Good takes a look at the Vermont secession movement. I somehow don't see this happening in practice.
« Policy Ratios | Main | Anyone Want a Poet-Center? »
Profoundly Lost Causes
23 Jan 2008 12:44 pm
Comments (41)
Man, there are a lot of nutjobs loose in ths country.
I thought we settled a while back that secession was not allowed.
Isn't the real question if Vermont Seceeded would anyone notice?
as a vermonter (now in DC), i would theoretically support this, if only for the novelty (although it has many advantages as well). i have a number of vermont friends who support this. the problem is naylor has made some questionable comments in the past, attacking the SPLC, that bothered me. i should probably do my due diligence, but initially when I heard this, it was a turnoff.
Treason! Traitors!
Let's remember that that's what Matthew thinks of people who advocate secession.
Funnily enough, Matthew doesn't seem to mentioned treason or traitors in this post. Or is it just that only Southerners circa 1861 are traitors committing treason for wanting to be governed by local institutions rather than the federal government in Washington DC? States rights is a racist idea, but Vermont's rights is just a lost cause? These are just some nice liberals who would like to live in a more liberal society, because nice liberals couldn't possibly be traitors committing treason?
(To be clear, I don't think this is traitorous. I think self determination is an essential human right. But Matthew certainly does think that secession is treason. Or, at least, he does with respect to the South in 1861.)
I seem to recall that northern New Hampshire seceeded in the 1820s or 1830s and the rejoined the Union. I know that one of the post-Civil War Amendments does away with suecession as a Constitutional possibility.
as a vermonter (now in DC), i would theoretically support this, if only for the novelty (although it has many advantages as well). i have a number of vermont friends who support this. the problem is naylor has made some questionable comments in the past, attacking the SPLC, that bothered me. i should probably do my due diligence, but initially when I heard this, it was a turnoff.
here's an op-ed from some SVR people from the WaPo
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/30/AR2007033002076.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
As a Vermonter, I am torn. On one hand, could we survive economically on our own? On the other hand, I tire greatly of our voice being a very small voice in a very large auditorium, and we are never heard. We are so, mercifully, different than the rest of the nation that we should break off simply out of principle.
Not Vermont, no. And not now. And certainly not under the leadership of these clowns.
But it's easy to imagine that in a severe enough crisis, the Senate and the rest of our creaky Constitutional machinery would go from frustrating to intolerable for some of the bigger and least-represented states, like California. Admittedly, the more likely scenario is House declaring itself, like the 3rd Estate in 1789, the sole sovereign body. But who knows?
I think congress should pass a maple syrup tax, then we can get the "Montpelier maple syrup party" started, and then, Vermontistan can be free.
I think the greater 49 would be fine.
Back in the 80s someone did a humor book about Vermont seceding.
We're one of only two states (IIRC, Texas is the other) that basically hold back the right to secede in our state Constitution. (But nice try, Al & co.) I'm not sure how a national vs. state constitution battle would play out. (And also not sure if anyone would notice.)
Or is it just that only Southerners circa 1861 are traitors committing treason for wanting to be governed by local institutions rather than the federal government in Washington DC?
You are comparing the Confederate with a bunch of quaint loons in Vermont? Seriously?
In retrospect, of course, the South's succession looks pretty good.
Larry David said it best (paraphrasing): "How many people died in the Civil War? And for what - to keep the South? Did we really need to keep the South?"
"Treason! Traitors!
Let's remember that that's what Matthew thinks of people who advocate secession.
Funnily enough, Matthew doesn't seem to mentioned treason or traitors in this post. Or is it just that only Southerners circa 1861 are traitors committing treason for wanting to be governed by local institutions rather than the federal government in Washington DC"
When they start killing hundreds of thousands of United states soldiers, as the confederates did, then I'll start calling them traitors.
The North will rise again!
You're right, Al, the South should have been free to go its own way in the 1860s. By this time you would be a broken basket case full of cheap labor and exploitable resources. Neoliberalism in Anglo-Saxon North America, I say!
If the South had broken off then we'd have another huge 3rd world country on our Southern border. It would be interesting to have a huge illegal immigration problem because lots of poor whites we're coming here for jobs.
Larry David said it best (paraphrasing): "How many people died in the Civil War? And for what - to keep the South? Did we really need to keep the South?"
I think ending slavery is a heavy brick on the "yes we did" side of the scale (though one can argue it isn't enough to tip it).
Well, Texas v. White (1868) settled the question that secession was illegal, even if the Civil War had already put that question to rest.
Granted, a bunch of armed maple syrup farmers could have more sway than law. But life would quickly get more expensive and dangerous for any state that tried to get out of the union.
The Civil War didn't establish that secession is impossible or wrong; it established that secession couldn't happen unilaterally. If Vermont and the USA both agreed to it, there'd be no problem with it seceding.
The real question is this: Does Vermont realize how dangerous it would be to be such a small state so dependent on an imperial United States' benevolence? I think they dramatically underestimate the risks.
I wish the south and midwest was a separate country. At the very least we'd have to stop subsidizing them.
The odds that the US will split up into smaller parts sometime in Matt's lifetime are at least 80%. If the red states and blue states were separate nations their governments would be more representative of their constituents. There is so much federal waste because the country is too damn big. Most US citizens are just statistics to those who govern them.
The dominant thought among the delegates was that what they call "the U.S. experiment” had failed.
Once the number of people who feel this way reaches a critical mass, the fragmenting of the country will commence.
Al,
States' rights isn't racist per se, however using a states' rights argument to justify enslaving an entire race of people certainly is.
