US Diary: a movement for Vermont to secede from US

Vermont: Most Likely to Secede -- by Benjamin Dangl   

Thomas Naylor moved to Vermont in 1993 after almost 30 years’ teaching economics at Duke University. He helped form the Second Vermont Republic, an organization dedicated to the peaceful dissolution of the country, starting with the secession of Vermont.

Benjamin Dangl: What is the Second Vermont Republic?

Thomas Naylor: The Second Vermont Republic is a peaceful, democratic, grassroots, libertarian populist movement opposed to the tyranny of the U.S. Government, corporate America, and globalization and committed to the return of Vermont to its rightful status as an independent republic, as it was between 1777 and 1791.

BD: What is the primary objective of the movement?

TN: Independence. To extricate Vermont peacefully, legally, and democratically from the United States as soon as possible and create an independent nation-state based on the Swiss model.

BD: Does that mean secession?

TN: Yes.

BD: Why does Vermont want to secede?

TN: First, the United States suffers from imperial overstretch and has become unsustainable politically, economically, agriculturally, socially, culturally, and environmentally. Second, Vermont finds it increasingly difficult to protect itself from the debilitating effects of big business, big agriculture, big markets, and big government, who want all of us to be the same—just like they are. Third, the U.S. Government has lost its moral authority because it is owned, operated, and controlled by corporate America. Fourth, American foreign policy, which is based on the doctrine of full-spectrum dominance, is immoral, illegal, unconstitutional, and in violation of the United Nations charter. Fifth, as long as Vermont remains in the Union, its citizens face curtailed civil liberties, the risk of terrorist attack, and the risk of military conscription of its youth.

BD: But isn’t secession unconstitutional?

TN: No. "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government," said Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Just as a group has a right to form, so too does it have a right to disband, to subdivide itself, or withdraw from a larger unit.

The U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession. According to the tenth amendment, that which is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed. All states have a Constitutional right to secede.

BD: To which other principles does the Second Vermont Republic subscribe?

TN: Direct democracy, Swiss federalism, sustainability, economic solidarity, quality education, humane health care, nonviolence, political neutrality, and international solidarity with its neighbors New Hampshire, Maine, Quebec, and the Atlantic provinces of Canada. Notwithstanding its policy of neutrality, the Second Vermont Republic does not rule out some form of political alliance with the aforementioned states and provinces.

BD: Does the Second Vermont Republic want to take over the government of Vermont?

TN: Absolutely not. The people of the independent Republic of Vermont will decide how it is governed. Unlike the Free State Project in New Hampshire, our aim is not to take over the government. For that reason, the Second Vermont Republic takes no official position on such controversial issues as abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, and legalizing marijuana. These are issues for the citizens of the independent republic to decide.

BD: Could Vermont survive economically as an independent nation-state?

TN: Unquestionably. Of the 200 or so independent nation-states in the world, 50 of them have a smaller population than Vermont’s 620,000. Five of the ten richest countries in the world as measured by per capita income are smaller than Vermont: Liechtenstein, Iceland, Luxembourg, Bermuda, and Cayman Islands. Independence does not mean economic or political isolation. Over 600 Vermont firms export nearly 24 percent of the state’s gross state product. We see no reason why this should change after independence.

BD: Is Vermont independence politically feasible?

TN: Yes. Ultimately whether or not Vermont achieves political independence is a question of political will. Is the will of the people of Vermont for independence strong enough to overcome the will of the U.S. Government to prevent them from achieving their goal?

In 1989 six Eastern European allies of the Soviet Union unseated their respective Communist governments and seceded from the Soviet sphere of influence. With the bloody exception of Romania, this all took place nonviolently.

The Second Vermont Republic has been particularly influenced by the solidarity movement in Poland, and Czech leader Vaclav Havel’s concept of the "power of the powerless."

BD: What are the necessary steps?

TN: The Vermont Legislature must be persuaded to authorize a convention of the people to vote on rescinding the petition for statehood approved by the Vermont Assembly in January 1791 and ratified on March 4, 1791. To be credible, the vote should pass by at least a two-thirds majority. Articles of Secession should then be submitted to the U.S. President, Secretary of State, President of the Senate, and Speaker of the House. Diplomatic recognition should be sought from Canada, Quebec, Mexico, England, France, and the United Nations. And then the moment of truth—Vermont would start behaving like an independent nation-state.

BD: How can one learn more about secession and the Vermont independence movement?

TN: See John Remington Graham’s book A Constitutional History of Secession and Thomas Naylor’s The Vermont Manifesto. For more information, visit the websites of the Second Vermont Republic at www.vermontrepublic.org and Vermont Commons at www.vtcommons.org.

BD: What if the Vermont independence movement fails?

TN: Vermont still provides a communitarian alternative to the dehumanized mass production, mass consumption, narcissistic lifestyle that pervades most of the United States. Vermont is smaller, more rural, more democratic, less violent, less commercial, more egalitarian, and more independent than most states. It offers itself as a kinder, gentler metaphor for a nation obsessed with money, power, size, speed, greed, and fear of terrorism.

(For more information go to Vermont Commons and Second Vermont Republic
Order a 30 minute DVD film called "Independence Trilogy", featuring Vermonters talking about independence.
Benjamin Dangl is the editor of www.towardfreedom.com, a progressive perspective on world events.)

 
Comments:
Free State
Written by Guest on 2005-12-20 18:06:51
Despite Mr. Naylor's ominous reference to the Free State Project, I have to disagree with a simplistic characterization that they want to "take over the government."  
 
Free Staters want to move to New Hampshire because in many respects it already offers the freedom they seek. Yes, the newcomers will be politically active toward the pursuit of liberty. But as far as "taking over" is concerned, this is no more than democracy in action.  
 
The only notable difference with the Free State Project is that it relies on people to vote with their feet.

Follow up question for the secessionist:
Written by Guest on 2005-12-21 13:44:46
Or How would Vermont function without federal funds? 
 
I am peripherally aware of the federal transportation monies and health care dollars that flow into our state. However, the total amount of federal fund for spent by Vermont in 2004 surprised me -– $1,215,463,280
(http://www.state.vt.us/sao/audits/04Financials.pdf). This figure dwarfs our state’s economic production.  
Gross State product is a measurement of the economic output showing the sum of all value added by industries within the state. In 2004, the Vermont GSP totalled $22,114,000; $35,588GSP per capita. Vermont ranked 35th among US States in terms of per capita GSP and DEAD LAST in GSP. Although Mr. Naylor compares Vermont with several other nations of similar size, this does not seem a particularly relevant comparison as the national GDP’s range widely. Vermont is no Liechtenstein ($825,000,000 PPP), although we compare more favorably with Luxembourg and outpace Iceland and the island nations Taylor mentioned.  
Without those federal funds and the services or employment they enable, Vermont’s quality of life would be drastically altered. Removing this revenue stream would negatively the impact on the quality of life for Vermonters, especially for low-income Vermonters whose services are often based on federal programs.  
 If there is some economic argument that describes the Republic of Vermont’s economic engine, I would love to see it.