Vermont Secession

Post Reply New Topic

I agree.

I highly doubt they still would've had slavery today.

Ain't gonna happen. The South succeeded after the federal government raised taxes on imports. The government quickly attacked so that they can keep collecting taxes. The US gov't wants power and money and would declare war on any state that left. We all know liberals won't fight for anything so they'd quickly lose.

Well, given that it is about 140 years after the Civil War, you may very well be right. I mean, after 140 years, an economy would change a lot. The south was not planning on giving up slaves any time around the Civil War though.

The South seceded after Abe Lincoln won the presidency running for an anti-slavery political party. At that point the South was frightened that the North would violate their notions of property rights and destroy much of their wealth. There were some tariff issues, such as those involved with the Nullification Crisis, but still, slavery was a large part of this issue. Now, we can argue that the US government was being power hungry when they rejected the Confederacy's attempts at peace and to pay for land but rather pushed for war, as after all, if one accepts the right to secession then the North engaged in aggression without need(the North really didn't care about slavery, and many Northerners hated blacks anyway). I don't think that the war was mostly on tax issues though.

Right. And we invaded Iraq because Saddam was a tyrannical dictator.

The Slavery issue is the Union's brain washing gook they spoon feed you to excuse all the evil s**t they did.

Fact #1. The union violated the constitution.
Fact #2. The south did not secede to keep it's slaves in bondage.
Fact #3. The union did not decimate the south to free the slaves.
Fact #4. The Civil War was not over or about slavery. Even NORTHERN states legally owned slaves after the war was won.
My Opinion #5. Lincoln was the father of tyrannical government in our country.

There is a similar movement in Texas:

http://www.texasnationalist.com/independence/index.php

it's funny to read about it, the small minds have no clue what they would be getting into.

Nope, I am not arguing that at all. I am merely arguing that secession was due to the south's skittishness but the war was due to Lincoln. The south left when Lincoln won the election, why? He was an anti-slave candidate and political fights over slavery had been happening for a long period of time with both the north and the south afraid of the other's political power.

Partially yes. The division between North and South occurred over slavery and the political issues of slavery, but I never argued any side as virtuous.

With fact #1, where was the violation? Are you arguing that there is a right to secede or am I overlooking some other law.
With fact #2, I actually disagree. Within the south there was a fear that with a loss of political power would come a loss of slavery and within the north there was a fear that the southern pro-slavery people would make the entire nation a slave nation. The north did not like slaves because of ideology and the effects of slavery on the labor market and the Dred Scott case, by allowing slavery everywhere, really spooked them.
With fact #3, I agree. The north emancipated the slaves opportunistically. They really didn't care about blacks at all. In the north there were occasionally race riots where black people in a town would all be killed.
With fact #4, I semi-disagree. The secession was about slavery, the civil war was Lincoln's doing. Actually the president before Lincoln took power was going to allow secession and the South was willing to negotiate for its independence with the north. The fact that northern states owned slaves after the war only shows that southern fears at the time were not wholly justified.
I am not going to disagree with #5, your opinion, because one could probably honestly and correctly make an argument like that. Lincoln did nasty crap during the war and was a very activist president. Heck, the people of his time hated him. Really though, I would be more likely to blame a Roosevelt for their progressivism and activism.

I'm not going to weigh in on the correctness of some of the assertions made here about the so-called movement for secession in Vermont. Some are right, some not so much. What is important to know is that there is no real secession process going on here.

There are a handful of transplants to Vermont, and their truly fringe element supporters, who are promoting the notion but it's being dismissed handily by all real Vermonters. The idea is, for all intents and purposes, dead. This is due to a number of reasons, some of which are: the founder of the Second Vermont Republic (SVR), Thomas Naylor, has decades long connections to racist groups, neo-Confederate organizations and white supremacist ideologues; a fraudulent poll that improperly suggests that 8% or 13% Vermonters support secession (nonsense, and no doubt the number will be even higher next year considering the flawed methodology used) and that the poll is produced by the University of Vermont - it is a contracted poll conducted by UVM for SVR, a fact never released by SVR/Naylor in their press releases promoting the flawed results; and, when challenged, Naylor dismissed most of the few Vermonters in the leadership of his group and then strengthened his ties to racist, out-of-state elements.

Please don't confuse a few orchestrated events staged by SVR to give the appearance of a movement with something real. I'll have a new post later this week outlining one such upcoming bogus event.

Thomas Rowley
http://vermontsecession.blogspot.com/

I thought Lincoln supported slavery.

Lincoln's party didn't. The republican party was built in opposition to slavery. Lincoln himself probably didn't really care about slaves but he also probably disliked the institution.

I would never live in Vermont, because they don't have any of the chain stores and restaurants I love so much. Just the thought of driving all the way to Albany, NY to buy groceries startles me.

Tim

i moved here last April, don't miss the rat race at all. 40 miles to the strip of corporate chains stores and corporate mistery food, don't go offen.

drove a truck from 19 until 45, so after 26 years of traffic,fast food and go,go,go I sure did make a big change and wish I had moved to the sticks at 18 years old and never lived like i did.

10 miles to a lame grocery store, but it's ok. just not the latest overkill type place like sprange up in the last few years, it's dated early 90's
3 miles into town, little mini grocery store, more of a butcher shop meat market type place.

I would like to see how serious this Vermont succession is and how far it will go...

I like how they declared Bush and Cheney War profitiers/criminals, and announced public warnings if they come to their state, they will arrest them and hold them in contemp/court.

You forget: virtually the entire U.S. army is tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Who's "they"? You mean this guy?



He's apparently petitioning the Brattleboro (pop. 12,000) town council to indict Bush & Cheney as "war criminals". Obviously there's no jurisdiction here; just pointless grandstanding. God forbid these folks should actually contact their elected representatives (presumably Democrats...) and ask why they caved on the impeachment resolution.