Let Vermont Go, Reason Against a Second Civil War
There has been a relatively recent political movement in the state of Vermont that it secede from the union - even garnering 13% popularity in that state, up 5% from last year. “The argument for secession is that the U.S. has become an empire that is essentially ungovernable — it’s too big, it’s too corrupt and it no longer serves the needs of its citizens . . .” Who can blame them?
Though the prospect of Vermont actually seceding is highly unlikely, it invokes the question: If Vermont peacefully secedes, would the U.S. federal government attack them?
Russell Wheeler, a constitutional law expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., states:
I always thought the Civil War settled that . . . If Vermont had a powerful enough army and said, `We’re leaving the union,’ and the national government said, `No, you’re not,’ and they fought a war over it and Vermont won, then you could say Vermont proved the point. But that’s not going to happen . . .
Indeed, the right of Vermont to secede is much less a Constitutional problem as it is a problem with the comparative size of Vermont’s military. One would think that citizens of the U.S. would find an invasion of Vermont unpalatable in these times - especially if Vermont were able to do so peacefully. However, even if Vermont’s secession were peaceful, there would definitely be areas of conflict.
Consider the garrisoning of U.S. military within Vermont’s borders. Federal spending on the military-industrial complex in Vermont was $502 million in 2006 (up from 191.7 million in 1997). The US Army and National Guard currently occupies 800,000 square feet of buildings and over 14,000 acres of land in 30 separate locations throughout the state. Burlington Vermont is home to the 158th fighter wing of the Air National Guard. There are also 4,919 military permanent personnel stationed in Vermont (2005), and two camps: Camp Ethan (11,000 acres - 20,000 troops trained per year), and Camp Johnson (headquarters of the Guard, serving 5 battalions).
One could envision that, in the event of a Vermont secession, a worst-case scenario for resolving the status of the U.S.’s military presence there would look something like this:
The standing U.S. president at the time refuses to acknowledge the independent state of Vermont. Recognizing its possession of Federal properties, Vermont sends envoys to Washington D.C. to meet with the President in an offer to pay for the property, thus facilitating a civil separation of the state from the union. Yet the President refuses to acknowledge or hold these diplomatic meetings in continued denial of Vermont’s independence and an aversion to legitimizing its government.
Furthermore, wishing to deny Vermont’s right to secession, the Federal bases in Vermont remained garrisoned. After a prolonged standoff of almost a half-year, and no diplomatic progress being made or even attempted, the U.S. Government prepares an air-lift of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit to reinforce Camp Ethan and Camp Johnson. The citizens of Vermont begin to sense that the alternatives have be exhausted, and in light of growing nervousness (without some other rational justification for federal occupation) that the Federal presence will be used to blockade the state or extract federal taxes, or even worse outright attack the state, Vermont the extends a deadline for U.S. troops to evacuate these camps.
The deadline passes, and Vermont then proceeds to secure these bases by force - accomplishing its goal while inflicting no casualties or serious injuries on the U.S. garrison. The U.S. President responds to the taking of Camps Ethan and Johnson by invading Vermont, burning Montpelier, Rutland, and Burlington to the ground, waging war against civilians, and killing over 12,000 Vermont secessionists–previously known as Americans.
This story has already played out once in our history.
On the other hand, the best case scenario can be stated in the alternative: Vermont is allowed to secede without concern. The U.S. government accepts payment for federal properties held in the state. Vermont’s economy is able to thrive and prosper under local rule with less overbearing and centralized government and fewer taxes. Other states perhaps follow Vermont’s example - or are at least tempted to - forcing the federal government itself to reduce its size, reduce taxes, and itself shrink to satisfy only its constitutional role in order to maintain the States’ membership in the union. Time passing, Vermont would likely be readmitted into the union, attracted back under a common sense of identity and without the concern for the monstrosity of government that had oppressed its people in the years prior.
Violence and use of force are not the answer in the event of Vermont’s secession. Ron Paul has said of the Civil War:
I think there would have been a better way. Every other major country of the world was able to get rid of slavery without a Civil War. The Civil War wasn’t fought over slavery anyway; the war was fought over unifying and making a strong centralized state. You could have paid for all the slaves and released them and there were proposals like that; that’s the way the British did it. Every major country in the world got rid of slavery except us; it was not necessary and there were tariffs involved and many other reasons why the Civil War was fought. But if you read Lincoln carefully you’ll realize that Lincoln was not the greatest opponent of slavery and if you don’t look at that you are denying a very important part of our history.
(4, 1 votes)
Loading ...Related Posts
- Hit Him Again One-Week Hiatus
- NOOO! Not Miss South Carolina!
- The Education Bubble
- Reject Crime Registries
- Mitt Romney Inflicted with Socialism
No Responses to “Let Vermont Go, Reason Against a Second Civil War”
No comments yet