Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • 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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

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.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Ian Baldwin Frank Bryan

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

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!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: vermont, independence, secession

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
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: LMNOP 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]
Fixing America's problems ain't all that difficult.
1) Get rid of the Bush Bunch ASAP.
2) Bring manufacturing back to America.
3) Get corporate America off its profit at all costs addiction.
4) Let's start start thinking about Team America instead of the present "screw your neighbor before he screws you" kick we're on.
These four steps will take care of most of our problems.
The Middle Class will make a comeback and it's the Middle Class that defined America when it was working. The rest of the problems, ie, healthcare, education, etc will be taken care of with relative ease.

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

Michigan Too!
Posted by: jimlup on Apr 3, 2007 2:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been wanting Michigan to succeed too... I'd be up for some kind of a blue state coalition. I guess we (michigan) aren't deep enough blue to really make it, plus there is not easy bridge to Vermont from Michigan except maybe Canada. I've been saying for years that the great lake states: Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota, should succeed. I've said this more frequently since the catastrophy of 2004.

If Vermont leaves, I might immigrate! Go Vermont!

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

» RE: Michigan Too! Posted by: tya
vermont civil rights
Posted by: cash on Apr 3, 2007 2:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What you folks should realize is that Vermont was an independant republic for 9 years...didn't join the union until 1791..
It was written into our state constitution in 1777 that we did not recognize slavery...that it was immoral...
We are recognized, historically, no matter how vague that may seem these days, as the first modern state which did not accept slavery...the point being is that we never had to disavow slavery...because our state was founded with those ideas, not ideals, in mind...and if you might take the time to check it out, our state insures modern individual rights moreso than any other in our constitution...our legislators, even now, do not waste time worrying neurotically about what is going on in our neighbor's bedroom...or closet...there are far bigger issues...
Our constitution was the model, not only for the america's Bill of Rights...but when the french needed a template during their revolution for a rights of man document....they pretty much looked at Vermont's as the way to go...so before you throw your ideas in on whether we should form our own republic...educate yourselves....

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

Reality Check
Posted by: brainvib on Apr 3, 2007 2:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What this article proposes is nice. Much lika Alice in Wonderland. The reality is ontained in: What happened to the Mohwk Indians in New York a few years ago, Does Waco ring a bell? Recall the tax-protestor out west who lost his wife, child and dog? Kent State? The Bonus Marchers in Washington D.C. is a fine example of US governmental reaction.
Talk about it while you still can(It might even now may be illegal), but please, don't try it. The US doesn't need any more blood on its hands or bodies in prisons. Vermont is too
scenic and beautiful to be desolated.

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

Can you find Ma on a map? Hint, it is in the Northeast
Posted by: tya on Apr 3, 2007 2:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can become a citizen of Ma and renounce my Federal citizenship and stop paying fed taxes legally while actually voting on what happens in Ma. Those in the N.M. Islands can't even wipe the way they want. I think we here in Ma are much more of a Commonwealth.

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

Since when did LEGAL apply to anything with this administration.
Posted by: Ellie1 on Apr 3, 2007 2:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Legal hasn't stopped the bushits, has it?

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

I'll be there!
Posted by: po cracka on Apr 3, 2007 4:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will gladly move to a free Vermont. Ya'll fight it out while I start packing my bags.

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

Don't Waste Your Momentum...
Posted by: haystack1317 on Apr 3, 2007 8:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do yourselves and the world a favor, pro-secession Vermonters, and put all that energy into changing the American nation for the better. Don't waste your time on pipe dreams. It's appealing, certainly, to talk about secession and imagine what the nation of Vermont might look like. But the reality is that the federal government would never, under any circumstances, allow a state to secede, as has been proven many times. Every minute you spend talking about it is a minute that should be put towards fighting for realistic changes in your state and in the country as a whole. Let's all fight to get our government and our constitution back from those who have hijacked it. That's where our energy should be going.

