HonorsDaddy
Member
And how well do you think that would go over with the media?Kamicosmos said:
Remember, the federal governemnt would be killing liberals, not right-wingers...
Historic Vermont Meeting in State Capital Passes Resolution to Secede from the U.S.
- Thread starter dasmi
- Start date
- Status
Remember, the federal governemnt would be killing liberals, not right-wingers...
KriegHund
Member
Wayyy overpriced stuff. Bluebunny is pretty good.
Anywho, a second civil war could be interesting. And very short.
The seccesionists arent traitors- as far as im concerned, this time round their the exact opposite. Slavery is one thing....this is far from another.
Besides, wasnt the first civil war about states rights, not slavery!?
The Real Hawkeye
member
I'm all for it. Maybe Florida will join them. I can't stand the cold weather.
Burt Blade
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 477
Actually, not so. The Declaration was backed by dedicated Patriots, who really meant that they would indeed fire on the King's men if the King's men came calling. They backed the Declaration with the only currency that counts for Liberty: lead projectiles and blood.
Somehow, I rather doubt that this bunch in Vermont are prepared to actually carry the burden and butcher's bill that a real secession would entail.
ARperson
Member
just a couple of points that came to my mind.
First, seceding from a standing government is not the same as altering it, removing it, or otherwise changing the negative. It's more like...taking the ball and going home. It doesn't solve the problem, it just removes it from the seceding state's plate.
Second, Vermont isn't the first state to try this since SC, if I recall correctly. Wasn't there a plains state or northwest state that did something similar a while back? It only sticks in my memory because I didn't think that that particular state had that much political gumption. Maybe is was Wyoming?
Third, it would be almost impossible on a practical level to secede. Think of the logistics. To make it worthwhile, you'd have to totally disociate your state from that of the US fed. gov while maintaining the same status quo (or better) in terms of standard of living, jobs, etc. (Who would support secession if it meant a worse life?) You'd have to print your own money (you couldn't legally print US dollars, could you?) and would they even be good in the remaining US states? (Hey, wonder if that would make the gold market stronger?)
While we're on the topic of secession...let's talk about invasion. Can one state occupy and "take over" another state?
First, seceding from a standing government is not the same as altering it, removing it, or otherwise changing the negative. It's more like...taking the ball and going home. It doesn't solve the problem, it just removes it from the seceding state's plate.
Second, Vermont isn't the first state to try this since SC, if I recall correctly. Wasn't there a plains state or northwest state that did something similar a while back? It only sticks in my memory because I didn't think that that particular state had that much political gumption. Maybe is was Wyoming?
Third, it would be almost impossible on a practical level to secede. Think of the logistics. To make it worthwhile, you'd have to totally disociate your state from that of the US fed. gov while maintaining the same status quo (or better) in terms of standard of living, jobs, etc. (Who would support secession if it meant a worse life?) You'd have to print your own money (you couldn't legally print US dollars, could you?) and would they even be good in the remaining US states? (Hey, wonder if that would make the gold market stronger?)
While we're on the topic of secession...let's talk about invasion. Can one state occupy and "take over" another state?
The Real Hawkeye
member
I actually doubt, in fact, that the United States Armed Forces would cooperate in violently suppressing a secession this time around, assuming it was one based on the popular will of the people of the seceding State, and codified in State law via the State legislature and governor. It was much easier to convince Northerners back then that Johnny Reb was just being disloyal and rebellious, and needed a good pounding. Today, however, propaganda like that will probably just not fly. We have the Internet, and lots of alternative sources for unspinned news.Burt Blade said:
cuchulainn
Member
Apples and oranges. They're talking about secession, not revolution.
Secession = a lower level of government (a state) legally removing itself from the authority of a higher level of government (the feds).
Revolution = the people replacing one government with another.
No, it could not be so easily dismissed. The DoI was supported in large part by both the elected legislatures of the colonies and the unelected but influential leaders -- that was vital to its success. This document is not supported by the leadership of Vermont, elected or otherwise. Had the DoI had the same lack of support as this silliness, it would have withered on the vine just as this will.
They haven't done an effing thing "to make this nation theirs again." But to make you happy, I, my kid, my wife and the squirrels out in the backyard will sign a "Resolution of Secession." Then we'll put out a press release with a misleading headline. Then, I'll have done as much as them.
As if you have any idea what I've done or do.
The Real Hawkeye
member
The Declaration also speaks of the right of a people to dissolve the political bonds that connected them to another.ARperson said:
captain obvious
Member
Hawkeye, you have a point. The more I think this through the more I feel this could work - if Montpeiler has the guts to stick to it.
I'm dancing in my chair just thinking about it.
Don't know 'bout you, but i don't think its worth a stubbed toe to try to keep them one of these united States.
I'm dancing in my chair just thinking about it.
Don't know 'bout you, but i don't think its worth a stubbed toe to try to keep them one of these united States.
ARperson
Member
The Real Hawkeye said:
Yeah. I wasn't arguing about the validity of secession. Just the comparison of secession with "altering" government. The two are not one and the same.
And those "political bonds" could also be many things, not necessarily secession.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Not likely, since the Declaration was sent to the King of England to inform him that the colonies were seceding from their political bonds with his kingdom.ARperson said:
cuchulainn
Member
And had the DoI lacked the support of the colonial legislatures and other colonial leadership, it would be a mere footnote to history, if that.
