Green Mountain Grumblings, Moonbats Over Montpelier, And The Secession Of The Socialists by Doug Wrenn

Green Mountain Grumblings, Moonbats Over Montpelier, And The Secession Of The Socialists

By Doug Wrenn

June 19, 2007

In the 1980's, Ken Burns gave us, "The Civil War," a now famous nine volume documentary, which very graphically yet poignantly told the story of our most catastrophic and divisive national tragedy bearing the same title. Some disenchanted and very radical liberals in our nation's bucolic and otherwise serene northeast corner would now like to create the sequel to that unforgotten and turbulent historic event.

For reasons appearing to include, but not limited to, the war in Iraq, global warming, the energy crisis, the hot button issues of abortion, so-called gay rights, the legalization of marijuana, and the perception of Fascism, incessantly repeated on its web site at www.vermontrepublic.org, The Second Vermont Republic (SVR), founded by Thomas H. Naylor, has coalesced several secession factions throughout the State of Vermont to peacefully procure separation and sovereignty from the United States. That's right, you got it. Canada and Mexico want to merge with us into a vast, borderless supercontinental union, while little Vermont, the once solidly conservative rural Yankee bastion, now with its displaced New Yorkers and disheveled, tree hugging, pacifist, gray pony-tailed, granny-glass bespectacled, burned out flannel-wearing hippies (some of whom are also now undoubtedly tenured college professors), who never either received or believed the memo that the 60's ended, now wants to be its own country. Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake about it, "Farmer Brown" may have left the state, but the cuckoos are still in the nest.

Vermonters appear to now agree with the rest of us that they are, indeed, a second thumb on the same hand. Vermont's radical, trademark liberalism goes well beyond the liberal realm and into open socialism. Its voters pride themselves that they have a genuine socialist, at least, in ideology, Bernie Sanders, now representing them in the US Senate, and according to its web site, even he's not good enough to satisfy the far left SVR minions. The small city of Burlington, Vermont's largest municipality (population, approximately 39,000), boasts a 2002 resolution on its municipal web site, expressing formal opposition to the Iraq War. Somewhere between paving roads and maintaining schools, the city's government officials obviously seem to have enough spare time to initiate foreign policy. That's so quaint, in a loopy, Vermont kind of way. The state also has a Progressive Party, which is the home affiliation to Bernie Sanders, and was begun during his mayoral term in Burlington in the 80's. The state also has several Progressive Party members serving at all government levels. Vermont also became the first state to legalize civil unions, courtesy of then Governor, Howard "The Screamer" Dean. Suffice to say that in recent decades, Vermont has pretty much done an about face to the rest of the country, stuck its thumb in our eye, and beat to its own drum. Speaking of beating drums, I'm not so convinced that this is the same Vermont that colonial patriot, Ethan Allen, quite envisioned.

Beyond their surprising approval of the Second Amendment, I stand in the far opposite camp of the SVR crowd on issues, but in all objectivity, the group's web site is articulate, provocative and intriguing. These folks may be a little quirky, but they're no dummies by any means.

As radical as the theme of SVR is, the group stresses a peaceful secession from the US. Unfortunately, so did South Carolina in 1861, and we saw what that brought about. The home page of the web site also cites a partial passage of the Declaration Of Independence, as penned by Thomas Jefferson, "…governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to abolish it…" What liberty-loving American from any state can argue with that logical and righteous ideal? Currently, we are a country oppressed by tyrants, from both parties. Just in recent news, President Bush is still determined to push illegal immigration amnesty down the throats of the American people, while the vast majority of us oppose it and pressured the Senate to kill the bill. In Massachusetts, Nancy "Botox" Pelosi rounded up her troops, and with the aid of the snake oil selling Bay State US Senators Teddy "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy and John "The Solicited Purple Heart" Kerry, strong-armed Massachusetts state lawmakers to deny a vote to their constituents on the contentious issue of gay marriage. (Not to throw gas on the fire, but I wonder on what kind of plane Pelosi flew from the Beltway to Bean Town!) Our country has been hijacked by partisan tyrants from both sides of the aisle. I would hardly shed a tear to see our federal government overthrown and rebuilt by the people, with a renewed and genuine adherence to what these predatory political hacks consider toilet paper, and what we, the fed up citizen-patriots still reverently and affectionately cherish and call The United States Constitution.

