{"id":{"repo_id":"nps","oai_identifier":"oai:calhoun.nps.edu:10945/23690"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/nps/oai:calhoun.nps.edu:10945/23690","repository":{"repo_id":"nps","name":"Naval Postgraduate School","base_url":"https://calhoun.nps.edu/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"An historical comparison between the Southern secession movement of 1860 and the Soviet secession movements of today","abstract":"This thesis uses an historical interpretation of the Southern secession movement of 1860 in order to formulate a secession theory consisting of three separate elements: 1) the growth of political faction; 2) a characteristic of the factional clash which renders the resulting crisis particularly unsuitable for constitutional or governmental adjudication; and 3) the existence of a subordinate governmental infrastructure, controlled by the minority faction, which can be used to effect a secession movement. An historical review of the Southern secession is undertaken in light of the above secession theory in order to argue for the theory's validity; then, the theory is applied to the various Soviet secession movements with a view towards proposing U.S. policy options.","abstract_html":"This thesis uses an historical interpretation of the Southern secession movement of 1860 in order to formulate a secession theory consisting of three separate elements: 1) the growth of political faction; 2) a characteristic of the factional clash which renders the resulting crisis particularly unsuitable for constitutional or governmental adjudication; and 3) the existence of a subordinate governmental infrastructure, controlled by the minority faction, which can be used to effect a secession movement. An historical review of the Southern secession is undertaken in light of the above secession theory in order to argue for the theory's validity; then, the theory is applied to the various Soviet secession movements with a view towards proposing U.S. policy options.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Donner, Michael L., Sr."],"institution":"Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":"National Security Affairs (NSA)","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Teti, Frank M.","Minott-Kennedy, Rodney"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":1992,"date_issued":"1992-12","date_published":"1992-12","updated_at":"2026-07-27T20:25:53Z","subjects":[],"languages":["en_US"],"rights":["This publication is a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, Section 101. Copyright protection is not available for this work in the United States."],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://hdl.handle.net/10945/23690","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Teti, Frank M.","Minott-Kennedy, Rodney"]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["National Security Affairs (NSA)"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Donner, Michael L., Sr."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["December 1992"]},{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2012-11-29T16:14:43Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2012-11-29T16:14:43Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["1992-12"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en_US"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["This publication is a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, Section 101. Copyright protection is not available for this work in the United States."]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://hdl.handle.net/10945/23690"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["This thesis uses an historical interpretation of the Southern secession movement of 1860 in order to formulate a secession theory consisting of three separate elements: 1) the growth of political faction; 2) a characteristic of the factional clash which renders the resulting crisis particularly unsuitable for constitutional or governmental adjudication; and 3) the existence of a subordinate governmental infrastructure, controlled by the minority faction, which can be used to effect a secession movement. An historical review of the Southern secession is undertaken in light of the above secession theory in order to argue for the theory's validity; then, the theory is applied to the various Soviet secession movements with a view towards proposing U.S. policy options."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["An historical comparison between the Southern secession movement of 1860 and the Soviet secession movements of today"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Teti, Frank M.","Minott-Kennedy, Rodney"],"dc:contributor.department":["National Security Affairs (NSA)"],"dc:creator":["Donner, Michael L., Sr."],"dc:date":["December 1992"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2012-11-29T16:14:43Z"],"dc:date.available":["2012-11-29T16:14:43Z"],"dc:date.issued":["1992-12"],"dc:description.abstract":["This thesis uses an historical interpretation of the Southern secession movement of 1860 in order to formulate a secession theory consisting of three separate elements: 1) the growth of political faction; 2) a characteristic of the factional clash which renders the resulting crisis particularly unsuitable for constitutional or governmental adjudication; and 3) the existence of a subordinate governmental infrastructure, controlled by the minority faction, which can be used to effect a secession movement. An historical review of the Southern secession is undertaken in light of the above secession theory in order to argue for the theory's validity; then, the theory is applied to the various Soviet secession movements with a view towards proposing U.S. policy options."],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://hdl.handle.net/10945/23690"],"dc:language.iso":["en_US"],"dc:publisher":["Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School"],"dc:rights":["This publication is a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, Section 101. Copyright protection is not available for this work in the United States."],"dc:title":["An historical comparison between the Southern secession movement of 1860 and the Soviet secession movements of today"],"dc:type":["Thesis"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-27T20:25:53Z"}