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

Too bad nobody in VT takes them seriously because of the racists
Posted by: lordradish on Apr 4, 2007 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing that this article fails to mention (as it was written before the events in question), is that Second Vermont Republic has pretty much lost the support of the Vermont left. A few months ago, it came to light that almost half their advisory board consisted of Neo-Confederate (League of the South) and vicious anti-labor intellectuals. When confronted with it, their reaction was basically, 'if they're racist, we don't care, they;re just there for their secession knowledge'. They then proceeded with a smear campaign agoanst the bloggers who broke the story, even going so far as to harass one of them at their employment and trying to get him fired. They also gave the typical attack against the anti-hate group Southern Poverty Law Center, using the same attacks that skinheads usually do.

Their leader, Thomas Naylor rants like a nutty cult leader. He said the bloggers were just trying to bring SVR down because they 'fear them', often citing the one poll (later revealed to be commissioned by SVR where '8% of VT'ers favor secession'. With the actual amount of people polled, that comes to about 48 people.

Word got out, and within a month, they had lost the support of the anarchists and many of the other liberals who had supported them. They even lost many of their pivotal members. They're even more irrelevant than they were before. If you want to know more:

Vermont Secession
or
coverage at Green Mountain Daily
or
coverage at five before chaos

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

RE: I disagree, it's too late to change america
Posted by: haystack1317 on Apr 4, 2007 8:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it's simply too late to change America, then why are you looking at Vermont's proposed secession as an aid in doing just that? America has been through widely varied swings of the pendulum in the last 220 years. Are you prepared to say that this time the pendulum has swung so far to the right that the union should be dissolved? Do you really understand what that would encompass? Or are you ready to help the pendulum on its return swing to the left, which has already begun? It has been known since the day the Constitution was ratified that our system of government contained within it the opportunity for the greedy and manipulative to gain control. It also contains the means by which those forces of greed and oppression can be beaten. Do not let the current administration dominate you. They are merely temporary executors of the will of the people. They are trying to be more, but they aren't. We have to stop them and get our government into the hands of those who really do reflect the will of the people. And, thank goodness, those officials will only be temporary executors as well.

"The laws of this country do not prevent the strong from crushing the week. Don't deceive yourselves for a moment as to the power of great interests which now dominate our development... There are men in this country big enough to own the government of the United States. They are going to own it if they can."

Woodrow Wilson said those things. Other presidents have said the same things. Eisenhower did. The fight against big money is as old as Jefferson and Jackson. It's part of our story. We need to continue the fight, not run away from it.

If you want to do Bush a favor, put all your energy into secession movements and none towards working to change America from the inside. That would suit him and Cheney and Rove just fine. That's a number of progressives from whom they won't have to worry about real challenges.

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

With the central government as it is now
Posted by: ng1944 on Apr 4, 2007 9:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
every state wants to secede

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

I knew I should have moved to Vermont instead of Upstate NY!
Posted by: nopuppy on Apr 4, 2007 11:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure it's colder, but with global climate change it'll probably be balmy by the time I retire. And I could live in an occupied territory! Because, of course, the minute Vermont seriously tries this, Bush's successors will be pouring troops across the border to whup some rebel butt.

But a great idea, and maybe by then the federal will be so broke and so broken that Vermont can secede successfully. Great good luck, and I'll be crossing Lake Champlain in my kayak with my packed bags.

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

A Californian who has learned to love TX!!
Posted by: windgoddess_sf on Apr 4, 2007 11:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amusing line of comments about TX, after the VT secession story. I've been wishing CA (NORTH of Orange County), OR and WA could seceed and form 'Cascadia.' Just an amusing pipe dream, of course. With the CA GNP alone we could thumb our noses at the feds.

As for TX - well, I've spent considerable time down there over the last 15 years due to some family living in Dallas. I grudgingly accepted that my brother's career transition, which required him to move from CA to TX, was going to be permanent. Guess what - found out that, indeed, not all Texans are Republican, that the state is astoundingly beautiful (I spent a week in Alpine, Big Bend area after Christmas - full of alt lifestyle types, urban refugees, cool music, cool people, good food, gorgeous scenery and skies) and I can't wait to get back and explore more. I don't want Dubya soiling TX - let him go off to his huge ranch in Paraguay, which he'll probably do anyway to escape any possibility of standing trial in the future.

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

COMBINE THE FLYOVER
Posted by: charlieparisek on Apr 4, 2007 3:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One way to partially alleviate the pain caused by policies of the current federal government would be to combine the flyover (consisting mostly of red states) into one state. After accomplishing this we could examine the feasability of revoking Texas statehood and making it an unincorporated territory of the US similar to Guam.