The DoI occurred only after the revolutionaries had invested years into the propaganda needed to win over both "the rabble" and the leadership of the colonies. Similarly, although put down by force, the Southern secession occurred only after years of propaganda that convinced both the people and their elected leaders.
These folks have placed the cart before the horse. They call for secession/revolution before convincing the people it’s a good idea.
If neither a large number Vermonters nor their elected representatives support this thing -- and AFAIK there is no such support -- then it lacks the both the legal and the moral authority to cause Vermont to secede.
Indeed, if by some miracle, these people were able to cause Vermont to secede without the support of either the people or the legislature of Vermont, what they did would be properly described with the words undemocratic and coup not secession or revolution.
And who sent it to him? Not a few hundred malcontents who had the support of neither their fellow colonists nor the colonial leadership. Rather the colonial leadership itself sent the declaration, supported by a sizable portion of the populace. Similarly, in 1860, it was the elected leadership of the Southern states, with the vast support of the citizens, who declared their secession.
Preacherman
Member
Heck, if the Parti Quebecois can get a "Yes" vote on removing Quebec and French Canada from the rest of Canada, they can link up with newly-independent Vermont. How about French toast, Ben & Jerry's ice cream, and maple syrup? A new national dish!
The Real Hawkeye
member
So, where do you disagree with what I've said, or am I not understanding your point?cuchulainn said:
cuchulainn
Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be making a favorable comparison between this slip of paper and the Declaration of Independence. I'm pointing out the fundamental difference.
This slip of paper is the product of a few hundred malcontents who lack the support of the people and the leadership of Vermont -- and thus it has no moral authority.
The DoI was the product of the colonial leadership with the support of a sizable portion of the people -- and thus it had moral authority.
Is "moral authority" necessary for a sucessful secession? No, coups happen. But such an act ought not be compared with the DoI.
The Real Hawkeye
member
I think you misread my posts, friend. I agree with you. They'd need lots of popular and official support and legal codification to have any legitimacy approaching that of the Declaration of Independence. Maybe you read someone else's post and thought it was mine.cuchulainn said:
cuchulainn
Member
Well, then, we agree.
Jackson
El Tejon;
Andrew Jackson is not the best example of a president, he was one of the first to abuse and override the Constitution and the rest of the government and practiced genocide, theft under official cover, child abuse , official oppression and had a complete lack of ethics and morals.
He was a murderer , a thief and a blatant bootlicker.
His name is still a cuss word among Indians.
El Tejon;
Andrew Jackson is not the best example of a president, he was one of the first to abuse and override the Constitution and the rest of the government and practiced genocide, theft under official cover, child abuse , official oppression and had a complete lack of ethics and morals.
He was a murderer , a thief and a blatant bootlicker.
His name is still a cuss word among Indians.
Aguila Blanca
Member
Treason?El Tejon said:I like to quote a great Southerner, Andrew Jackson, when confronted with the possibility of South Carolina and the South committing treason in the 1830s, "I shall hang you from the highest trees in the state."
Please explain. How is voluntarily withdrawing from a group of independent states you joined voluntarily, and the constirution of which provides for secession from, treasonous?
ravinraven
Member
"...leftists, progressives, and social misfits."
This is an example of redundancy.
rr
This is an example of redundancy.
rr
Graystar
Member
These guys need a history lesson as to what happens when you try to secede from the United States.
cropcirclewalker
member
I admit, yes, I yam old. Sometimes my memory starts to flag.
With that in mind, it still seems to me, however, that the way I remember it from my learning of history was that the colonial population was sort of divided.
1/3 didn't know, didn't care.
1/3 favored independence
1/3 Tory
I yam seeing a lot of Tory sentiment in the postings to this thread.
It's the same old story. Many of us fear freedom. Vermont style firearms laws? What? No permission slip?
I think it's in 2nd Samuel where the people shout, "We Must have a King."
Yes, Many of us fear freedom.
Here's hoping them Vermonters pull it off.
cuchulainn
Member
I've got nothing against secession. If the People of Vermont want to secede, let them. But this story isn't about the People of Vermont wanting to secede.
It's about a few hundred malcontents who have neither the general support of the People of Vermont nor the official support of their legislature (supposedly the voice of the People
). For a call to secession to be legitimate, it must have the support of the People. This one doesn't. The only permission slip I'm talking about is the one given by the People.
El Tejon
Member
drinks, my opinion is that Andrew Jackson is a great historical figure. His "genocide" was a continuation of U.S. policy as to Indians: live under U.S. law or leave. They paid their money and made their choice. One may dislike history, but it is what it is.
Hawk, it is treason to make war on the United States. This is what South Carolina threatened to do when Jackson was president and he told them they would be hanged. This is what South Carolina did when Lincoln was president and he kissed their feet instead of hanging them.
crop, not at all! I do not fear Vermont law, but moonbats playing traitor.
Hawk, it is treason to make war on the United States. This is what South Carolina threatened to do when Jackson was president and he told them they would be hanged. This is what South Carolina did when Lincoln was president and he kissed their feet instead of hanging them.
crop, not at all! I do not fear Vermont law, but moonbats playing traitor.
- Status
