Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Will Vermont Secede from the Union?

By Ian Baldwin and Frank Bryan, The Washington Post. Posted April 3, 2007.


The winds of secession are blowing in the Green Mountain State: Vermont was once an independent republic, and it can be one again.
Advertisement

The winds of secession are blowing in the Green Mountain State.

Vermont was once an independent republic, and it can be one again. We think the time to make that happen is now. Over the past 50 years, the U.S. government has grown too big, too corrupt and too aggressive toward the world, toward its own citizens and toward local democratic institutions. It has abandoned the democratic vision of its founders and eroded Americans' fundamental freedoms.

Vermont did not join the Union to become part of an empire.

Some of us therefore seek permission to leave.

A decade before the War of Independence, Vermont became New England's first frontier, settled by pioneers escaping colonial bondage who hewed settlements across a lush region whose spine is the Green Mountains. These independent folk brought with them what Henry David Thoreau called the "true American Congress" -- the New England town meeting, which is still the legislature for nearly all of Vermont's 237 towns. Here every citizen is a legislator who helps fashion the rules that govern the locality.

Today, however, Vermont no longer controls even its own National Guard, a domestic emergency force that is now employed in an imperial war 6,000 miles away. The 9/11 commission report says that "the American homeland is the planet." To defend this "homeland," the United States spends six times as much on its military as China, the next highest-spending nation, funding more than 730 military bases in more than 130 countries, abetted by more than 100 military space satellites and more than 100,000 seaborne battle-ready forces. This is the greatest military colossus ever forged.

Few heed George Washington's Farewell Address, which warned against the danger of a permanent large standing army that "can be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." Or that of a later general-become-president: "We must never let the weight of [the military-industrial complex] endanger our liberties or democratic processes." Dwight D. Eisenhower pointedly included the word "congressional" after "military-industrial" but allowed his advisers to excise it. That word completes a true description of the hidden threat to democracy in the United States.

The two of us are typical of the diversity of Vermont's secessionist movement: one descended from old Vermonter stock, the other a more recent arrival -- a "flatlander" from down country. Our Vermont homeland remains economically conservative and socially liberal. And the love of freedom runs deep in its psyche.

Vermont seceded from the British Empire in 1777 and stood free for 14 years, until 1791. Its constitution -- which preceded the U.S. Constitution by more than a decade -- was the first to prohibit slavery in the New World and to guarantee universal manhood suffrage. Vermont issued its own currency, ran its own postal service, developed its own foreign relations, grew its own food, made its own roads and paid for its own militia. No other state, not even Texas, governed itself more thoroughly or longer before giving up its nationhood and joining the Union.

But the seeds of disunion have been growing since the beginning. Vermont more or less sat out the War of 1812, and its governor ordered troops fighting the British to disengage and come home. Vermont fought the Civil War primarily to end slavery; Abraham Lincoln did so primarily to save the Union. Vermont's record on the slavery issue was so strong that Georgia's legislature resolved that a ditch be dug around the "pestiferous" state and it be floated out to sea.

After the Great Flood of 1927, the worst natural disaster in the state's history, President Calvin Coolidge (a Vermonter) offered help. Vermont's governor replied, "Vermont will take care of its own." In 1936, town meetings rejected a huge federal highway referendum that would have blacktopped the Green Mountain crest line from Massachusetts to Canada.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: secession, independence, vermont