The immediate impact on legislation due to the reduction of red state senators and representatives would be refreshingly progressive.

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

get outside to look in
Posted by: davidg on Apr 5, 2007 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Rosie O'Donnell, not a compelling intellect, suggested in her references to a 9/11 consipracy statement, that Americans should get outside to look in she was absolutely right. Issues of equity, health care, separation of Church and State, accessiblity to public institutions are so far behind in the USA that the rest of the world looks on in shock and horror at the reactionism in which energy is spent debating Darwin. Gawd! When will the US media begin to report other countries and their level of achievements for simple comparisons. Maybe never?

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

Free Vermont, long live the (dis)United States...
Posted by: FreeVermont on Apr 5, 2007 7:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good to see so much debate here re: Vermonters' exploration of independence.

Most of us involved in the Vermont independence effort are convinced that peaceable secession won't happen without a parallel decentralization and relocalization of our political and economic life. A tall order - but one already underway.

Read more about our efforts at our online newspaper and blog here at Vermont Commons.

FV,

Rob Williams, Vermont Commons (web)editor

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

Go Vermont go!! Michigan supports you!
Posted by: Alan8 on Apr 6, 2007 6:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The observation that the US empire has gotten too corrupt is right on. National ID cards. For-profit corporations writing our laws. People going without health care to protect insurance corporation profits. The Bill of Rights overturned.

You have supporters in ALL states. Even if your attempt is unsuccessful, you send a strong message.

For us non-Vermonters, there's the option of supporting a non-corrupt party like the Green Party, which accepts no corporate funding, and as a result supports CITIZENS' interests -- not corporate interests. Vote Green!

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

» Launching www.FreeVermont.Net.... Posted by: FreeVermont
» RE: Go Vermont go!! Michigan supports you! Posted by: waitingforthefall
A league of Nation States
Posted by: linkep on Apr 6, 2007 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Vermont should act asap! A league af nation states would be best of both worlds and eliminate the dangerous system now in place. Look at yourselves Americans! I left Canada to come to "a free nation". Since 911 I have seen your freedoms and independence eliminated as you have become subservant to a political system where one man controls you with hiswants and beliefs-much like the fench liberals in Canada used to do. Guess that explains why there are over 1 million Americans permanently living in Canada and making six fiqure incomes. The only way to destroy this monster is by all states claiming independence. Under the guise of homeland security you have become as controlled as many other euro /euro style nations. Hopefully this trend can be reversed! Best of luck! Peter

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

» RE: A league of Nation States Posted by: FreeVermont
Second Vermont Republic's ties to racist organizations
Posted by: patagonianomore on Apr 6, 2007 7:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Folks,

You're not getting the full picture about the Second Vermont Republic. The steering committee has ties to allegedly racist individuals and organizations such as the League of the South. When the public found out and vermont bloggers connected the obvious dots, the Second Vermont Republic lost a lot of interested Vermonters who liked the idea of secession. I don't know why they persist in digging in and claim nothing's wrong but until they renouce their ties to the League of the South and individuals associated with them, then this movement is toast. To be honest... it already is.

BELEIVE ME! You're not getting the full picture of this organization with this Washington Post article.

For more check out the following articles and blogs:
Second Vermont Republic tied to white supremacists
Secessionists or racists?
And by far the most definitive place to find their ties to racist organizations is here vermontsecession.blogspot.com

Folks, NOBODY in Vermont takes the Second Vermont Republic seriously. Theyre all a bunch of mental masturbators and stupid. They really shot themselves in the foot with their ties to racist secessionist organizations in the south and their main guru Thomas Naylor is a nut job with too many screws loose.

As far as their claim that 8 percent of Vermonters support sescession, they dont tell you everything about that poll conducted by the Center for Rural Studies of the University of Vermont. The SVR hid the polling specs data in all their publicity. For more info on their misinformation go check out the Friday, March 2, 2007 blog entry at Vermont Secession blogspot: Its called, Second Vermont Republic Hid Polling Specs Data.

