The Secessionist Campaign for the Republic of Vermont

An very interesting story from Time Magazine.

The President on Wednesday may have reassured Americans that the state of the Union is "strong," but, just the week before, a group of Vermont secessionists declared their intention to seek political power in a quest to get their state to quit the Union altogether. On Jan. 15, in the state capital of Montpelier, nine candidates for statewide office gathered in a tiny room at the Capitol Plaza Hotel, to announce they wanted a divorce from the United States of America. "For the first time in over 150 years, secession and political independence from the U.S. will be front and center in a statewide New England political campaign," said Thomas Naylor, 73, one of the leaders of the campaign.

A former Duke University economics professor, Naylor heads up the Second Vermont Republic, which he describes as "left-libertarian, anti-big government, anti-empire, antiwar, with small is beautiful as our guiding philosophy." The group not only advocates the peaceful secession of Vermont but has minted its own silver "token" — valued at $25 — and, as part of a publishing venture with another secessionist group, runs a monthly newspaper called Vermont Commons, with a circulation of 10,000. According to a 2007 poll, they have support from at least 13% of state voters. The campaign slogan, Naylor told me, is "Imagine Free Vermont." In his fondest imaginings, Naylor said, Vermonters would not be "forced to participate in killing women and children in the Middle East."
(See how the Beans of Egypt, Maine sprouted a militia.)

Second Vermont Republic's gubernatorial candidate is Dennis Steele, 42, a hulking Carhartt-clad fifth generation Vermonter and entrepreneur. He owns Radio Free Vermont, an Internet radio station, and honchos an online venture called ChessManiac.com. Steele says that, if elected, his first act in office would be to bring home Vermont's National Guard from overseas deployments. "I see my kids going off to fight in wars for empire 10, 15, 20 years from now," said Steele, who served three years in the U.S. Army. "People in Vermont in general are very antiwar, and all their faith was in Obama to end the wars. I ask people, 'Did you get the change you wanted?' They can't even look you in the eyes. We live in a nation that is asleep at the wheel and where the hearts are growing cold like ice."
(See Michael Grunwald's opinion of Vermont and its politics.)

Steele and the secessionists have nothing but contempt for Vermont Senators Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy, who are otherwise considered among the most liberal members of Congress. "They've done nothing to stop the wars," says Steele flatly. Thomas Naylor was more pointed: "Every time a Vermonter serving in the National Guard gets deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, likely to be hurt or killed, Bernie and Patrick are there to commemorate the departure and have pictures taken."

With 20 or so mostly middle-aged attendees looking on, the candidates each stood at the podium to deliver a remarkably unified message: The U.S. government, they said, was an immoral enterprise — engaged in imperial wars, propping up corrupt bankers and supersized corporations, crushing small businessmen, plundering the tax-base for corporate welfare, snooping on the private lives of citizens — and they wanted no more part of it. "The gods of the empire," Steele told the room, "are not the gods of Vermont."

"It's an abusive relationship we have with the central government," says Peter Garritano, a square-jawed 54-year-old Subaru sales manager who is running for lieutenant governor. "We know it's scary to leave the abusive nest. It's a comfort zone in its own way. But we think we'll do better leaving."

An independent Vermont, the group believes, would expolit its already highly developed local small-scale agriculture, its "locavore" farm exchanges, with a tax structure reformed to incentivize small business and industry (and to make life difficult for large out-of-state corporations). By 2020, they foresee Vermont producing at least 75% of its own electricity and heat, using wind-, solar-, biomass- and hydro-power. They want to establish a Bank of Vermont owned by the people of Vermont — freed from the arbitrary controls of central bankers — as well as a local alternative currency, with Vermont pension and operating funds invested not in Wall Street but in locally owned financial institutions. "We favor devolution of political power from the state back to local communities, making the governing structure for towns, schools, hospitals and social services much like that of small, decentralized states like Switzerland," declares the group's "21st Century Statement of Principles."

Seven secessionist candidates declared for seats in the state senate. Among them is Robert Wagner, 46, an economist who is also a computing consultant with Oracle Inc. Wagner, who homesteads with his wife and six-year-old son in the Green Mountains, says that current U.S. law enables multinational corporations to abuse Vermont as a "resource colony." Citing a 2008 study by the University of Vermont, Wagner says the state stands to gain over $1 billion a year in revenue by taxing equitably the corporate behemoths that exploit Vermont's "commons," which includes everything from the state's groundwater, surface water, wildlife and forests, to the public spectrum of the airwaves. According to the UVM study, for example, Coca-Cola, Nestle and Perrier and other refreshment manufacturers avoid $671 million in taxes for the environmental damage incurred by their siphoning of state groundwater.