Ian Baldwin is publisher of Vermont Commons. Frank Bryan, a political science professor at the University of Vermont, is author of "Real Democracy: The New England Town Meeting and How It Works."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Oh dont worry!
Posted by: Temporary on Apr 3, 2007 12:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It WILL, once civil war 2 starts! Though i doubt they'll be pretty much left ot "Vermont" as we know it once the war is over. Try picturing THIS with WMD:s, and you pretty much get the idea!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» you constantly post this link Posted by: psychochurch
» Why Wait......... Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Why Wait......... Posted by: grolan
drew
Posted by: drew on Apr 3, 2007 1:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
don't forget immigration policy- how do i apply for citizenship?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Illegal immigrants = New Yorkers! Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Universal citizenship
Posted by: gjames on Apr 3, 2007 2:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope that anyone anywhere in the world can claim universal citizenship in Vermont, sort of like how any Jew anywhere in the world is Israeli. That would be awesome.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bad Example Posted by: psychochurch
» Bingo Posted by: fifthworld
» Berry berry bad example Posted by: fifthworld
Once you call something paradise, you can kiss it goodbye
Posted by: ISlamIslam on Apr 3, 2007 3:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A little Israel, right here on our continent! Can't wait to see how you'd deal with all the immigrants who'd start pouring over your borders, forcing development of your scenic countryside, straining your economic resources, and resulting in the crime and dysfunctionality that comes from too many humans occupying too little space such as currently exists in big cities across the U.S. Or would you enforce some sort of border control and restricted immigration such as many of us now advocate for this country?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are you retarded?
Posted by: ateo on Apr 3, 2007 3:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The government will never let one of its states secede. See the civil war for an example of what fate awaits you should you try.

You will be crushed just like every other "rebellion" in America's history (there are quite a few more than the civil war, check your history books kiddo).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Are you retarded? Posted by: fallout1
» RE: Are you retarded? Posted by: Bubba3000
» Native Vermonters pronounce it "retahded" Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Interesting
Posted by: ateo on Apr 3, 2007 4:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have always heard about ivory tower egg heads that are completely and totally disconnected from reality but this is the first time I've read some of their nonsense immediately after publication when it is most ripe for the plucking. States have no right to secede from the United States, that was proven in the civil war. Aside from there, individuals don't even have the right to remove themselves from the tax system due to property taxes. There is no way to remove yourself, let alone an entire state, from the system. It is all encompassing.

I admire the sentiment expressed in this article and it appeals to me on a personal level as I have certain libertarian leanings. However, that ship has sailed. With each passing decade the control of the federal government expands and the freedoms of the individual American are reduced. The only legitimate purpose of an article such as this would be to bring the fact that the United States as it is today is not the United States intended by our founding fathers and the constitution. In that, it is successful. However, to those with at least a rudimentary grasp of history, the constitution, and the federal government today it seems ridiculous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Interesting Posted by: cottontail
» RE: Interesting Posted by: Lincoln fan
Why not?
Posted by: Vronsky on Apr 3, 2007 4:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have long believed that a key part of the problem in the United States is the remoteness of government from the governed. I felt the same about the United Kingdom, and as a result I have for many years worked for Scottish independence. After only around 70 years of existence the independence movement achieved a recall of the Scottish Parliament. Full independence has yet to be achieved, but watch out for the results of the elections here in May (07). It is likely that the single largest party will be the secessionist SNP. That would be equivalent in your terms to an election in Vermont in which both the Republican and Democratic parties were reduced to minorities.

Learn from us, and don't believe the scaremongers. It might take a few decades with a distinct feeling of getting nowhere, but the cards are stacked in your favour. Little by little people will realise that the alternatives are exhausted, and once they move over to your side they don't go back. Make contact with other separatist movements (don't believe the black propaganda about them) and you will get sympathetic encouragement. Small is beautiful.

But: given the behaviour of the imbeciles currently running your country I just don't know if there's enough time left on the clock.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yeah for Vermont & New Hampshire!
Posted by: makeadifference on Apr 3, 2007 4:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We've been thinking about moving to Vermont, New Hampshire ("Live Free or Die" - slogan), Canada, Panama, Ireland... any land that we can be proud of. I am proud of Vermont's effort and New Hampshire's protest against the National ID cards which will be mandated by the "Empire" Federal Government next year.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Scary stuff, LINK Posted by: ateo
» RE: Yeah for Vermont & New Hampshire! Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
I'd rather throw out Texas
Posted by: Ellie1 on Apr 3, 2007 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and most other red states.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'd rather throw out Texas Posted by: Bubba3000
» RE: I'd rather throw out Texas Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: I'd rather throw out Texas Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: I'd rather throw out Texas Posted by: Bubba3000
» Not all Texans are Republican Posted by: Bubba3000
» RE: I'd rather throw out Texas Posted by: Uncle Crabby
» RE: I'd rather throw out Texas Posted by: UnEasyOne
Smacked by relativism
Posted by: alterpa123 on Apr 3, 2007 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You would be, as would others who would pay a far greater price for your poorly conceived ideas. If you clowns got to have your own "country" because you don't like what the federal gov't does--how long until some like minded people get together down South (their successionist sentiments are STILL stronger than yours nearly 150 years later) and cobble together a state based on far less equitable sentiments. Remember the screams of outrage and derision that accompanied articles about similarly misguided people establishing a Christian state in South Carolina? (www.christianexodus.com)

