It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Vermont planning secession

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Vermont planning secession

James Howard Kunstler, author of The Long Emergency, will be the keynote speaker at The Vermont Convention on Independence to be held in the House Chamber of the State House in Montpelier on Friday October 28th. Sponsored by the Second Vermont Republic, the convention, which will begin at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at 5:00 p.m., is open to the public and free of charge.

This historic event will be the first statewide convention on secession in the United States since North Carolina voted to secede from the Union on May 20, 1861.


I don't blame them, really. I heard that Arizona at one point was considering secession in the event we're in martial law. They would re-instate the Constitution and basically start over again.

Funny--I think the South had it wrong in the Civil War...but Vermont wants to secede for a valid reason (just my opinion there).

[edit on 10/25/2005 by Amethyst]




posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Just about the stupidest thing you could even talk about doing...



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
Just about the stupidest thing you could even talk about doing...


I'm curious--why do you think that?

My husband says that they would probably be invaded.

I think that maintaining states' rights is a major hurdle for any NWO to kick in.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   
During the Civil War, you could secede. Not a smart idea, but it was possible.

Nowadays, it can't succeed. Vermont would have no credibility, no standing with other nations, no power or force to backup anything it does, no infrastructure for international imports and exports, no way to manage a nation. The US surrounds it and could easily just not let anything or anyone in or out and they'd cave in a minute. It's surprising how quickly you realize you need food.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I wasn't sure if creating a new thread was a good idea, so here's an update:

Vermont Votes to Secede from Union

Apparently they want to take New Hampshire and Maine along with them. That ought to be interesting.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Only thing I'm finding about secession and Vermont from a news source I trust (sorry, I hold Rense in the Weekly World News category) or government website talking about this vote was on CNN, here. That was from early 2004, and wasn't exactly what you're talking about...Actually the article was rather amusing. There definitely is a movement taking place, but I'm not so sure it's so grand as to even have a snowball's chance, as Rense says. The meeting taking place to discuss it is meeting in a public library. Doesn't seem like it's that big of a movement to me. I could get together with a few friends and start talking about having Illinois secede from the Union; that doesn't make it suddenly mean something.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
The article was posted on Rense, but the ACTUAL article came from arcticbeacon.com. Look at the source.

I wouldn't mind if Ohio seceded, really.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I think this is a terrible idea. If they succeed in their desire to sucede, then the republic is ruined.


Republic is merely vulgate latin for "Res Publicum" or "this public thing," this society that we have built.

Personally, I believe that Lincoln was the first american despot, because he enforced the idea that the individual states had permanently given up some rights in order to band together.

He arrested 5000 democratic party officials in the state of Maryland alone, had them transported to New York, and held for the duration of the war, in order to make certain that Maryland wouldn't join the confederacy, and leave Washington completely in Secesh hands. To do all this, he suspended the writ of habeus corpus "do to the dangers of war."


If Vermont were serious, do you think it, or the nation, would be richer or safer 5 years after leaving?

Do you honestly think the Federals would let them leave? Really?

Do you think the Federals would hold back one ounce, one scintilla, of their awesome powers to prevent this?

I know the following sentence sounds like it was written by the white house, but, what do you think america's enemies will make of this???????


The horror of this is, they aren't the only state that wants out. There is a lot more of this talk in the South than you can shake a stick at. And it isn't going on in a constipational convention hall either.

It is going on in the diner where some rancher friends of mine drink coffee. It's going on in the Walmart parking-lot. In church parking lots. At the barbershop. Down at the feed store.

The Feds and the liberal elite think they snuffed all this talk when they took out the militia movement, by insinuating militia guilt for the Oklahoma City bombing. They dealt with the organization, but they never removed the sources of frustration.

I hope this goes away, or none of us will be getting good sleep at night for a long time to come.




posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Vermont Votes to Secede from Union

Wow, what an incredibly horrible case of misreporting. And from Rense, how....uncharacteristic.
The state and people of vermont did not vote for secession. A couple of yahoos had a meeting.

Although the resolution is the first step in the long process that needs support from the state legislators - as well as an officially recognized convention - the grass roots group called the Second Vermont Republic passed the following citizen's resolution:

This 2nd Repbulic is a group of, at most 160 people.

There is no provision for secession in the constitution. Secession is illegal.

If vermont wants to leave the protections of the federal government, then NY should renew its claims of ownership. New Hampsire might do so too, and then Congress would have to decide who gets to annex it.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   
There are secessionist groups in nearly every state in the Union. However, as Nygdan points out, they are very small and only occasionally raise enough noise to make the news. The majority of people aren't interested in secession OR their causes.