And speaking of the United States Constitution, if anyone among us were so fortunate, or perhaps, unfortunate, to be, say, be 250 or so years of age, that aged fellow citizen, if at all versed in the Constitution, would likely notice some lightness of weight to the newer founding document. That change in weight is due to the change that occurred in the transition from our nation's then fetus status in government from The Articles of Confederation to our infant status in government with the Constitution. Specifically deleted in that transition, was a small codicil from Article 13, "..and the Union shall be perpetual.." Yes, that's right. As horrific as the Civil War was, secession, since the inception of the Constitution, is at least passively, a right of all states. The perpetual Union clause of Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation was not expressly carried over to the Constitution. Nevertheless, even if Vermont could formally forward such a drastic endeavor, I don't see the US allowing the Green Mountain State to quietly go away into that good night. Rest assured that the same federal government that is so perpetually timid about securing our dangerously porous southern national border with armed troops would think nothing at all about marching armed troops into Vermont's capital, Montpelier to quell even a peaceful secessionist insurrection. During the time of South Carolina's secession, one observer noted that South Carolina was too big to be an insane asylum, but also too small to be its own country. That is another noteworthy commonality between South Carolina and Vermont, at least in terms being its own country, anyway.

The Civil War was hardly the high mark of secession, although it certainly was the by-product of the most grandiose and most nearly successful attempt in our history. The entire region of New England contemplated secession during the War of 1812, over needed trade ties with England. During the Civil War, a fractious and disenchanted Georgia considered secession for the second time, this time from the Confederacy. According to SVR's web site, the notable ski resort town of Killington has given thought to seceding from Vermont and joining the State of New Hampshire, over exasperation of excessive taxation. Ironically, when you further peruse the SVR web site and see the group's socialist agenda, it seems inevitable that given any prospect of success, other Vermont municipalities will follow suit with Killington vs. Vermont and Georgia vs. The Confederacy. Historically, the ultimate demise of free governments is the deterioration of moral principles and an entitlement-driven citizenry, who literally legislate themselves into bankruptcy and become vulnerably ripe for dictatorial take-over. Given free reign, the very form of government an independent Vermont so desires will, over time, ignite the flame of its own demise, and instead return it to the (somewhat) perceived form of government it so despises.

Not only is interest in secession not new, it is also is not isolated to Vermont. Links on SVR's web site actually offer some well-written essays, as well as web sites of similar groups in other states, such as New York and Alabama, yes, Alabama. (Newsflash: the war ended in 1865!) A few of these secessionist groups are even holding a secessionist convention in Chattanooga, Tennessee in October. (I hear that this year, they're raffling off New Jersey, and the runner-up prize is a Chevy.) Considering the shindig is being held in a Marriott, a hotel with digs not at all too shabby, I would imagine that sufficient interest exists to sufficiently pay the convention tab of this noted posh luxury hotel. And having attended a number of conferences on other issues in the past, I also know firsthand that the real conventioneering and networking unofficially occurs during the evening in the hotel bar, after the last lecture is over. At the secessionist convention in Chattanooga, however, remember, conventioneers, separate checks for those libations! Bearing in mind the traditionally tight frugality of Yankees, somehow I don't think that will be much of a problem for the Vermont contingent, however.

SVR's site also equates a successful Vermont secession based on the fact that the US, Russia and Yugoslavia have all supposedly failed at trying to unify different peoples of different mindsets. It also mentions how a very diverse Switzerland has amicably existed with all its internal cultural differences since the 13th Century. The SVR site, however, does not mention the recent increase in crime and reported rampant acts of exclusion, racism and xenophobia that many recent immigrants to that allegedly neutral mountain utopia have encountered, as per a Wikipedia article on Switzerland. I would also suggest to Mr. Naylor and his cronies, that their northern neighbor, Canada, has had little success at trying to look the other way while a French speaking and less than happy Quebec Province continues to hold its breath and stamp its feet within that nation's otherwise all English speaking provinces within its national boundaries. It's also a shame that the SVR crowd so detests the War in Iraq. If they were to pay a little more attention, they would see that even without US intervention, the violent ongoing interface between the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shia make the legendary neighbor squabble of the Hatfields and the McCoys look like a civilized and well-structured high school debate. Then of course, there are the radical Wahhabiist Muslims. Just pick a country. Those bloodthirsty barbarians don't get along with anybody they can't forcefully convert. By whatever means Switzerland formerly held the glue on the seems, it too, now seems to be living proof that a house divided truly cannot stand, but then again, that's a Biblical quotation, taken from the Book Of Matthew, Chapter 12, verse 25, and later famously repeated by Abraham Lincoln, one of those dreaded, heathen Republicans, no less. On both counts, such wisdom is probably considered hate speech in Vermont, so I wouldn't expect the Moonbats of the Maple forests to understand.

