Ian Baldwin and Frank Bryan write in The Washington Post:
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…
{ 24 comments }
Hooray!
Below is the email I sent to the authors upon reading their piece this morning (receiving a thoughtful reply). And the fact that the piece appeared in the online version of the Washington Post is noteworthy:
Gentlemen:
I have been a secessionist for several years now and a supporter of your cause ever since I heard about it (signing your petition anonymously). And while I was raised in the Land of Lincoln, all it took was Thomas DiLorenzo’s “The Real Lincoln” to convince me that the Civil War was the turning point, forced union being inimical to the principle upon which this once great nation was founded. Add to that the complete corruption of money — http://www.csamerican.com/stuff.asp?k=25 — and the conditions for the creation of our welfare-warfare colossus were fully in place.
What it now comes down to is a choice between even larger forced union — http://www.thought-criminal.org/2007/02/09/the-north-american-union-exposed-a-presentation-on-the-destruction-of-america — and the dismantling of the present one. And in light of how fast we’re heading toward the former (the engineered crisis in the Middle East will be used as the pretext for establishing martial law, which in turn will provide the necessary legal cover), my only suggestion would be that you move your timetable up to better counteract it.
But bless you both in any case, and may your valiant efforts come to fruition at this most critical juncture in our nation’s, and indeed the world’s, history.
Although I would have strong sympathies for such a feat, I feel it is an April 1st joke, and a very good one, by the way. Very ironic, in the classical sense.
Yes, but who is the joke on? Maybe the message is genuine, and the date given to surprise the Feds. They might be fooled into thinking ‘It’s only a joke’ for long enough for it to work!
And the law might be on the secessionists’ side! Here in Australia, we have a micro-state called Hutt River Province which broke away from Western Australia in 1970, and hasn’t paid taxes since! I’m no good with HTML, but it has a home page, so you could google for it. The owner claims that a loophole in the original claim of possession enabled him to break away from the state, and he doesn’t pay Federal Taxes either! Maybe you could emigrate, and establish a libertarian role-model…
An influence from their northern neighbor, Quebec?
Citing the “e-state” program as a reason they would break away from the union sounds counter-intuitive. Sounds more statist and socialist rather than libertarian. Having state run utilities doesn’t sound like a recipe for liberty to me. I think the general politics of Vermont are far too socialist for them ever to cut the purse stings of sugar daddy Washington.
Maybe New Hampshire.
In addition, I have to say that I am dismayed at the “town hall form of government” used in Vermont. I live in a town in Maryland that also has the town meeting form of government. Instead of being something wonderful (as painted in the article), the truth is that town meeting form of government is a pure democracy.
That means that the “tyranny of the majority” is, in fact, a reality where I live. There is no rule of law (as any law can be recinded provided the whim of the day has changed) and that there are NO individual rights.
Should Vermont vote to withdraw from the USA and to use this form of pure democracy to do it, they will not become a territory that respects freedom.
It doesn’t matter which state is the first to secede or what its internal politics are. What matters is that the process is set into motion.
And with the Governator already calling California a “nation-state” — http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901427.html — don’t think for a moment that the head of the fifth largest economy in the world, with an ego to match, is looking to become a real-life action hero.
And the Washington Post article is no joke — http://www.vtcommons.org
Sadly, it does matter what the internal politics of the seceding state are, at least from the point of view of those in that state. And it looks like if they are successful, there would be economic trouble, since the MAIN reason for the secession appears to be to get away from machines that use “oil and gas” — and there also seems to be some hint of autarky here with all the talk of “inventing vibrant local economies.” The only globalism spoken of here is the globalism of communication. But what of trade? The article is unclear.
I’m torn. Of course the state should have the right to secede as a political body. Inevitably, however, if they secede and suffer hardships due to internal politics, Vermont will become an example of “privatization” at work. Much better to keep ourselves as a strong, economic whole, it will be said, than to cut ourselves off from each other and wither away.
Still, it would be wonderful to see a state successfully pull away from the union, if only to establish precedent.
Here is the history of the Hutt River seccesion that Nick Gray wrote about above.
On the issue of Vermont’s leaving the union-(1) it will never happen, and (2) as one commenter wrote above, the state’s socialist leanings are likely to make such a state a notable failure of secession.
Greetings from the Peoples’ Republic of Vermont!
In addition to http://www.vtcommons.org, there is further info on the Vermont secession movement at http://www.vermontrepublic.org/.
Whether secession would be good for Vermont depends on the type of government we Vermonters decide to establish upon secession. Will we have a limited-government Republic or will we end up with an unlimited-government Democracy? Will the government respect and secure individual rights or will it trample on them?
Recent trends in Vermont toward socialism, statism, “progressivism”, democracy, and autarky do not bode well for the health of liberty in an independent Vermont.
Don’t worry. Once a Democrat gets elected as President, the people of Vermont will completely forget about secession. This is nothing more than another socialist attempt to embarass Bush.
I’m curious though. Do people in Vermont think they had no part in creating the current mess? They certainly did. But instead of working toward fixing problems, they want to cut and run. Quitting is easy. Anyone can do it. Is Vermont’s new motto “When the going gets tough, we quit!”
Jeffrey,
I understand your point but still think that setting a precedent for secession far outweigh internal politics. That’s why I’d cheer Schwarzenegger on, regardless of the fact that he’s hardly a standard-bearer for libertarianism.
So let Vermont fall on its socialist sword. That wouldn’t stop “Live Free or Die” New Hampshire or any other state from responding with a libertarian alternative. We’re talking competition here, with potentially 50 sovereign states vying to show the others, and the world, how best to govern.