Now instead of such actions being plainly prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, there would be no recourse whatesoever. Put simply, no overarching legal system would be in place to guarantee or protect anyone's rights, the burden would be placed solely within the narrow discretion of these particular "countries." Remember, the white nationalists want their own state too, as do a host of other miscreants and would-be tyrants. You don't get to opt out, you don't get to leave just because things are difficult right now and you don't like it. Stop throwing a tantrum, stop hyperventilating, take a deep breath and actually think through what you are proposing. Bad Idea.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Smacked by relativism Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Thanks for the "sir" Mr. Ludd Posted by: alterpa123
» READ THE CSA CONSTITUTION SOMETIME Posted by: poppop_schell
The War With Vermont
Posted by: ssegallmd on Apr 3, 2007 6:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FOX BREAKING NEWS:

AP - According to interim president Tom DeLay, who is filling in for president Mark Foley while the latter completes his community service, Vermont has been stockpiling biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction despite weeks of sanctions against maple syrup.

To the consternation of the United Nations, which Secretary of State Jenna Bush once again declared "irrelevant" and "grodie", American troops have joined the rest of the coalition of the willing (Antarctica, Aruba, Texas and Bangladesh) which had already amassed at the New Hampshire border and were waiting at a nearby Denny's for the Americans to show up.

Troops (don't forget to support them with a ribbon magnet!) are gathering on the banks of the Connecticut river, poised to strike if neither chancellor Howard Dean nor vice-chancellor Bernie Sanders stands down.

From his minimum security cell, vice-president DeLay text messaged, "We're fighting the sapsuckers there so that we don't have to fight them here'"

This will extend the front against terrorism to Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, North Korea, Uzbekistan, Mexico, Canada, Prussia, Rhodesia, Atlantis, Oz and New Jersey.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The War With Vermont Posted by: waitingforthefall
It has been tried but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried again.
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Apr 3, 2007 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the Federal government doesn't recognise the Constitution any more the States are well within their rights to suceed. Unfortunately most people, and therefore States, don't recognise their rights and have willingly ceded their power to the Federal system. But we should all try. The only states I see who actually would consider doing so are Vermont, New Hampshire, Idaho, Montana, South Carolina, and, of course, Texas. Even when the movements don't work it might wake up people to force some change and devolve some power back to the rightful, Constitutional owners- the States and the people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ecotopia...
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Apr 3, 2007 6:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sigh,

If only Northern California, Oregon, and Washington would secede....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: cotopia... Posted by: richardpmendola
» RE: cotopia... Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Ecotopia... Posted by: badkitty
» RE: cotopia... Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: cotopia... Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: cotopia... Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: cotopia... Posted by: ConnecttheDots
not new and misses the point
Posted by: Jesse on Apr 3, 2007 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Baldwin and Bryan aren't saying anything terribly new. The problem is that there is a reason secessionists have only had one major success in the U.S., and it isn't just because the Civil War decided things. Generally, people in this country have decided that having a federal system is better than not.

The old town meeting form of government works great for living in towns and cities with only a few people, but is completely unworkable for anything much larger. Burlington, Vermont, the state's largest city, has only 40,000 people and does not operate like that. It can't.

There is also a lot of appealing to this utopian vision of semi-rural states. Nice enough, but your semi-rural (and very nice, don't get me wrong) state depends on a host of things that the federal government does. Imagine Vermont trying to be self-sufficient in food, for example. It isn't possible in a place where the growing season is four months long and the population is more than a few thousand. I'm not saying the government provides food directly, but it does guarantee a whole lot of stuff that enables the food to get there.