But what about that comfort zone of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps, plus the infrastructure currently funded by the federal government, including bridges, roads and particularly the interstate highways? One analysis by a researcher at the University of Vermont found that the state only gets 75 cents back for every dollar it hands over to the federal center. The secessionists say they'd prefer to save their money and keep it at home. "Not only would an independent Vermont survive," says Naylor, "It would thrive, because it would free up entrepreneurial forces heretofore held in abeyance. We're not preaching economic isolationism. We want to confront the empire, and that doesn't mean just owning a Prius and keeping a root garden."

Source

What are your thoughts on this ATS?

Personally I think it will give a much needed wake up call to those in power if states such as Vermont atually succeed in their plans to become independant republics.

"It's an abusive relationship we have with the central government," says Peter Garritano, a square-jawed 54-year-old Subaru sales manager who is running for lieutenant governor. "We know it's scary to leave the abusive nest. It's a comfort zone in its own way. But we think we'll do better leaving."

This quote really rings true when you think about it. When you are used to the status quo, most people think it's impossible to change things, perhaps these few men and women will show us that you can.

~Keeper

"People in Vermont in general are very antiwar, and all their faith was in Obama to end the wars. I ask people, 'Did you get the change you wanted?' They can't even look you in the eyes. We live in a nation that is asleep at the wheel and where the hearts are growing cold like ice."

Steele and the secessionists have nothing but contempt for Vermont Senators Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy, who are otherwise considered among the most liberal members of Congress. "They've done nothing to stop the wars," says Steele flatly. Thomas Naylor was more pointed: "Every time a Vermonter serving in the National Guard gets deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, likely to be hurt or killed, Bernie and Patrick are there to commemorate the departure and have pictures taken."

Looks like more people disenfranchised in the Democratic lies that have come to fruition in the recent past. I'd gladly support Vermont's request for secession from the union, and might join them if this venture of their's succeeds.

I guess I better start looking at homes for sale in Vermont. If they became independent very quickly i'll be ready to move there anytime. I always liked Vermont and I consider myself a Left-Libertarian too, I have always advocated a non-profit state community run or county run bank that takes all money made and gives it back to the investors.

Originally posted by Misoir
I guess I better start looking at homes for sale in Vermont. If they became independent very quickly i'll be ready to move there anytime. I always liked Vermont and I consider myself a Left-Libertarian too, I have always advocated a non-profit state community run or county run bank that takes all money made and gives it back to the investors.

Vermont is a beautiful place too.

Honestly, I think smaller countries prosper more than bigger countries.

America would prosper if it's states where more like countries, and where given more state rights.

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


I agree, if succesfull, it would definetly be somewhere for us "libertarians" to go to.

It might not be out "ideal" setting, but definetly a step in the right direction. I would definetly move there if they are going to be accepting immigration lol.

~Keeper

Originally posted by Phlynx

Vermont is a beautiful place too.

Honestly, I think smaller countries prosper more than bigger countries.

America would prosper if it's states where more like countries, and where given more state rights.

Actually, I think if the states had all the rights granted to them in the U.S. Constitution, and the federal government only had the rights granted to it in the U.S. Constitution; then it'd be a lot more like what you're proposing.

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II

Originally posted by Phlynx

Vermont is a beautiful place too.

Honestly, I think smaller countries prosper more than bigger countries.

America would prosper if it's states where more like countries, and where given more state rights.

Actually, I think if the states had all the rights granted to them in the U.S. Constitution, and the federal government only had the rights granted to it in the U.S. Constitution; then it'd be a lot more like what you're proposing.

What a novel concept eh?

I wonder if there's anybody in the government today who would subscribe to that set of rules.

Question?

Would Vermont need to write it's own constitution, set up it's own international trading relations etc?

Seems like this could be the start to a VERY beautiful thing.

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Well, it seems that Vermont is talking about secession from the Union, and so is Texas.

My question is whether either of these states believe that militarily, they stand a chance against the troops who would be sent in to quell their rebellious intentions.