Having visited the state on numerous occasions, I challenge anyone to name many, if any other places in the continental US that are as close to being an aesthetically picturesque slice of Heaven as Vermont. At some point, however, the Yankees from the Green Mountains became the black sheep of the United States. On SVR's web site, some allegedly verbatim remarks from Fox News pundit, Bill O'Reilly are listed during a segment in which O'Reilly interviewed Naylor on his show, "The O'Reilly Factor." The accompanying commentary on the site expresses shocked kudos at SVR's support from the "conservative" talk show host. Call him what you will, but personally, I've never really gotten a firm handle on O'Reilly, who true to form, touts himself as being more of an independent, and contrary to members of both the left and right (but admittedly, mostly the right) who occasionally wish to claim kinship with him. Indeed, I have seen him express views from both far sides of the ideological limits. To the limited extent that O'Reilly is a conservative, I can understand his support of SVR's movement. While an independent, O'Reilly often exhibits the same type of sarcastic and cynical humor as yours truly. (Hey, don't hate me. It's a gift. What can I say?) I have, on more than one occasion, heard O'Reilly make sarcastic remarks on both his TV and radio programs about Vermont and its loony politics. I would not be at all surprised if O'Reilly's take on this whole adventure is to simply let Vermont go, as the US doesn't really need the state, and Vermonters certainly don't seem to any longer wish to be a part of the US anyway, so what's the harm? To the extent that O'Reilly is a conservative, I am sure that like me, he also must concede that Vermont's overall opposition to the US government is well justified, although for different reasons. I'm just filling in the blanks with my own imagination here, since the complete text of the interview is not quoted on SVR's web site, but my guessed mindset of O'Reilly's take on this issue certainly seems plausible, kind of like how a parent sometimes allows a bratty kid to have his boisterous tantrum over some trite matter until finally, he's out of steam and shuts up. Ditto. Let Vermont at least have its fun, if not its sovereignty. For a small, rural state that ranks 49th in population and 43rd in area, the loss of Vermont would realistically somewhat hurt the US, but it wouldn't be devastating by any means. The real future danger would be that other states might later follow suit, which would be disastrous for the country, especially in the wake of a rapidly emerging and hostile China as the next world super power. There is, unquestionably, strength in numbers regarding national security. Barring any future state secessions, if Vermont does get its dander up to leave, but Puerto Rico finally makes up its mind and jumps on board, it's pretty much a wash anyway. In the end, if Vermont has its druthers, and Wisconsin and New York keep cranking out great cheese, what do we really have to lose, Maple syrup?

Then again, some of those intuitive Yankee tree huggers just might turn that sweet, breakfast commodity into a viable alternative fuel source. As gas prices continue to soar, and now even corn prices are drastically rising, thus creating a dent in the whole Ethanol debate, perhaps we should pay a little less attention to the corn farmers in the old State of Iowa and a little more attention to the socialist mavericks in the new Republic of Vermont for our future energy needs. Al Gore could have a sequel to his last cinematic farce, and promote maple syrup as the answer to global warming and with reduced carbon emissions, and President Bush could again do what he does best by abusing executive privilege and usurping the Constitutional functions of Congress by "fast-tracking" yet another free trade abomination. Just think of it; some of those lost jobs in India, China, Mexico, etc. might come to the newly formed People's Socialist Moonbat Republic Of Vermont, exhaust fumes from trucks on I-91 and I-89 would smell a lot sweeter, and both tyrannical major political parties will be placated until we can figure out how to finally throw the worthless, degenerate bums out. Picture that. We would be independent from foreign oil and instead, only dependent on foreign syrup. I could live with that. As Jackie Gleason used to say, "How sweet it is!"

Despite the fact that Fort Ticonderoga would likely be transformed into an environmentally safe and politically correct "free range" Maple tree farm (of course, only after the necessary environmental impact statement is approved), perhaps Ethan Allen just might be proud of this next generation of "Green Mountain Boys" after all.