Now, if we all lived like Amish farmers, what Bryan and Baldwin talk about makes more sense. But I don't think many Vermonters want to live like that. And it would require a serious reduction in the population.

More importantly, the whole argument that government from Washington is flawed because of remoteness sounds intuitive, but there isn't really a lot of good evidence that it matters. After all, it was governments that were, in their way, just as liberterian (and local) in the South that that slavery was a fine idea. And it is worth noting that Vermont joined the U.S. voluntarily, as such things go, and other states did the same. Going it alone was just not a practical or viable option in 1800 and it isn't now.

Yes, Washington seems remote to most people, but a centralized system delivers a lot of benefits that these two guys at best gloss over. Vermont may have refused federal help for one disaster, but I recall more than one winter when they weren't so proud. (Burlington airport, winter storms, 'nuff said). And there are things that all your rock-ribbed pioneer spirit won't help with. Imagine the human cost if Luoisiana had refused federal help. Banking systems exist because there is a federal government in the first place. And sorry, banks are just plain necessary if your economy operates on anything other than barter.

The state has recieved a certain amount of federal largesse to its farmers. General Electric, which was supported by large military contracts at the Burlington plant, was the biggest employer at one time. The state still hasn't recovered from the loss of those jobs.

Secession didn't fly among the Quebecois, who have far more reson to do it. I doubt such is that great a solution for Vermont.

More disturbing is their old saw that new technologies are naturally democratizing. Um, watching emails, anyone? I'm not saying they are ever and always wrong about it, but that the issues they raise are more complicated than that.

Also, the idea that the government is "too big" or that organizing on a large scale is energy dependent is rather flawed, I think. The Mongols ran and administered competently the largest land empire ever, and they didn't have oil, coal, or cars. What they did have were roads and a very well-organized bureaucracy.

Decentralization has an emotional appeal, but in and of itself it doesn't necessarily mean a more democratic system. Europe was run by city-states and small territories for centuries, and only one or two created anything like a democratic tradition. That would say to me that size in itself isn't the issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is obviously wrong...
Posted by: davidbdr on Apr 3, 2007 7:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After reading several of the comments here, I am convinced that had this current American population lived in the Revolutionary War days, there would have been no serious fight. There would have been a lot of whining about how Great Britain is much too powerful to fight or it is a hopeless cause. Americans have grown soft and lazy. You may have to die for your beliefs. How many of you are willing to stand in front of a tank like that lone Chinese man did many years ago? I doubt there are many. You all bitch about the price of gas but balk at a total boycott until the oil companies get the message. If you aren't willing to sacrifice your comfort or convenience, how do you expect any real change? Just like the pathetic excuse for a Democratic Party, so many in this country are wishy-washy, complaining babies who can't be counted on when needed.

The idea of Vermont seceding might seem silly to you but it IS their right. If you won't fight for your rights, what will you fight for? Obviously, since 2000, not a whole hell of a lot. Chanting and waving placards in marches is not a fight. You are being laughed at by those in power because they know you have no real will for drastic change. Is American Idol on tonight? Enjoy and shut up until you have something real to offer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What is obviously wrong... Posted by: freedom_rings
I'd rather throw out texas ... too
Posted by: Uncle Crabby on Apr 3, 2007 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My relatives in Finland fought a valiant battle against the Russians in that famous war. What does that say about me?

NOTHING!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sadly the Administration will bomb their own!
Posted by: Darrell Kern on Apr 3, 2007 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately the arrogance that governs America will not allow any state to sucede- thereby reducing its size and scope in the world domination agenda.

I say kudos for trying, though. At least this kind of a move will show America and the world just how much the American people are finally over our corrupt government.

Its one hell of a powerful statement. And a very true one!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's Be UNunited
Posted by: beverleec on Apr 3, 2007 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The country is no longer the United States of America, but the United States of Corporate America...we should all join Vermont and start over.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Let's Be UNunited Posted by: Dboy
Vermont residents are screwed -- like all other freedom-loving Americans.
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 3, 2007 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1776, my fifth great grandfather, John Scott, a Vermont farmer, grabbed his musket and joined Colonel Seth Warner’s fierce fighting regiment known as the “Green Mountain Boys.”