No, I am not saying I disagree with their thoughts, nor am I wholeheartedly encouraging them either, because I live in neither state, nor have a desire to do so.

I have to wonder at people speaking about violence in regards to America now, and no I am not stating that speaking of secession equals violence, I am merely stating however, that in order to secede from the United States of America, it will take a military force to keep themselves in a successful secession.

War is something I know inside and out, upside down, and all around, the Civil War, while not my favorite historical war, was still war history I focused on.

In order to secede it will take much more than filing a few papers and asking anyone who does not respect their wishes to keep out of their state, or whatever they decide to call their congruous amalgamated miles of land.

I am now thirty-six as of this post and by the age of eighteen I knew how to overthrow any Government, of any country, by violence of action, through warfare, and with military order to maintain that overthrow, not that I would have but in my love of war and the history of it I read enthusiastically about two societies that are now long old and dead, Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece.

It takes a Hell of a lot of manpower and other things in order to secede.

If that's what they decide to do all I have to say is good luck, you're going to need it.

Personally, I believe now that "overthrow of Government" can be done.

How To Overthrow Your Own Government, Legally and Without Violence, In Order To Survive

Let me be clear here, when I say "overthrow" I am not speaking about some harebrained scheme where people use M-16's, C-4, and a noose for the politicians, I am however speaking about each and every citizens take it upon themselves not only to go vote, because their responsibility does not stop there it only starts there, but to actually get into the political arena.

The thread above I linked is where I speak about filing documents for a non-profit, form a policy think-tank, and intelligently replace all politicians with people who will actually do the jobs instead of people who only take money from lobbyists, instead of people who only let special interest groups give them money, and instead of letting industry leaders like the Healthcare Industry write the laws for them.

So, in "overthrow" I do not mean the archaic and barbaric and violent stupidity most people speak about, but about a clear cut concise surgical exercise of American rights in replacing the bastards in office, legally and without violence.

So, while I will not stop Vermont or Texas from leaving America, I as well will not necessarily encourage it, other than to say again, good luck, you will need it.

My idea and plan will begin with filing a few papers, yes, but will not stop until those in power are legally out of office, without so much as a mewling cry as their disbelief in how their re-election machine was not overthrown with guns and violence, but with intelligence, money, and a means to actually succeed, without seceding.

[edit on 31-1-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Why would it require military force?

As far as I know, isn't there a clause in each states constitution that allows them to legaly seperate when certain circumstances are met?

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Despite pretty dreams reality has to set in. For instance do you believe the fed gov't would allow a secession? What is written and what is practiced are often two different things. So a military would be necessary. But then again I think that some high payed lawyers would be looking for a loophole to stop it from happening legally. It would be a disaster, even without violence. Trade embargo's ? Or putting on the squeeze for resources VT does not have. I'm sorry it sounds good but I think our fed would make the land a nightmare.

Originally posted by hangedman13
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Despite pretty dreams reality has to set in. For instance do you believe the fed gov't would allow a secession? What is written and what is practiced are often two different things. So a military would be necessary. But then again I think that some high payed lawyers would be looking for a loophole to stop it from happening legally. It would be a disaster, even without violence. Trade embargo's ? Or putting on the squeeze for resources VT does not have. I'm sorry it sounds good but I think our fed would make the land a nightmare.

You make a great point, but even if the effort were to fail, as long as it garnered national and world attention and it probably put more strain the government to do better.

I know Texas is in the running to do the same thing and if they along with other states started to make a ruckus, it would definetly help if nothing else.

~Keeper

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

Why would it require military force?

As far as I know, isn't there a clause in each states constitution that allows them to legaly seperate when certain circumstances are met?

~Keeper

Well, regardless of each states Constitution, or their right to legally secede, a country like America with its history of inception, based upon a conspiracy itself, a division of our country at any time, in the order of a secession and actually taking steps towards accomplishing just that will to our American Government be a direct threat to the power of the whole country, and at first an indirect threat through the International Community that is the United Nations.

My meaning is that accordingly, action will be necessary and swift, or else our country will be seen as weak, politically indecisive, and in a position of direct influence.

Think about secession as an oyster getting a grain of sand embedded within it.

Secession in the United States

Quote from : Wikipedia : Secession in the United States

Attempts or aspirations of secession from the United States have been a feature of the politics of the country since its birth.

