||Art & Literature
||Letters to the Editor
Note: Links to other sites will open in a new window.
SECEDING SELDOM SUCCEEDS, BUT VERMONTERS TRY
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Nov. 8, 2005
(FOREWORD: To Vermonters we say, "Let them go in peace." We doubt, however,
as the most liberal (favoring big government) New England state and heavily
dependent on fedgov largesse, and having the only self-avowed Socialist
congressman, that Vermont could survive w/o federal foreign aid from its
former master. As Vermont pays a barely discernible tribute to the fedgov,
unlike the 80% of the seceding South of 1860, Vermont may just get their
MONTPELIER, VT. - Politics, like fall foliage, turns faster in Vermont. The
state was out front opposing slavery and first to approve civil unions. And if
the activists who met here last month succeed, the state will set another
precedent: first to secede since 1861.
No, this wasn't a clandestine meeting of militants. It was a convention for
Vermonters, held in the plush, gold-domed capitol.
And its keynote - that separating from the United States is a just remedy for
the federal government's trampling of state sovereignty - is echoing beyond
the snow-capped Green Mountains.
From Hawaii to South Carolina, dozens of groups across America are promoting a
similar cause. Their efforts aren't politically popular - yet. But they are
reviving one of the most passionate debates in US history: Can a state legally
For the Second Vermont Republic (SVR), the group that hosted the convention,
the answer is "yes."
"If we had a right to join the Union, we certainly have a right to disband
from it," SVR founder Thomas Naylor told the assembly. In his view, Vermonters
should join the cause if they:
• Say the US has lost moral authority and is unsustainable, ungovernable, and
OTHER SEPARATIST GROUPS
• Want to help take back Vermont from big business, big markets, and big
government - and do so peacefully.
Naylor's talking points aren't unique to Vermont. Separatist groups with
diverse causes share the view that the federal government has grown too big
and too powerful. Many say obedience to the Constitution would restore
America's lost liberty. But some insist that the federal government long ago
overstepped its constitutional powers, leaving secession as a valid recourse.
"Separatism is a Christian principle," says Cory Burnell, president of
Christian Exodus, which aims to relocate thousands of Christian
constitutionalists to South Carolina to "redeem" that state's government. "We
talk about secession as potentially necessary because history has demonstrated
that where one people stand up, there tends to be another people to rule over
The Free State Project (FSP) is another group determined to reclaim
constitutional liberty. Its libertarian members have pledged to move to New
Hampshire to restore limited government.
But FSP is not promoting secession, which, according to spokeswoman Amanda
Phillips, usually has caused more problems than it has solved.
"We can accomplish our goals by working within the constitutional framework,"
FSP's reluctance to rock the boat points to a major obstacle US separatists
face: public uneasiness about secession.
TWO VIEWS OF SECESSION
Ever since the Civil War, many Americans view secession the way President
Lincoln did: as an unlawful act of rebellion by the slave-holding Confederate
States. Indeed, Lincoln saw it as a tyrannical threat to the principle of
But movements like SVR counter with two points. First, they argue that
secession is a continuing theme from America's formative years. And second,
they say that Lincoln was not a noble savior of the Union, but a racist
warmonger intent on strengthening federal authority.
To mine intellectual capital for these ideas, Yankee-based SVR has dug deep
into what critics call the neo-Confederate vein of Southern ideology. The
group has promoted the work of scholars affiliated with the League of the
South, which advocates greater autonomy for the Southern states.
One of them, Donald Livingston, a professor of philosophy at Atlanta's Emory
University, wrote a cover story - "What Is Secession?" - for the Vermont
Commons newsletter, in which he philosophically defended the principle.
The 15 states that left the Soviet Union beginning in 1991, Dr. Livingston
says, show that secession can be a peaceful instrument to dissolve an empire
that's become dangerously large.
"The public corporation known as the United States is too large," he says. "It
needs to be downsized like any other corporation."
Secession was a vital part of American history, Livingston and others say. New
England, for instance, tried to secede several times, most notably in 1814
over the war with Britain. The Declaration of Independence, they insist, was a
secessionist document - not a revolutionary appeal to natural rights, as other
historians maintain. And the right of secession, they argue, is implied in the
"The right to coerce a state in the Union is not delegated to the federal
government," says Mr. Burnell of Christian Exodus.
AT ODDS WITH LINCOLN
Delegates in Montpelier didn't accept these arguments entirely. One man rose
to express admiration for Lincoln, whose statue sits in the state house lobby.
How could he support a position, he wondered aloud, that Lincoln fought so
hard to oppose?
Indeed, Lincoln was adamant. He held as sacred the right of a people to
overthrow a government that violates what the Declaration of Independence
called the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
But secession, he proclaimed, was not an exercise of minority rights; rather,
it was an attempt to nullify majority rule - a cornerstone of a democratic
constitutional republic. A government that allowed a fraction of its citizens
to reject its authority any time that community dissented from majority rule
would be no government at all.
"Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy," Lincoln
said at his first inaugural address in 1861.
Furthermore, Lincoln felt secession was based on an erroneous claim about the
nation's founding. In the secession view, expounded by South Carolina Sen.
John Calhoun in the 1840s and echoed by SVR's Naylor today, the Union was a
voluntary compact among sovereign states, which can be broken.
"The other view is no, the Constitution is not a pact among states; it is a
contract among all people in the nation - it's an irreversible commitment,"
says Stephen Presser, a legal historian at Northwestern University in
QUESTIONS OF LEGALITY
Today, most experts say states have no legal right to secede.
"To exercise the right of secession requires a violation of national law,"
says Herman Belz, a professor of history at the University of Maryland.
That didn't stop some frustrated voters in blue states from urging secession
after President Bush won reelection last November. Nor will it stop SVR, which
pledges to use all nonviolent means for Vermont to become "independent."
In fact, the group is already thinking nationally, with founder Naylor and
author Kirkpatrick Sale teaming up to form the Middlebury Institute, a think
tank devoted to secession.
Observers and SVR devotees alike say it will be difficult to gain popular
support. "[SVR is] very sincere, but it has absolutely no chance of
happening," says Eric Davis, a professor of political science at Vermont's
But SVR takes inspiration from the history implied in its name. Vermont was an
independent republic once before, between 1777 and 1791.