>The Secessionist Campaign for the Republic of Vermont

>From Time via DumpDC, with this Editor’s Note:

Editor’s Note: When the topic of Secession is found in the pages of Time Magazine…truly one of the pillars of the Main Stream Media…it means that secession is being taken seriously.

Read it all, please.

Fave line:

“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.”

Who else might have said something like that back in ’08?

And to those who will (correctly) point out the socialist leanings of this endeavor, please read their statement of beliefs in considering the merits of their work.

For others who simply dismiss talk of secession as impractical, I ask:

What is your plan to deal with Leviathan and its resources, and will that plan actually work for those who oppose government tyranny and all other assaults upon the individual?

I’ll bet all of those plans have a core of secessionist thinking, with variations mainly on scale and the de facto/de jure continuum.

Audentes fortuna iuvat.

12 responses to “>The Secessionist Campaign for the Republic of Vermont

  1. >We of the Southern National Congress AND the League of the South wish Vermont well in their endeavors.It is entirely lawful in America for a state to secede from the Constitutional compact of sovereign states known as the United States. The War Against Southern Freedom did NOT settle that issue and neither have the courts. In fact the courts are expressly forbidden to do so via the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.As the late Murray Rothbard wrote, "To be specific, the two just wars in American history were the American Revolution, and the War for Southern Independence." He was, of course, referring to the Confederate States of America side.REF:http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard20.html http://www.southernnationalcongress.org/pr_20091309.shtmlhttp://dixienet.org/New%20Site/index.shtml

  2. >I can find nowhere in the Constitution where it says States may not, at any future time, secedefrom the Union.It would be interesting. if in the future, all 50 States, or at least 45+ States announced all past and present Federal laws were no longer valid in their States.What would the Federal govt. use for power and or money to stop this action?Paul in Texas

  3. >Pat H,Please explain to me the Confederate States of America's plan to emanicipate the black Americans being held in chattel slavery and what steps they where going to take to pay reparations for the misery, death, and destruction inflicted by the several states of the Confederation. If you cannot answer that question then my advise would be to stop invoking the South's secession as "just". To throw off one tyrant just to adopt another makes no since if you are truly interested in liberty and freedom for ALL human beings.

  4. >I like the last paragraph, where concern was shown over SocSec, Medicare, MediAid, et al. And a Vermont researcher showed that for every $1.00 sent to the DC Beltway, the state gets back only $0.75 (or 75%).Such is the "efficiency" of Big Gub'ment.B WoodmanIII-perwv: "lenim" A former Communist leader jumping over a cliff.

  5. >Casey, since the emancipation of the black race is fait accomplai, why are YOU still beating the dead horse? Would have happened anyway. They not only paid reparations, but were occupied by Northern troops until 1876. And unless I miss my guess, you seem to have forgotten that reparations,applied liberaly, exacerbated things after WW1, leading to ripe conditions for WW2. You may also recall, we threw off the Brittish yoke, and still kept slavery. No one I know would want slavery, so why invoke it? Dead issue. Reparations now? Best way I know to start a race war.

  6. >Casey, have you read the Constitution, Lincoln's first inaugural address or the Emancipation Proclamation? It doesn't sound like you have.

  7. >I consider myself as anti-socialist as you can get. However, I am supporting Dennis Steele for Vermont Governor. Because he supports Vermonter's freedom. They guy quoted in the article, not so much. He will not be getting my vote, as he vomits the anti- bush party line. Other candidates Like Dennis Steele are far more freedom minded, and these make better choices to explore on this subject.There is a strain of socialist thought in the secession movement. This is due to Thomas Naylor's being the father of the movement. If you look at the policy page link, most of the points are libertarian in nature. What is socialist about local commerce? Supporting more goods made instate? anything that increases my freedom from government will be supported, any attempt to lock me down under the knuckle of apparatchik's will be fought against tooth and nail.I support the United States. I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. That Oath has no experation date. However, if push come to shove, and the FedGov decides to declare war on the citizens of this country, I will stand by my state leaving the union and will fight in Vermont's defense. Just like I would fight against some National socialist style junta installing itself in Vermont.I am actively working to get a 10th Amendment states rights act passed, as with a Montana style weapons manufacturing law. So much could be done just by Vermont asserting it's rights against FedGov power. For more information please visit my site, http://greenmnts.blogspot.com/In freedom and liberty,Toaster 802

  8. >Concerned American,If the links claim that Lincoln was a tyrant and not in favor of emanicpation for Blacks then it would be a waste of time because I already know that ;). My point simply is that the CSA was no better. The CSA sure as hell did not want to leave the Union so that they could free thier black citizens, agreed? My comment is merely to point out that raising the CSA as an example we may in anyway want to emulate is morally dangerous.

  9. >Having visited and spent some time in VT I find it highly unlikely anything serious will come of this. Way too many liberals from there and considering their continuing acceptance of federal funds (Federal Unemployment Insurance Funds, etc) they just won't do anything when it comes to cutting their federally reimbursed funds.

  10. >Toaster802:Would love a boots on the ground report on this topic, either by direct submission to this shack or by link to your place. LMK what you think.

  11. >Concerned American;Thanks for your comment, and I will list a couple of sources for you. All are linked at my blog, http://greenmnts.blogspot.com/http://www.governorsteele.com/http://www.vermontrepublic.org/I will be following Mr. Steele's campaign in detail and will report regularly on my blog, plus commenting on blogs wherever secession and 10th Amendment issues are discussed.