The line between actions based on an alleged constitutional right of secession as opposed to actions justified by the extraconstitutional natural right of revolution has shaped the political debate.

Except for the American Revolution which created the United States, no such movement, revolution or secession, has succeeded.

In 1861, the Confederate States of America attempted, and failed, to achieve secession by force of arms in the American Civil War.

A 2008 Zogby International poll revealed that 22% of Americans believed while 73% did not believe that "any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic."

If you use my oyster analogy and follow through Divide and Conquer, you will understand.

An oyster gets sand within it, due it having it's valves open for even the most smallest of moments, but it has a defense mechanism, it isolates that grain of sand, because it has no power to oust it with a breath, being a non-breathing (oxygen) entity, so through isolation, it pushes aside it's discomfort.

Trying as well not to allow other grains of sand into it's confines.

As the isolation continues a chemical reaction follows, causing the grain of sand to be buffered with many different actions of the mollusks muscles and chemicals.

The oyster wants to be rid of that grain of sand, but it has patience, and will get rid of after making it into something large enough to get rid of eventually.

Now, imagine a country like America as that oyster, and it has a grain of sand, and does not want other grains of sand, one state has tried seceding, and it does not want a second state to secede, so it will isolate that state and put pressure upon it.

Over all my analogy however is about Divide and Conquer, by a division of the states, America cannot stand, and will see that state as a direct threat to its over all power.

As well as this, during the Civil War we already had, as the Union and Confederacy were feuding, other countries tried to support both sides, giving arms, money, treaties, etc, and most countries were as well using this division as a means to not only get future monetary gain, but to use that division as a means to try to drive a wedge further into the American psyche as a whole.

This is of course all generalized information about our previous Civil War.

However, the control factors are the same, with the exception that slavery is not a mainstream accepted thought process, and no I do not nor have I ever believed the Civil War was about freeing the slaves, it was about a states right to secede from the Union, and by Abraham Lincoln declaring the Emancipation Proclamation, he was merely furthering the cause of the Union through causing more division within the Confederacy through dissension within the ranks.

So, a secession of one, or even two states, would require immediate action.

Military action is the only action, other than propaganda, that succeeds quickly.

So, being Canadian, you do understand Canada would help either Vermont, or America, right?

The other forty-nine states would seek out assistance if necessary, Canada being our closest ally, and if they decide to assist Vermont over the Union, they would be seen as a political enemy, further confounding the issue of the secession.

If they decide to help America, and not Vermont, then Vermont may reach out to their neighboring states, or possibly French Canadian's within Vermont, the ongoing and ensuing actions would further propagate necessary actions.

No matter whether a states has the "right" to secede, or not, America will be ripped apart.

Our Pledge of Allegiance is set up to show that within it actually.

Quote from : Pledge of Allegiance

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

See, that word, "indivisible" means we should be above a division, not allowing Divide and Conquer, through differences of ideology happen.

America, is a Republic, not a Democracy, a republic that practices democracy.

While a state does or thinks it has the right to secede, does not mean that our country as a whole, will allow that to succeed, some will see the cause as needless, some will see the cause as necessary, and some will never hear of it.

Propaganda goes a long way as well through the Mainstream Media.

This is before we even begin to start speaking of weapons being used or not used.

What I have defined so far is just military action, as in a show of force, of troops in boots on the ground, not counting for those commanders orders, interpretation of said orders, and or their allegiances of duty, action, and or beliefs.

I am sure there will come a time when this all comes into play but if Vermont and or Texas are not thinking of these thoughts, not of taking negative action, but of self-defense through the country as a whole taking a direct and swift action against the state willing to step out and put their neck on the chopping block by trying to secede, then they will never succeed at seceding.

[edit on 31-1-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Very well put Spartan, thanks for the info.

I know that Vermont would not be able to put up much a fight military wise, but Texas, could they not defend themselves pretty well?

Considering they would probably use militia's along with whatever military national guard they have.

Also, isn't there a law preventing the Federal Gov from using the national military against it's own people domestically?

~Keeper

Vermont is a funny state politically, like most New England states. Freedom from big brother's intrusiveness is a big deal, but many voters also like the fringe benefits of the nanny state.

Seven secessionist candidates declared for seats in the state senate.

Yes, but look who the voters voted in for their US senator. Bernie Sanders, an open socialist.