And get this, the Middlebury Institute, the Second Vermont Republics think tank will be hosting the next seccesionist conference with guess who???? The League of the South. The hate groups will have a field day with this one. For all those interested, Vermonters say... Move along. Nothing to see here.

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

» Well said Posted by: patagonianomore
SECESSION IS LEGAL
Posted by: poppop_schell on Apr 7, 2007 2:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is much misinformation about secession being illegal because of the "Civil" War. Unless, might makes right??? After the War of Northern Agression was over, President Jefferson Davis was captured and put in prison for "treason." It was there for two years. Several Northern lawyers were trying to get his case heard about secession before the SC. Most legal scholars argued that IF it got to the SC, secession would be declared Constitutional, therefore, a trial was NOT allowed. Davis's health was failing rapidly so he did accept a "pardon."

BOTTOM LINE, THE SC HAS NEVER RULED ON SECESSION!!!!

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

waitingforthefall
Posted by: waitingforthefall on Apr 7, 2007 2:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that ethically Vermont has the right idea regarding seceeding from the empire....(oh, sorry...the union)

However, should this noble idea succeed for Vermonters or ANY state within our lifetimes, what will stop Washington D.C. from waging the same campaign of covert and overt warfare on secessionist's politics, people and infrastructure that America has already mastered to keep the rest of the world under her thumb for generations?

I say it's better to hold the hand of the D.C. Devil then to be struck-down by it. Obviously there is no God on this earth, judging from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the haulocaust, Rwanda, the Armenian genocide, the extermination of the western hemispheres aboriginal inhabitants, America's right-wing Christian perversion and the horrors of the communist era; nope, no devine intervention there............so I guess somebody just counts the souls of the millions on their way up to wherever......

Thus, no supernatural force will intervene to save a soverign Vermont from whatever Pax Americana would do to her regardless of her people's high-mindedness and good intentions......and who knows how far or low tomorrow's "freely elected" and corporate-sanctioned American politicians will go to protect America's taxpaying sheeple from the seccessionist terrorist nation of Vermont; right there on our doorstep????

I say wait. Wait until the day that the Feds bankrupt the couuntry or as James H. Kunstler so elequently stated, I paraphrase:

when the Federal government can no longer answer the phones.... let alone run a police state.

Wait until the beast that feeds from our tax dollars and threatens every aspect of humanity and nature can no longer sustain itself in order to maintain the momentum of global conquest......

Then, perhaps the Jeffersonian ideal of a localized, agricultural, progressive and intellectual nation might be realized....once the PROFIT margin no longer remains palpable to the financial juggernauts who have hijacked America.

Then and only then should any of us make a move that would otherwise further jeapordize what illusion of freedom and self-esteem we can still enjoy under this crumbling illusion of a constitutional democracy.

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

THE SOUTHERN PARTY
Posted by: poppop_schell on Apr 7, 2007 2:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Back in 1999, the Southern Party was formed and held its first "national" convention near Asheville, NC. Most of the 13 Southern States had delegations. It was covered by the NY Times, C-Span and other regional and national publications.

At this convention a NEW Declaration of Independence was signed by the state chairs. I was there as state chair representing NC. A major goal was to work towards secession IF the central government refused to act Constitutionally as a Republic of Republics as put forth in the US Constitution.

I ran for Mayor of Aberdeen, NC on the NCSP ticket, garnering 3%+ of the vote. Unforunately, we had several agent prevocateurs who caused splits that resulted in a falling aprt of what looked like a very promising secessionist movement.

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

Rob 'Doesn't know and doesn't care' about the racists...
Posted by: lordradish on Apr 7, 2007 4:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When this whole Second Vermont Republic/neo-Confederate thing was raging, and Rob WIlliams was asked about whether of not SVR advisory board member and League of The South demagogue Donald Livingston was a racists, his exact words were 'I don't know, and on a persopnal level, I don't care'

Rob has also failed to tell you that as support on the left dried up for SVR, he jumped ship as well.

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

Why the Second Vermont Republic doesn't have a F-ing clue
Posted by: patagonianomore on Apr 7, 2007 7:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Suppose Vermont does secede... this guy presents a likely scenario what would happen if this were the case.

Check out this entry at Vermont Scrapwood and then stop giving these SVR dipshits the time of day.

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