I don't see anything particularly racist about a state, say one with a medical exception to its marijuana prohibition laws, asking that the laws under its constitution be respected by the federal authorities with jurisdiction over the same issues, or plants, in this case.
When they start killing hundreds of thousands of United states soldiers, as the confederates did, then I'll start calling them traitors.
Well, if Vermont happens to have large military bases when it secedes, and the United States refuses to remove its troops from those bases, then what? Would the secessionists in newly independent Vermont take kindly to being occupied by a large United States military presence?
In any case, as I say, I am pro-self-determination. The United States could always treat Vermont like Israel treats the Gaza Strip.
djeri, Congress hasn't passed a *law* or amended the Constitution to forbid secession, but there is a handy Supreme Court ruling to guide future secessionists: Texas v. White.
In a nutshell, the ruling stated that the Confederate States exited the Union illegally, and therefore the secessionist State governments and anything they did had no legal standing. It considers the Union permanent. It allows that a State may exit, but only with the assent of the other States. It doesn't give a threshold for that assent, but I'd guess it would be at least as high as a Constitutional amendment.
Postbellum secessionists and anarchists such as Lysander Spooner reject the ruling on a number of grounds, foremost of them that Samuel Chase was a member of Lincoln's cabinet. But, I say fuck 'em. Somebody wants out? They've got a heck of a sales job ahead of them, and they aren't going to be able to lawyer their way out of it.
How about a solution that addresses (some of) the grievances of the secessioneers, while also avoiding (most of) the inherent problems of a set of isolated, weak, unfederated states: the Northeast and West Coast states secede -- and become part of Canada!
Al:
[Vermont] has no death penalty and virtually no gun-control laws, yet remains one of the least violent jurisdictions in America. It has no big cities, no big businesses, no military bases, no strategic resources, few military contractors. All three members of its Congressional delegation voted against the Iraq War resolution.
Learn to read.
blah2: perhaps you missed the word "if" in my post? It was a conditional sentence. The fact that there are no military bases now doesn't prohibit there from being such in the future.
Al,
No, you're right, there could be bases in VT in the future, but the fact that military bases are chosen for specific reasons, like preparing for future enemies we may be at war with (or b/c of powerful Congressmen on the relevant committees), makes it unlikely that the Pentagon would ever think to put new bases in the Green Mountain state, unless we're preparing for a new war with Quebec.
Jeebus, is there some kind of deranged humor impairment at loose in the world. I just read through the comments on MY's fascist desire to keep penises from behind the wheel, and now, this comment section on MY's lack of consistency concerning South Carolina's slaveholders and Vermont's Maple Syrup producers.
The comment section here used to be fun, now even Al acts like a constipated old fart, who lives to pick MY.
Is this what happens when you go to the Atlantic?
A sure sign of mental illness is the inability to grasp humor, sarcasm, satire and irony.
Isn't the real question if Vermont Seceeded would anyone notice?
No, which I think, is very much the point.
Full disclosure: I say this as a flatlander currently living in Vermont (but who thinks of himself as a Vermonter even if the locals don't.)
Come to think of it, have the Lakota un-seceded yet?
Once we start seeing major energy and fuel shortages in the US the gradual disintegration of the nation is inevitable. We won't have any choice but to rely on local networks for food and security. It might take 50, 100, 500 years but it's going to happen, and the sooner the better. Or maybe science will save us all!
My mistake, apparently, was not knowing that this comments section was restricted to those with no real knowledge about the topic of Vermont Secession.
Northern California and southern Oregon, where I live, tried to reform as a new state in the 30s -- the State of Jefferson "survives" as an attitude if not a political organization. (Eg: our public radio network is Jefferson Public Radio -- you could look it up!)
My mistake, apparently, was not knowing that this comments section was restricted to those with no real knowledge about the topic of Vermont Secession.
I don't think so. It's clearly dominated by people who don't take it seriously, but that's not the same thing at all. Feel free to enlighten us about the looming threat of having to pay tariffs on Ben & Jerry's ice cream.
The comment section here used to be fun, now even Al acts like a constipated old fart, who lives to pick MY.
You know, in a way, one could interpret this as a compliment. Even me!
Ghod, Ben and Jerry's is so played out. Get the ice cream they sell at Lake Champlain Chocolates.
"is there some kind of deranged humor impairment at loose in the world"
Yes. Matt isn't funny.
The problem is, he doesn't know it.
"My mistake, apparently, was not knowing that this comments section was restricted to those with no real knowledge about the topic of Vermont Secession."
Again - you must be new here. The comments section takes its lead from the blog owner in all matters.
My mistake, apparently, was not knowing that this comments section was restricted to those with no real knowledge about the topic of Vermont Secession.
Well, you're supposedly the expert. Some questions:
1. What crucial piece of information are we missing?
2. What are the most compelling reasons for why Vermont secession would be a good idea?
3. Do these reasons outweigh the drawbacks? You are honest enough to admit there would be drawbacks, right?
4. How would you manage to convince not only the people of Vermont, but the rest of the United States that it would be a good idea?
I read the article and by and large, all of those things cited about what makes Vermont special exist today in a world where Vermont has been a U.S. state for two centuries. How would becoming its own country improve the situation?
Forget the ice cream they sell at Lake Champlain Chocolates, just eat some of the damn chocolate bars. Oh my gawd.
Comments closed February 06, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
A few good points, the nation is really gigantic and it is hard for Congress to represent all of the local interests. However, in practice, this would never work. All of the states depend upon the others for tax dollars and other resources. I would think it would make inequality worse, rather than better.
Posted by Cols714 | January 23, 2008 1:17 PM