If this happens, the same thing that happened to freedom-loving New Hampshire will happen in Vermont. Liberal Massachusetts and Connecticut residents will move there after retirement to avoid paying the enormously heavy taxes of their commonwealth/state. Then they will vote in politicians who promise them special programs and perks and government mandated social programs. The result? Massachusetts jr. Sorry VT.

reply to post by tothetenthpower

Also, isn't there a law preventing the Federal Gov from using the national military against it's own people domestically?

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878

June 18, 1878 CHAP. 263 - An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, and for other purposes. SEC. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment. 10 U.S.C. (United States Code) 375 Sec. 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel: The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law. 18 U.S.C. 1385 Sec. 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

For those who are going to bring up Texas vs White:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Texas vs White doesn't null our founding document.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

Very well put Spartan, thanks for the info.

I know that Vermont would not be able to put up much a fight military wise, but Texas, could they not defend themselves pretty well?

Considering they would probably use militia's along with whatever military national guard they have.

Also, isn't there a law preventing the Federal Gov from using the national military against it's own people domestically?

~Keeper

I would give Texas a better chance at secession then I would to Vermont.

Vermont is far too isolated already and a cold clime state where snow and ice hamper regular travel, let alone military travel and or defense, so while Vermont would have difficulty defending itself, so would the Government have difficulty in forcing them to stay within the Union.

However, the entire Government stucture has much more supplies for cold weather warfare.

reply to post by genius/idoit


Thanks for posting that genius/idoit it leads me to where I would have gone anyway.



While America has the Posse Comitatus Act as a means to keep our miltary from acting in a domestic Law Enforcement manner, meaning a police action, it does not however stop many things from coming into play where the Federal Government has planned for decades up to and including declaring a National Emergency.

National Emergency Act : Know Your Law, When Law Is Suspended, and You May Be Arrested

Under a state of National Emergency, the Homeland Security can enforce F.E.M.A. laws, and declare Martial Law among other things, but this is as well where organizations like Blackwater/Xe, Kroll, Triple Canopy, and K.B.R. come into play with the "Private Miltary Contractors", more commonly called "mercenaries" comes into play.

Quote from : Wikipedia : National Emergency Act

The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651) is a United States federal law passed in 1976 to stop open-ended states of national emergency and formalize the power of Congress to provide certain checks and balances on the emergency powers of the President.

The act sets a limit of two years on states of national emergency.

It also imposes certain "procedural formalities" on the President when invoking such powers.

The perceived need for the law arose from the scope and number of laws granting special powers to the executive in times of national emergency (or public danger).

At least two constitutional rights are subject to revocation during a state of emergency:

* The right of habeas corpus, under Article 1, Section 9;

* The right to a grand jury for members of the National Guard when in actual service, under Fifth Amendment.

In addition, many provisions of statutory law are contingent on a state of national emergency, as many as 500 by one count.

It was due in part to concern that a declaration of "emergency" for one purpose should not invoke every possible executive emergency power that Congress in 1976 passed the National Emergencies Act.

Among other provisions, this act requires the President to declare formally a national emergency and to specify the statutory authorities to be used under such a declaration.

There were 32 declared national emergencies between 1976 and 2001.

Most of these were for the purpose of restricting trade with certain foreign entities under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 1701-1707).

This law specifically is why a lot of people, ATS, or otherwise, are specifically concerned about what most call "false-flag operations", because as American's we know the history and complicitly sneaky underhanded actions our Government will undertake, just to push forth an agenda, prior to war happening through Civil War, up to and including inciting that very cause to begin with through sending in Agent Provocateurs.

Which makes me wonder at Vermont and Texas, if this is really those states being this upset with the decisions of both the former President Bush, and our current elected President, Obama, or if a host of Agent Provocateurs infiltrated those states and agitated them into these thought processes because Agent Provocateurs do not just act as one, two, or three man teams, they act in coordination, like an army if necessary if the threat were large enough.

This all segues into my thoughts on Blackwater/Xe and the Agent Provocateur.

Think back to Hurricane Katrina and you will see the power of a National Emergency, and the actions necessary and taken in order to seize the opportunity, and that's just in a hurricane situation.

Blackwater : Right-Wing Conservative America, Whether You Like It Or Not...

These "P.M.C's" have a means of sidestepping the Constitution through all of this with the Pentagon, through Homeland Security, and F.E.M.A., in order to restore the peace at any means necessary, covered legally through the National Emergency Act.

