Since Carlos was saying how Vermont seems to be in sync with Canada, I thought I should start a topic about a very small movement about Vermont becoming part of Canada.


http://www.vermontcanada.org/


Comments? I am interested to hear how our friends north of the border feel about this.



Cat

as flattering as that is, stay with your own country. make a difference there by being a thorn in the side of the bush establishment. imagine the hooplah and the potential violence of a state breaking away from the union.

as flattering as that is, stay with your own country. make a difference there by being a thorn in the side of the bush establishment. imagine the hooplah and the potential violence of a state breaking away from the union.


While I voted "yes" at the web site, my real inclination goes along with this.  If we were to switch, and elect Bernie Sanders to Parliment, he wouldn't really stand out, nor would Pat Lahey.  In Washington, both are big voices for the average working stiff.  So is Jim Jeffords, but he is stepping down.  So while the idea of being a Canadian has some appeal - a much more civilized country - I guess my inclination is to stay and fight.  Not that Canada doesn't have its problems.  You guys could have had British culture, French cuisine, and US technology.  What did you get?  British cuisine, French rechnology, and US culture - poor choices  ;)

Cat and I plan to visit the Atlantic provinces over the summer.  We will eat LOTS of lobster  ;D

I'm with sputnik on this one. As flattering as this may be, I seriously doubt your Federal Govt would allow you to join us.

At least wait until PM Martin is gone anyway. ;)

And FYI, In Canada, we have a lot more diversity than just British and French, so you would have to get used to that as well.

I'm with sputnik on this one. As flattering as this may be, I seriously doubt your Federal Govt would allow you to join us.




Probably not.  Remember the last time some states tried to leave, what the federal government did.

I say let them stay.  Vermont may elect some of the worst people to congress, they do help commerce.  The maple syrup business is one example.  Also they are probably the most lax on guns, something Canada would not like.  Vermont makes Mississippi look like New York on guns.

And FYI, In Canada, we have a lot more diversity than just British and French, so you would have to get used to that as well.



I know that there is much diversity in Canada.  Had that Chinese luch thing (Dim Sum?) in Montreal a few years ago.  I know that you guys have a vibrant multi-ethnic culture and as much diversity as we in the states.  It was a joke.


Probably not. Remember the last time some states tried to leave, what the federal government did.

I say let them stay. Vermont may elect some of the worst people to congress, they do help commerce. The maple syrup business is one example. Also they are probably the most lax on guns, something Canada would not like. Vermont makes Mississippi look like New York on guns.


Clearly, Congress would be adverse (to say the least) to the idea of Vermont joining Canada.

Actually, though, Vermont has elected some of the BEST people to Congress.  It was a Vermonter who called for censure of Joe MacCarthy, it was a Vermonter who proposed the development of land grant colleges.  Our currant delegation are among the most independent, least influanced by special interests, have the most integrity, and are the most dedicated to the ideals of a pluralist democracy than any congressional deligation I (or anyone else) can name.  Our 2 Senators and  lone representative are, IMHO, the three best representatives in Congress.

We Vermonters do believe the the 2nd amendment (myself included) but we have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country, PER CAPITA, and one of the lowest gun crime rates.  We are a peaceful, respectful, tolerant people (do whatever,  just don't scare the horses).  But don't push us - we are fircely independent.  And by the way, Vermont's per capita sacrifice in the currant wars, as in the Civil War is well avove that of any other state.

We Vermonters do believe the the 2nd amendment (myself included) but we have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country, PER CAPITA, and one of the lowest gun crime rates.  We are a peaceful, respectful, tolerant people (do whatever,  just don't scare the horses).  But don't push us - we are fircely independent.   And by the way, Vermont's per capita sacrifice in the currant wars, as in the Civil War is well avove that of any other state.


I know Vermont does.  Dean, as bad as he was, was very pro-second amendment, and had the backing of the NRA and GOA.  Vermont is one of only two states that I know of that allow anyone, at any time, any where, to carry a gun, concealed or not, with or without a permit.  I believe that is why Vermont has such a low gun crime rate.  The only other state that has that kind of "open carry" laws is Arizona.

One thing of minor importance, America has never had a civil war.  A civil war is when two opposing armies fight for the same government.  The American war between the states (1861-1865) involved one part of America trying to break away from the other and form a separate government, so technically it wasn't a civil war.

I know Vermont does.  Dean, as bad as he was, was very pro-second amendment, and had the backing of the NRA and GOA.  Vermont is one of only two states that I know of that allow anyone, at any time, any where, to carry a gun, concealed or not, with or without a permit.  I believe that is why Vermont has such a low gun crime rate.  The only other state that has that kind of "open carry" laws is Arizona.

One thing of minor importance, America has never had a civil war.  A civil war is when two opposing armies fight for the same government.  The American war between the states (1861-1865) involved one part of America trying to break away from the other and form a separate government, so technically it wasn't a civil war.