Here in Texas, they're viewed as a pack of lunatic rabble-rousers by most of us. You'll find this true in all the other states.

I think Hawaii has probably the strongest group, but their argument is a return to the autonomy they once had as a nation (200 years ago).



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   
No one is going to leave the union tho, if Porto Rico won't leave it, when they're technically half-way out of it, then no one's going to leave it. They speak a different language, there's lots of racism on the mainland against them, and they were seized in an imperialistic move. And they still stay in the system. If Porto Rico can't bear to pull out, then vermont, for god's sake, certianly won't.

This was definitly a good find on Amethyst's part too, normally I don't think any of us would've seen this, its pretty fascinating I think.

[edit on 4-11-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Of course Byrd and Nygdan are correct. People fantasize about leaving the union. Going up in the woods somewhere and starting over.

Only, there are no more woods left.

I am reminded of the scene in "Mutiny on the Bounty," the version with Anthony Hopkins and the young Mel Gibson. It goes something like this:

as they are hustling captain Bligh and his officers into a rowboat:
Bligh: "God help you, Mr. Christian!"

Christian: "Why would I need God's help to do your job?"

Bligh: "Because if I couldn't captain this crew, with the full might of the British Empire behind me, then you don't stand a chance in hell doing it alone."

State's rights advocates never talk about the fact that there was a succession movement within the Confederacy at the height of the Civil War. If memory serves, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana threatened to sucede from the sucession and form their own country. I remember that Jeff Davis threatened to send troops into Arkansas to "put down" the rebels.

As tyranical or liberty-loving as a nation may be, it has no choice but to quash all rebellion without mercy.

The first virtue is self-preservation.


Just like everything else kinky, it's a great safety valve as long as we remember that it's just a fantasy.




posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Amethyst
Vermont Votes to Secede from Union

Wow, what an incredibly horrible case of misreporting. And from Rense, how....uncharacteristic.
The state and people of vermont did not vote for secession. A couple of yahoos had a meeting.

Although the resolution is the first step in the long process that needs support from the state legislators - as well as an officially recognized convention - the grass roots group called the Second Vermont Republic passed the following citizen's resolution:

This 2nd Repbulic is a group of, at most 160 people.

There is no provision for secession in the constitution. Secession is illegal.

If vermont wants to leave the protections of the federal government, then NY should renew its claims of ownership. New Hampsire might do so too, and then Congress would have to decide who gets to annex it.


But there is nothing in the Constitution regarding secession either way, which according to the 10th Amendment leaves the legality and procedures for secession up to the respective state to determine.

Im not sure whether New York or New Hampshire could reclaim ownership after they legally gave it up, unless parts of Vermont seceeded from VT and wanted to join as part of NY or NH. If that is possible tho' my guess is that it would be divided partially into both states, with NH getting the more populated half.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Secession may be a viable responce to Patriot I & II. The Gov't has also threatened martial law, in regards to a bird flu outbreak and placed their mercenaries in New Orleans after Katrina. And do you remember the last presidential election? We were informed that in case of a terrorist attack it may not be possible to hold the election? Does that mean Bush is president for life? Perhaps secession is a viable responce.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by abeyer
But there is nothing in the Constitution regarding secession either way, which according to the 10th Amendment leaves the legality and procedures for secession up to the respective state to determine.

Perhaps, however, look at how the Articles of Confederation were done away with. But, overall, what right does the state have to tell people that want to be americans, after the state signed into the US, that now they don't get to be in it? If there was 100% agreement to leave, might be a different story. The most legal way would be to have it settled by Congress all toghether.


Im not sure whether New York or New Hampshire could reclaim ownership after they legally gave it up,

It was given up into a state tho, now, without vermont being a state represented by Congress, it'd be up for bid.


If that is possible tho' my guess is that it would be divided partially into both states, with NH getting the more populated half.

Or it could all go to NY, because NY would have more influence in the Congress that is deciding it. But thats entirely open to debate.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by abeyer
But there is nothing in the Constitution regarding secession either way, which according to the 10th Amendment leaves the legality and procedures for secession up to the respective state to determine.

Perhaps, however, look at how the Articles of Confederation were done away with. But, overall, what right does the state have to tell people that want to be americans, after the state signed into the US, that now they don't get to be in it? If there was 100% agreement to leave, might be a different story. The most legal way would be to have it settled by Congress all toghether.

