I believe this was settled 140 years ago. But putting down secession in Vermont shouldn't be too hard. Heh.

I belong to the Sam Colt Tribe, God Made Man and Sam Colt made them equal! LOL!!

On Vermont, if they want to leave and the majority of the folks in that state vote to succeed, I say let them go. The union only works because the majority in each state want to be a part of it. When the majority does not then they in effect are saying they don't want to be a part of this experiment anymore. Let them go. They will offer little or no security threat to the rest of us and offer little in the way of commerce that will negatively affect the GDP. Those that want to remain U.S. citizens will move and stay U.S. Citzens. Vermont can then change it's name to Southern Canada or Western France and live happily ever after. This is a win win for the rest of us.

It would also decide once and for all if the U.S. is really made up of 50 Soverign States or if those state lines mean nothing.  Of course, I'm waiting for the Republic of Texas to return!  Remember the Alamo!!!!

-- Edited by salesortonscom at 11:35, 2007-06-05

I was doing a brief amount of research (in between running reports here at work), and came across the History Channel website talking about secession.

Had a couple of interesting things I will need to explore further when I have the time. One, it indicated that an 1869 Supreme Court ruling on -- Texas v. White, 7 Wallace 700, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) -- confirmed that the Federal government supercedes any supposed state right to secession as a result of the Union victory in the Civil War.   http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=74&invol=700

It also indicated "Since 1865, states'-rights advocates have generally limited themselves to an insistence on a strict construction of the terms of the Constitution, whereby the federal government would be kept from such encroachment. Opponents of states' rights have supported a liberal interpretation of the Constitution, asserting that the federal government may legally exercise implied powers that, while not explicitly stated, are in accord with the general powers that are enunciated in the Constitution."

I found that interesting in light of some of the contemporary discussions that occur here. It would seem then that were all of us living back 145 years or so ago, the membership of this forum would be divided on the field of battle. Made me wonder if anyone ever considers that maybe some of the political views one espouses could actually put one in rebellion against the nation he or she says that he or she loves?

Cat, has anyone advocated overthrow of the government on this board? Of course not. Therefore, no one's political views on this board put them in rebellion against our government. It is offensive to suggest otherwise. I would suggest, not in a moderator capacity but as a friend, that you go back and edit your post.
To work within the system to change your country's direction is not rebellion.

-- Edited by arbilad at 13:10, 2007-06-05

Arbi, I don't see the need to go back and edit anything, because I was not accusing anyone of anything. I was simply talking about the hypothetical based on what I read.

There is no need for anyone to get there knickers in a knot...

I think people are ignoring a very important fact here... Vermont would have a corner on trade of Ben & Jerry's ice cream! They could jack the price up to the remaining 49 states as it would then become international trade!

FWIW I think both Cat and Convert seemed condescending in this exchange... but I doubt it's meant personally. That's just the way they come across. Two stubborn folks with strong opinions...

Did Convert delete hers? Cuz I'm not seeing it. ??