist, even if death is the result.'
Thus, what Gandhi was trying to convey millions of Indians, were to strive for complete independence, even if death is the result. It doesn't convey violent message but very basic desperation, which was the ...
10
Non-violent resistance doesn't mean there won't be violence (including possibly death) happening. It just means you won't be the one committing it. In fact, it is the goal to induce the oppressor to respond with violence, to draw everyone's attention to the fact that they have no authority over the situation other than brute force.
As an example, I give you ...
10
That would be the Philippeville massacres of 1955, which marked a severe escalation in the Algerian War of Independence.
The massacres broke out at the initiative of Youcef Zighoud, head of
the North Constantinois FLN, in order to revive a flagging movement
and thwart the advances made by Jacques Soustelle, delegate general of
the French government ...
9
The degree to which Panama sought its own independence from Colombia / Gran Colombia may pale next to the interests of the U.S. in separating it. In other words, Panamanian independence from Colombia was largely a U.S. project to protect its Canal interests.
9
This may be more than fictional backstory. From a website concerning genealogy of Loyalist ancestry:
Softwoods also have significance for Loyalist descendants. In the Jan
10 issue of Loyalist Trails, Denis Robitaille, Ph.D, Président de la
Société d'histoire Forestière du Québec, tried to verify a familiar
anecdote about plantation of white pines ...
9
I believe the mention is of the massacre at Sétif in May 1945. This was one of the earliest events leading into the Algerian war of independence. After an anticolonial protester was killed by police, a mob arose and killed roughly a hundred pieds-noirs.
You're right about the repression that followed, but the massacre itself doesn't seem to have been ...
9
The precedent the article talks about is that Kosovo was recognized as an independent state by major powers very soon.
No country ever recognized the Confederacy as an independent country.
8
Re: Is there a way for countries to become legally independent without the bloodshed?
Montenegro's recent split from Serbia would be a good point to start. Very recent and very peaceful.
After Yugoslavia broke up in 1991, the republics of Serbia and Montenegro established a federation called the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). They established a new ...
8
A textbook example of this occurred in Zimbabwe/Rhodesia in 1979.
The country had been effectively independent for 14 years. A whites-only government had unilaterally declared independence from Britain in 1965.
But in December 1979, as part of the deal by which transition to majority rule was to take place, the Rhodesian parliament voted itself out of ...
8
I'll provide a few comparisons; this is an interesting question that deserves a book length treatment. My apologies if in my attempt to be brief I oversimplify either side.
The American revolution occurred at the beginning of the British imperial age; the first Indian rebellion occurred during the height of Imperial power. The American revolution occurred ...
8
Primarily I think the mentality of the revolutionaries in each situation is the biggest deciding factor of what happens afterward.
The US's forefathers had very clear goals with very clear intentions. Many of them were not just intelligent, but practical. As well as being rather lucky.
The forefathers of the US and much of it's post-revolution population ...
8
Slovakia in 1992. Well, kind of. The (perhaps) only party that had independence on its political agenda was the Slovak National Party (8% votes), the outright independence was neither supported nor expected by any majority of population (polls gave anything between 10 to 30% in support, depending on the question and time period), and it was basically a ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