Wouldn’t you like to have that kind of choice?
And look at the alternative!
http://www.thought-criminal.org/2007/02/09/the-north-american-union-exposed-a-presentation-on-the-destruction-of-america
http://www.amerocurrency.com/
RogerM,
“Quitting is easy. Anyone can do it.”
Tell that to the more than 300,000 Southerners who lost their lives trying.
And tell me what’s wrong with trying to get out from under a welfare-warfare state on the verge of collapse:
http://www.ramapo.edu/facultystaff/cbpp/pdf/Welfare_Warfare_State.pdf
I forsee a major catalyst for future secessionist movements is the $50 – $75 Trillion in future entitlement obligations that the US Gov’t has made; $175,000 – $250,000 per person. Who wouldn’t want to shed that weight?
In addition, a collapse of the dollar could precipitate secession as well.
Even if a state, like Vermont, seceeded and became a little socialist republic, removal of the federal government’s regulatory and fiscal burden would be a boon to the economy.
And if one looks at where wealth is transferred, it is from wealthy, socialist blue state to poor blue states. The 16 poorest states, per capita, are all solid red states; 21 of the 25 poorest states are Red States (two are “swing”). Out of the 17 states that are above the national per capita income line, only two are red states.
So, I can definitely see Left-wing decentralists seceeding in order to preserve their little corner of the welfare state.
Confessions of a Right-Wing Libertarian
http://crwl.blogspot.com
Roger M:
David White is right. Secessionism is far greater than some Vermont based socialists who desire only to embarass GWB. There are a growing number of people who have woken up to the FACT that the Declaration of Independence is a secessionist document and that above all else, the founders established the “union” for the purpose of protecting private property and individual liberties. The idea was how to best preserve liberty-not to create a nation state that must be worshipped by pathetic pukes who call themselves patriots.
Moreover, Roger M, I suspect that you have some ties or allegiance to the GOP. My regrets, as anyone who thinks that there is something grand about the republican party is a few fries short of a happy meal. You want socialism? How about George W. Bush, John Mcain, Mitt Romney, Richard Nixon, Geral R. Ford, Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge, Dwight Dopey Eisenhower, “honest” Abe himself and Ronald Reagan? All of these parasites made or are making government their life’s work(don’t tell me a worde about RWR-he spent 16 years in government and another 8 trying to make government his “work”). All of these parasites either presided over a government that instituted an income tax or sustained an income tax. What did RWR do to end the incone tax? The same thing any other SOCIALIST would do: NOTHING.
I am sure that Roger M knows that a progressive income tax is part of the communist manifesto. It would appear that Roger M loves socialism. It would also appear that he loves the income tax and that he loves the cesspool called the united states military-ah, it is so awesome-what with the two trillion dollar war machine it has at its disposal it is really kicking ass in Iraq and Afghanistan. I suspect that Roger M and his ilk have a hard time overcoming their american hubris and recognizing that a small number of Iraqi patriots are in the process of giving our boys a bloody lip.
Roger M, don’t you just love being part of this “UNION”?
michael burke, what was so bad about Coolidge? From what I know, he was one of our best presidents. You might respond that’s not saying much, but it means you picked a lousy example.
I encourage Vermont and any other state that wants to secede. Sure, they’ll enact a bunch of idiotic policies, but they’ll no longer be enacting them on the rest of the country outside Vermont, and the rest of the country won’t be enforcing anything on them they don’t want. I think the government now is far less willing to use the kind of force it did before to put down secession. In the Civil War just about every family lost someone. There’s no way that would fly today, especially since the era of national unity/greatness went downhill after World War 1, getting replaced by ideologies and then civilizations.
If Vermont secedes and if the U. S. lets it go peacefully, I hope that various towns and/or counties in Vermont consider seceding from Vermont if the Second Vermont Republic ends up being an unlimited-government Democracy that tramples on individual rights instead of securing them. (A year or two ago, Killington, VT was considering seceding from Vermont and joining New Hampshire!) And if any towns and/or counties secede, I hope the Second Vermont Republic lets them go peacefully.
intesting. I was just reading bil Kaufmans volume on the america first movement in which a chapter is spent on the “vermont thing”, in particular John Mcloughry, who wrote some of reagans best speeches.
TGGP
I agree with you in part. People are less interested in personal “sacrifice” for the good of the “Union” as a matter of bloodshed, while less so for “sweatshed.”
However, on the principle of secession of any state from the “Union” most Amuhricans hold to a principle that “every man must pay his share.” These would fear the slippery slope of one state breaking away because of grim spectre prophesied from the bully pulpit of nationalist/socialist central leadership.
As a result, it is obvious that coupling this nationalistic idea of “United We Stand, Divided We Fall” with what they would believe to be the protection of the nation from the “foreign” foe, one denouncing America in clear language and action, that Vermont (or any other) would represent, it stands to reason that martial law would be declared by the fervored democtator/republikat enthroned in the Oval Sanctum and endorsed by the general population.
All this self-reliance “stuff” coming out of the People’s Democratic Socialist Republic of Vermont sounds an aweful lot like North Korean “Juche” philosphy. And we can see how well they’re doing economically, socially and politically.
If Vermont secedes and if the U. S. lets it go peacefully, I hope that various towns and/or counties in Vermont consider seceding from Vermont if the Second Vermont Republic ends up being an unlimited-government Democracy that tramples on individual rights instead of securing them. (A year or two ago, Killington, VT was considering seceding from Vermont and joining New Hampshire!) And if any towns and/or counties secede, I hope the Second Vermont Republic lets them go peacefully. thanks…
Comments on this entry are closed.