ExNavyAmerican

There is a separatist movement in America. And it is now being made manifest by a secessionist movement in Vermont. The chances of Vermont seceding are slim, but if this idea becomes wide-spread, liberals and conservatives across America will decide that this is a good idea. Prospects are not so bleak in Vermont as it is where 13% of the population approves of seceding from the Union-up 8% from 2006. If this happens (I mean widespread sucession), we had better have a president that is willing to negotiate (sadly, I don't think that GWB meets that criteria), and we also have to guard ourselves against foreign intervention: i.e. from China and Russia.

What is everybody's thoughts on the matter?

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
- Thomas Jefferson

dalem

Secession is not an option - Lincoln proved this.

-dale

Grim

I suspect this is little more then a publicity stunt. I really do not think that enough Americans would be willing to give up their favorite daily TV show so they could do the leg work necessary to secede from one nation and build a new one. Sadly this is my true opinion of most of my fellow countrymen, they care more about TV then the real world.

ExNavyAmerican

Dale;

Secession is a reserved right of the state.

dalem

And preservation of the Union is a proven right of the federal government.

-dale

Kansas Bear

Go for it.

Washington sent troops to quell the Whiskey Rebellion, I'd hate to imagine what Bush would do....

ExNavyAmerican

Granted, dale. I'm just pointing out that sucession is an option if the states so choose. And I don't believe that succession will solve anything unless there is a mass successionist movement like there was in the Civil War. The Federal Government has become too powerfull (especially the office of the president), and there needs to be a reform.

dalem

Bah. We are a federal republic, not a confederation of states.

-dale

ExNavyAmerican

Right. A federal republic. A federation of sovereign states whose ultimate check against the federal government is to secede.

My views on the matter are mixed. If I had lived during the revolution, I would have been a federalist; if I had lived during the Civil War, I'd have been a Jacksonian Democrat; now I believe in a strong Union, but the States (as sovereign entities) deserve the right to secede. But, as you so eloquently pointed out, the federal government has the right to bring them back in. But, all in all, I'm a proponet of State's rights.

crooks

What is it that would cause Vermont to secede?

I mean, it's a state of 650,000, surrounded by other states, so how could it:

1) last long term

2) win international recognition

3) resist long term submission, violent or not

4) move it's economy from it's current embedded state

I don't get why VERMONT, small, quaint mountain land, would want to leave your union anyway.....If it was Texas or California, I could imagine the reasons, but could someone explain?

ExNavyAmerican

Well, my IMO, it's probably because Vermont is a very liberal state (they elected a socialist to the Senate), much more liberal than average throughout the other states, and therefore I think it's probably because they don't like policies conducted by a federal government that is conservative compared to their State government. Members of the movement said, "that they didn't want to be part of the "empire" when it fell. They said they wanted to "save the Union from itself." Basically, they want to secede so they can institute very liberal policies without any chance of them being thrown down by a higher authority (Congress, the Supreme Court).

At least, that's my interpretation.

But in answer to your questions-

1) It probably couldn't. They're hoping to secede while the Union sits happily by, but that's obviously not going to happen. However, it is possible that they may get support from Canada.

2) China, and Russia would be very quick to recognize it-mainly in revenge for our support of Taiwan, and Chechnya, respectively. But also to weaken us.

3) If the Union resists in any way, they wont succeed in their secession.

4) That's a good question. They couldn't. Every state receives aid from the federal government which gets its funds from 300 million people over 50 states. Vermont is relatively poor in resources, and with 650,000 tree-huggers, they couldn't exploit them anyway. They'd probably move to socialize the economy. But with an embargo from the U.S., the probably couldn't survive.

Like I said, it would be impossible; unless it was widespread.

Indirect Fire

Here's something to think about from Inc. Magazine

Vermont might be able to sustain itself only if the Union doesn't invade it and re annex it.

__________________
I have no idea what I'm doing. Honestly!

entropy

This reminds be about Russia and Chechnya. If Russia would give them independence (which I suggest is a good solution, close the borders and bomb the country into the stone age if one terrorist crosses the border), other republics such as Dagestan would apply as well. This would mean that the country would fall into pieces.

I know little about American national affairs, but I can suggest that some other states would claim indepencence if Vermont would get what they want.

__________________
If memory serves...

BenRoethig

Maybe the nuts in Washington and Oregon. This isn't Russia. There is no independence movement besides a handful of conspiracy theory nuts who wouldn't even be taken seriously in Europe.

__________________
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

dalem

Vermont and Maine are where we store most of our crazy people.

-dale