See, a "National Emergency" is a State of Emergency and action will be taken.

Quote from Wikipedia : State of Emergency

A state of emergency is a governmental declaration that may suspend certain normal functions of government, alert citizens to alter their normal behaviors, or order government agencies to implement emergency preparedness plans.

It can also be used as a rationale for suspending civil liberties.

Such declarations usually come during a time of natural disaster, during periods of civil disorder, or following a declaration of war (in democratic countries, many call this martial law, most with non-critical intent).

Justitium is its equivalent in Roman law.

In some countries, the state of emergency and its effects on civil liberties and governmental procedure are regulated by the constitution, or a law that limits the powers that may be invoked or rights that may be suspended during an emergency.

In many countries, it is illegal to modify the emergency law or constitution during the emergency.

America was founded on principles of the Roman and Greek societies.

If the new "Rome" of America is threatened it will act accordingly.

We have fifty states, divided by distance, lines of demarcation, and laws like Greece.

But over all we have similar things to Rome like a Senate and Congress.

A Divide and Conquer mentality is what rules over our country through the division, the Government keeps us in check, maintaining they want peace, but in reality they understand and expect division, through race, religion, and respect.

Or the lack thereof and through all of that if Vermont and or Texas were to secede, it would only add to a need for funding, and increase in laws, and as well Congress could in one fell swoop literally suspend the Constitution of the entire country.

Just to get two states, or one, back in line.

Anything and everything to maintain, retain, and contain power.

Up to an including sending troops in boots into the fray.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Well now I smell a conspiracy to have these states rise up so the Fed can take even more of our rights away.

2 years?!

That would be a hell of a long time for them to push their agenda forward don't you think?

Scary stuff..

To Add: Your comment of Canada helping the Union or Vermont, I think we would stay out of it, we don't really have the resources or the will to carry out such an endeavour and jeapordize the largest and most complex trading relationship in the world.

~Keeper

[edit on 1/31/2010 by tothetenthpower]

reply to post by tothetenthpower


This is like what, the 100th time we hear of angy folks calling for their states to succeed? Wasnt there a prediction this would happen last year?

The fact of the matter is that the Union has over its 300 long years done things that have not met the political consensus of all the 50 states. I think its pointless to argue that now is any different when infact there have always been significant differences within the Union. Some folks in Vermont and Texas want to succeed because they dont like things politically? Well thats just the fact of being a nation. Succeeding will not change those differences.

Lets not also forget the historic voting records of some of these states. Texan citizens voted for Bush by nearly 70% in both elections and most of the southern states pushed for Bush by more than their majorities. Vermont citizens voted for Obama by over 60%. It doesnt make sense for the voters of these states to just turn around and say they are succeeding because they dont like the way things are going, especially considering the fact they voted these presidents in and mostly stuck around to both parties. Personally I supported Obama and I think while not perfect his hanging in there to get this nation moving. It would not make sense if I was to turn around and call for my state to leave if the policies I supported for all these years are the ones being implemented in DC. I couldnt say they are going against the states wishes if I voted him in. Its hypocritical.

Same for the Texans and south Carolinians you name it. They want to split because of big government and over spending, yet these states were Bush strongholds for 8years, never muttering a word of succession under his presidency, even when the financial state of the nation came to reality. Its hypocritical and political. Now instead of packing your toys and leaving, why not rally third party for pete sakes. Nobody wants to bother, and everybody wants to get attention through these hollow threats.

You all make good arguments, and I am certain that Vermont legislators have thoroughly researched their own Constitution and laws, along with the Constitution of the United States, the 1787 one, not the fake on they try to make us believe is real now days. As to whether Obama would order troops to Vermont to quell a secession? Doubtful. Lincoln sent troops into the Southern States, but they did not have television in those days, they didn't have cell phone and internet. If Vermont takes this step, people of like mind will flood there to help defend freedom, and you can bet other States will be quick to jump on the bandwagon and secede too, I mean, you can't tell me the States haven't discussed this in secret, can you? America is tired of big government, and tired of Federal Laws intruding into their private lives. I have seen this coming for a long time, but like another poster, I always thought Texas would be the first, after all, Texas only has a treaty with the corporation, they are not really a State.
Hawaii is also not a real state, and neither is Alaska.

It begins, people.