Life, Liberty and the Persuit of an Independent Vermont

Author: Andrea LaRocca

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united state of ... Vermont?" Yes, you may have to rethink the Pledge of Allegiance. And no, that's not a joke, at least not if the Second Vermont Republic (SVR) has anything to say about it. This newly formed democratic grassroots group is devoted to restoring Vermont to its original 1777-1791 status of an independent republic - in other words, establishing Vermont as a sovereign nation. It has been steadily recruiting support and making its case to Vermont citizens with an increasingly loud voice.

The message of the SVR was recently heard at an Oct. 8 University of Vermont lecture entitled "Vermont Independence Movement." Professor Thomas H. Naylor, who is a former Duke University economics professor of 30 years and was a visiting economics professor at Middlebury in 1993, spoke on behalf of SVR to explain the group's purpose, reasoning, and future actions.

As one of the founding members of the SVR and the author of "The Vermont Manifesto," a book that details the possible seccession of Vermont, Naylor is considered an expert on the subject. Wasting no time at the lecture, he posed four questions to the audience for consideration and promised that he would answer these on behalf of the SVR: Why should Vermont secede from the United States? Would it be economically possible for Vermont to secede? Would it be constitutional for Vermont to secede? What is the politic feasibility of secession?

Addressing the first question, Naylor argued that that no empire has withstood the test of time. He is convinced that the U.S. empire is now at the point when it is no longer sustainable "economically, agriculturally, socially, culturally and environmentally." He specifically noted how globalization, the full-spectrum dominance of the United States, imperial overstretch, the war on terrorism and congressional gridlock are slowly eroding the power of the American empire. Naylor proposed that Vermont recognize this declining empire and secure its own sovereignty while it still can,

Furthermore, Naylor contended that Vermont is drastically different than other states. It therefore should, by all rights, be an independent nation-state. "Vermont is smaller, more rural, more democratic, less violent, less commercial, more egalitarian and more independent than most states," said Naylor. He pointed out, for instance, that Vermont has no military bases, no large cities and no huge companies. As an independent nation, he argued, no one would have any reason to attack Vermont. "And what would they do anyway, burn the sugar maple crop?" he joked. Naylor emphasized that Vermont is not a threat to anyone, yet the United States is a current threat to Vermont, in terms of the possible risk of the re-institution of military conscription. Appealing to the unique character of Vermont that he had earlier defined, Naylor questioned the audience, "How many of you are willing to risk your life for McDonalds, gas-guzzling SUVs, Bill Gates, and Fortune-500 companies?"

Next, Naylor turned to what he called the "myth" that Vermont could not economically survive as an independent country. He noted that Vermont has a population of 608,000 people, already making it larger than 50 countries worldwide. Of the 10 richest countries in the world, five, such as Norway and Denmark, have smaller populations than Vermont. Furthermore, the state annually imports $3 billion worth of goods and exports slightly less. Naylor argued this gives Vermont a solid foundation for economic independence. While he admitted that Vermont could not be economically self-sufficient, he again compared it to other small countries, noting that Japan, for instance, is also not economically self-sufficient yet is still obviously a powerful and successful nation.

To insure economic independence as a nation, Naylor proposed the Green Mountain Strategy. This economic plan focuses on producing high quality, high value, high price goods for niche markets (which Vermont already does), as well as further investing in the sustainable agricultural practices that Vermont also currently employs. Naylor comically mentioned that Vermont need only to focus on translating its reasons for independence into products, since "selling the Vermont mystique, both politically and actually, is what may make this work."

At long last, Naylor addressed what many people view as the most important issue of all - the constitutionality of Vermont secession. Naylor, however, stated that the SVR is simply following the intentions of our forefathers. According to the Declaration of Independence, "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." He contended, "140 years ago, Abe Lincoln did a number on us and convinced us that secession in unconstitutional. Nothing is farther from the truth." For several specific political reasons, including nullification precedents, ratification precedents, the compact of sovereign states, and the 10th Amendment, Naylor argued that not only are secession actions constitutional, but they are also promoted by the constitution in times and for reasons such as those that Vermont is now facing.

He concluded with a discussion of the political feasibility of Vermont secession. He pointed out that in 1985, nearly no one would predict that by 1989 the Soviet Union would no longer exist - in other words, history has shown that anything is possible. With this in mind, Naylor outlined a political movement for secession. It would begin with a citizens' request that calls upon a statewide representative convention to rescind the 1791 request to join the U.S. union. Such an action would have to be approved by two-thirds of the representative constituency. If approved, Naylor says that Vermont would then deliver a statement of their independence (likely modeled after the Declaration of Independence) to Washington D.C. At this point, Naylor said Vermont would simply have to act as an independent nation-state, though he admitted there would likely be some national backlash. Naylor does think that there is the possibility of Vermont secession being non-violent, suggesting that the David and Goliath metaphor may apply in this instance.

At the end of Naylor's argument for Vermont secession, another member of the SVR, John Polk, took the stand and read the first draft of the Vermont Declaration of Independence, which he is currently writing and revising. Both Naylor and Polk then answered questions and specifically asked for suggestions about the Declaration, since they hope to read this on the steps of the Vermont capital next fall.

Not surprisingly, the audience had mixed reactions to the message of the lecture and to the SVR's Declaration - some signed up immediately to join the SVR, while others walked out halfway through the event. UVM student David Bates '06 seemed cautious about the SVR's message, saying, "I don't think secession is a good idea, even though Vermont is very different from the rest of the union. I think it's better to stay in and change the union from within than to be an outcast." Ken Lawless, a concerned Vermont resident, echoed these sentiments: "Secession should be a last resort because it would leave the other 49 states in the clutches of Bush. A small state can lead! We shouldn't take Cherry Garcia away from America yet. We should lead from within and change the union before we change everything else."

Regardless of these views, the SVR will continue to advocate Vermont independence throughout the state. If you would like more information about the Second Vermont Republic, visit www.vermontsoveignty.com, call 802-651-7642, or attend one of the upcoming SVR meetings (publicized in local newspapers). And if nothing else, consider the idea of a Vermont Pledge of Allegiance.