Private Scott participated in the battles of Bennington and Saratoga, was captured at Fort Ann, New York, and shipped off to a British Army stockade in Canada. During his imprisonment, the Redcoats restrained him continuously with iron leg shackles that left incurable open sores.

If John were alive today and had the same fervent desire to live free, he would move to Canada and stay there permanently.

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam vet, registered Republican, Goldwater conservative, RABID neocon-hater (like Barry) and the editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If They Do
Posted by: NoPCZone on Apr 3, 2007 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can I migrate?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From the recently formed Vermont Secessionist Society of Indiana...
Posted by: OneAcre2012 on Apr 3, 2007 9:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an open letter to those pessimists out there who so desire to be squashed by their corporate slaveholders that they can't help but wish the same fate on the rest of us...when the great big stupid bankrupt united states of whatever (liam lynch, you rock!) finally collapses in a heap, who's gonna "take care" of us then? States like Vermont that actually give a crap about people, that's who. Bigger was never better. Small scale localized government and economy is coming soon to a neighborhood near you, so it's time to learn to get along and quit crying buckets because someone other than you has an idea. Negativity does not breed progress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I should add... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Didn't The Civil War settle this?
Posted by: sausage on Apr 3, 2007 9:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Vermont, I don't think you can legally secede, so why even think about?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bernie Sanders is a "socialist," therefore Vermont is full of "crackpots"
Posted by: eddie torres on Apr 3, 2007 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please. This is pretty transparent, even for the Washington Post.

The "crackpots" of Bernie Sanders' "socialist" Vermont will soon be associated with the Progressive movement of the Democratic Party. Those "crazy" liberal ideas like universal healthcare and election reform will be watered down and mainstreamed because, after all, who wants to be seen agreeing with those "crazy" Progressives? And Democratic Party candidates will no longer have to seriously consider issues that would erode the status quo.

Fear not. Your Owners know how to get things done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Vermont makes it happen
Posted by: SamFox on Apr 3, 2007 9:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would seriously think of moving there. The opening paragraph says it all...or most of it anyway.

SamFox

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's time to redefine socialism
Posted by: willymack on Apr 3, 2007 9:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too many Americans equate socialism with the brutal dictatorships of Stalin and Mao. Take a look at the socialist democracies in Scandinavia, The Netherlands, and elsewhere. It's small wonder that the neocons want us to keep right on thinking as we do, as it makes our Capitalist dictatorship more repressive and all-powerful. Name one good thing that's come out of the theft of the 2000 and 2004 "elections". Maybe we can't seceed from the Union without inviting a brutal response, but we can certainly decide to change from timid, malleable drones to an angry body politic which refuses to go along with business as usual. Vermont is a good example, but not necessarily the only one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Uhm... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» It requires government... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Sorry, you're wrong. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Sorry, you're wrong. Posted by: EagleMB
De Facto, not De Jure Secession
Posted by: dayahka on Apr 3, 2007 10:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What Vermont seems to be talking about is not leaving the Union in an act of rebellion and secession, but of disengaging from the "federal" economic system (energy, agriculture, etc.). This is more a bottom-up re-organization than a top-down declaration of independence: they remain a state within the US, but change their internal ways. This should be able to work OK until such a time as the US dissolves naturally (from natural or human-made catastrophes) and then it will be each state (or each region) for itself anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AlterNeters=Federalists
Posted by: gellero on Apr 3, 2007 10:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AlterNet posters always seem to want federal handouts and control over everything, education, housing, money etc. ad nauseum. Except when something like this comes up, of course....And the MISINFORMATION that Pres. Regan 'blackmailed' the state re the drinking age by witholding federal highway $$$.......not quite......It was the DEMOCRATIC controlled House and Senate that did it......READ YOUR HISTORY !!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» History Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: AlterNeters=Federalists Posted by: eyesunderwater
» LOL Posted by: gellero
» RE: Guilty! Posted by: Lincoln fan
Fix the problems don't run from them
Posted by: veive on Apr 3, 2007 11:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]