I agree with you on that point, we need a national stance and procedure for secession. I feel if the vast majority of people in a state vote to secede that it should be recognized, and that the fed. gov. offer citizenship to all citizens of the state who still want to be americans.



Im not sure whether New York or New Hampshire could reclaim ownership after they legally gave it up,

It was given up into a state tho, now, without vermont being a state represented by Congress, it'd be up for bid.

Well actually it was given up prior during the Revolutionary War. Vermont (at the time "New Connecticuit") declared its independence from New York and New Hampshire in 1777 and was a recognized independent nation until 1791 when the joined the Union, so VT was never given up into a state, and as NY and NH were still under british domain at the time, the states formed following the War would have no legal claim on VT. There claims prior to independece would have no bearing in US courts (same as how some states didn't stretch all the way to the pacific, as they did under the prior British colonial grants).



If that is possible tho' my guess is that it would be divided partially into both states, with NH getting the more populated half.

Or it could all go to NY, because NY would have more influence in the Congress that is deciding it. But thats entirely open to debate.

Thats a good point. Most likely were this to happen it would be decided by the Supreme Court, as they have jurisdiction over these matters.

[edit on 11-4-2005 by abeyer]



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by abeyer
I agree with you on that point, we need a national procedure for procedure.


We have one, and it was established long before the Civil war. In 1794 there was a rebellion against the federal government in western Pennsylvania. The rebellion was dubbed the Whiskey Rebellion, and George Washington personally rode troops to crush it. It was the first time the nation had ever used its military on its own citizens, and probably the first and last time the president of the United States personally led troops into battle.

Thus, precedent was established with George Washington, not Abe Lincoln. It just so happened that Abe's problem was substantially larger than Washington's.

The procedure is simple: Rebel against the US, also known as secede, say hello to the American military.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by abeyer
I agree with you on that point, we need a national procedure for procedure.


We have one, and it was established long before the Civil war. In 1794 there was a rebellion against the federal government in western Pennsylvania. The rebellion was dubbed the Whiskey Rebellion, and George Washington personally rode troops to crush it. It was the first time the nation had ever used its military on its own citizens, and probably the first and last time the president of the United States personally led troops into battle.

Thus, precedent was established with George Washington, not Abe Lincoln. It just so happened that Abe's problem was substantially larger than Washington's.

The procedure is simple: Rebel against the US, also known as secede, say hello to the American military.

But just because a precedent was set doesnt mean that it is right or legal. The denying of a territories right to break their union to the federal gov. is unconstitutional. Plus the Whiskey Rebellion was an uprising of citizens against the government, not an organized procedure of secession from the federal government by a recognized territorial government.

The Whiskey Rebellion was a justified use of force against the citizens. But the use of force against a state or territory which goes through a legal means of secession is illegal. No part of the constitution states that secession is in anyway illegal, and the government is acting in an unconstitutional manner by preventing a states' legal secession.

We need an amendment spelling out this matter one way or another. Otherwise we will see another Civil War, at somepoint, in this country.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Abraham Lincoln was not a despot. The North and South were being played. There is a provision in the Constitution where habeas corpus CAN be suspended.

This republic is already ruined. The ship is sinking and I don't blame people for wanting to jump.

The Fourteenth Amendment, Eric Jon Phelps explained to me, made it so you're an American first and the citizen of, say, Ohio second--when before I would have been considered an Ohioan first and an American second. And this was passed after Lincoln's assassination. Or it was supposedly passed.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   
So let me guess, once a state joins the UNion, it can never leave. That sounds more like the mafia to me than a republic.

I guess some people here think that we should tear up the declaration of independence, and craw back to Britain because we "illegally" seceeded from England.

I take it that the states and people respectly are just supposed to fall in line under the federal yoke, no matter what. The feds seem to be doing everyting in their power to destroy this country and its citicens, and we're just supposed to accept it. Right now NAFTA and CAFTA are law and simply a stepping stone to the Free Trade Area of the Americas. These are nation destroying acts designed for regional gov't and are sold to the public as free trade agreements. How about the well over 6 trillion national debt the feds scored up, debt that will have to be paid off someday by the young people of this country who had nothing to do with it in the first place. Should they too be bound under federal bondage forever? What about the millions of illegals that are pouring across our phony borders, while again the feds do nothing about it.

These examples are just a tip of the iceberg, and there are many more where they came from. So should a state be confined at the point of UNion (federal) guns to be brought down a path of destruction that has destroyed all empires, or shall it simply exit the game and live according to the principals of a republican form of gov't where people can live free?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join