Thoughts of An American Citizen

OK. Bold, Italic, and Underline should all be working.

Alignment: not yet. (You will see the above comment correct itself when it becomes operational.

Smileys: all currently operational.

Colors: not yet.

I encourage the use of these features becaues it is difficult to often convey "emphasis" or other elements of speaking in writing. Please take advantage of them and let me know what other features you believe would be helpful.

For registered users a number of features and facilities will be made available. Also membership can be obtained for this site as well as related ones (Grapski Defense, Alachua Living, Alachua Project, Open Records Project) by following the directions on the top left of your screen. This will also give you one login access to numerous sites beyond this one.

The registered users features have not yet been implemented but they will allow private discussions and live chats, as well as resources for organizing groups for discussion, organization, etc. They will also evolve, if utilized, into a means whereby the discussions (or certain ones) can be moderated by groups that organize themselves for that purpose. I want you to do much of that rather than me.

And I will occasionally respond, as here, to questions regarding the website as well as to particular questions that may deserve an immediate response or, alternatively, by starting a new discussion thread for the particular topic. Someone mentioned the issue of the Nazi-strategy of negating a debate. It, rather than the Nazi reference (an ad hominent reference would be different - "You are a Nazi, therefore what you have to say is irrelevant), deserves some discussion. Because it is an all too commonly accepted means of eliminating an important point and analogy. We should not be criticized (nor apologize) for references or analogies to the Nazis, nor should Obama have to apologize for the words of Reverend Wright, John McCain for the words of "Pastor" Hagee, or Hillary Clinton for making reference to the primary campaign of Robert Kennedy. But this will require a thoughtful response and I am contemplating just such a thing. For the Nazi-ad-hominem, when encountered, is no less a logical fallacy (and thus no less "valid" in refuting a point) than is the How-dare-you-reference-the-Nazis retort.

Listener,

Very interesting questions. I will have to do a little bit of research to fully answer your question definitively.

I suspect, however, that the issue here is not the misunderstanding of "democracy vs. republic" as in this topic - but the issue of INDEPENDENT status of Vermont (not as a state in the Union). Much as we once had the "Republic of Texas" before it entered the union. (Indeed if ever in London - you can go to the Texas embassy - which is now a restuarant and bar. Actually kind of interesting - but as you might imagine - the majority of clientelle there seem to be Americans!).

Years ago - when doing a degree in history (focusing on American history - and in particular the founding era) - I wrote a very lengthy paper (about 200 pages) on the history of New Hampshire. Unfortunately that, along with all my other writings, have now been lost due to "ordeal" I have been going through the past two years with Alachua. Also all of the books that I had on the history of New Hampshire. (I was interested in particular, at that time, in NH and RI - both for their OPPOSITION to the Constitution and some of the "political games" played to get them to ratify. NH originally rejected the Constitution in their ratification - only to have the vote ignored by an act of the chair who banged the gavel and proclaimed the meeting adjourned as the vote in the negative came through. A few months later, with an attempt to have different delegates (and indeed having 10 delegates LOCKED in their lodgings and unable to attend - NH BARELY ratified (by ten votes) - becoming the 9th state - and thus "legally" enacting the Constitution (under the un-adopted Constitution - but therefore UNLAWFULLY -as the existing law (the Articles of Confederation - required a UNANIMOUS (13) vote not just 9).

Vermont was a hotly contested territory. Was it the property of New York? New Hampshire? Indeed Maine was part of Massachussets. And there was a relationship to Massachussets in early Vermont too - making it even more complex. The British eliminated Massachussets claims early on. But later the Governor of New Hampshire began granting lands in Vermont. This was met equally by the Governor of New York who then began the same practice. Indeed you may recall Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys from the Revolution. But I believe they were originally created to defend the NH settlers against those of NY.

It was after this that the settlers of Vermont declared themselves and independent "republic" (no reference to the idea of republic vs. democracy - but here, as at the time was normal, the terms were used synonymously - indeed I think you will find the history of Vermont as one of the MOST truly democratic entities in this period of time - a history that Vermont has long been proud of and I think leads to much of the "independence" of spirit that still has a foothold in Vermont).

It was in 1776 and 1777 - as the war began - that Vermont declared itself independent. I believe, at first, it was called New Connecticut! (Although I am not sure why that name was chosen - as they were not becoming "part of" Connecticut.)

Vermont was the first new state entered into the union after the Constitution was ratified. (I believe it was in 1791 - and I believe, but am not certain, that this was AFTER RI finally conceded under enormous pressure to ratify the Constitution.

But that gets off topic. But none of those entities were originally accepting of Vermont's independence (NY, NH, or even Britain).

Today there appears to be a small group raising the issue of "secession" (and thus recreating the concept of an independent Republic - free-standing FROM the United States). I am not certain of all of the arguments - although I have come across a few very compelling ones.

It is my view that the people of states (or people in general) ought to have the right to secede from the Union - otherwise the idea that they are members by consent (rather than coercion) makes no sense. But this is certainly not an easy topic - nor is it one that many "in the mainstream" would find credible (but then again - neither did the mainstream of 1776).

I have come across some essays written by Kirkpatrick Sale on this topic. But I have not had a chance to read them in detail and I am not certain that this is the Kirkpatrick Sale that I am familar with (a very
interesting historian). I have a suspicion that it may be. Sale's books, that I have read, include his history of SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) and Rebels against the Future (on the Luddites).

I agree it is not likely to happen - but it certainly is interesting. And nothing is ever likely to happen - unless someone is talking about it or trying to make it happen. I'd be interested in finding out more about what this movement has written about and on what bases (and for what aims) they have established this cause.

I did see somewhere that nearly 10% of the Vermont population is in favor of the idea. That might seem like a small percentage. But it is hardly different from the percentages of those at the time of the Revolution - particularly at its early stages (and it is likely that only about a third ever really were ardent supporters of the cause - with a third on the other side in opposition - and the other third simply without a position).