Oh Lord, here we go again.

You Southerners like to call it the "War between the States".  As a northerner I could call it "the War of the Great rebellion" or evan the "War of the Great Treason", but why debate these semantical fine point of history here?  We could ask Chucky to set up another board dealing with questions of historical interpretation.  I would guess that we would have very few readers there, unfortunately.

Oh Lord, here we go again.

You Southerners like to call it the "War between the States".  As a northerner I could call it "the War of the Great rebellion" or evan the "War of the Great Treason", but why debate these semantical fine point of history here?  We could ask Chucky to set up another board dealing with questions of historical interpretation.  I would guess that we would have very few readers there, unfortunately.


I'd join in.  There are so many debatable questions, like would slavery have been prolonged in Britain if
it had to contend with the southern planters?  How long would slavery have lasted in the south, and would my great grands have been considered refugees or illegal immigrants.  As a person of color I am personally glad about outcome of the war. Whatever you want to call it GW, it did a wonders for the situation my greatgrands were in, and the situation I may have found myself in today if it hadn't been fought. Rally round the flag!

As a northerner I could call it "the War of the Great rebellion" or evan the "War of the Great Treason"

The war of northern aggression.

The war of northern aggression.


The war that ended the "aggression" that was slavery.  It was a war waged by wealthy slave owners, anyone owning 20 or more slaves was exempt from service.  That tell you anything? The rest is just Kool Aid.

The war that ended the "aggression" that was slavery.  It was a war waged by wealthy slave owners, anyone owning 20 or more slaves was exempt from service.  That tell you anything? The rest is just Kool Aid.


So 620,000 American deaths was worth it?  The fact that one out of every five southern white men died in that war....was it worth it to end a movement that would have eventually died from either social progress or advances in technology or both?

I know Vermont does.  Dean, as bad as he was, was very pro-second amendment, and had the backing of the NRA and GOA.  Vermont is one of only two states that I know of that allow anyone, at any time, any where, to carry a gun, concealed or not, with or without a permit.  I believe that is why Vermont has such a low gun crime rate.  The only other state that has that kind of "open carry" laws is Arizona.





I really don't understand how you can say "Dean, as bad as he was..." when you were not living in Vermont under his tenure. He did quite a bit for the state-like making sure that every kid under the age of 18 had health insurence, and low income people to have affordable heath insurence. I, personally benefited from that program. I only had to pay $20 every six months to have basic coverage. I had a co-pay of $2 to the doctor and $3 for the dentist. After he left office, the preminums went up to $40 and I think the co-pay also went up.

Dean also was a very fiscal conservitive. He made sure that this very small state had a surplus that had to be used after Duyba implemeted many of his programs that is bankrupting the states. Dean also made sure that EVERYONE paid their fair share for school taxes so that the smaller schools (which there are many in this states) had the funding comparable to the bigger schools.



Cat

So 620,000 American deaths was worth it?  The fact that one out of every five southern white men died in that war....was it worth it to end a movement that would have eventually died from either social progress or advances in technology or both?


Social progress? You've been to the South, right? You live there, don't you. I do, and I can tell you right now, the casualties WERE worth it. There are racists galore out here. You make a giant assumption by saying that "social progress" in an independent C.S.A. would have lead to the abolition of slavery.

So 620,000 American deaths was worth it?  The fact that one out of every five southern white men died in that war....was it worth it to end a movement that would have eventually died from either social progress or advances in technology or both?


Women and children were raped, people were tortured, whipped, set on by dogs, babies taken from there mothers, and the mother didn't even have the right to ask where.  Instead of one Sadaam there were hundreds and the fight by the confederates was one to ensure that they retained that right.  Were the deaths worth it?  Maybe not to you, but to the women and children who weren't raped, to the mothers who kissed their babies goodnight every night, to the people not whipped, hung, tortured, and exploited in the meanest sense, to the end(well in theory) of the absolute evil that despoiled the Constitution and made a mockery of the Bill of Rights, yeah it was worth it.  And let us be serious, the "movement" as you so capriciously call it would not ended without a fight.  The firehoses, lynchings, murders, rapes, and the everyday indignities suffered by the subsequent generations prove that.

So 620,000 American deaths was worth it?  The fact that one out of every five southern white men died in that war....was it worth it to end a movement that would have eventually died from either social progress or advances in technology or both?


As I suggested above, this is WAY off topic, but how can you call "the war of the great treason" "northern agression"?  You say that 1 of five southerns died defending the "rights" of 300,000 slave owners.  Was it worth it?  You bet your ugly a33.  Are you now going to defend slavery, which, by the way way, was not declining but inreasinging because of the demand for cotton.  More slaves were imported into the US in 1860 (illergaly) than were inported in 1808, when the trade was abolished.  I also notice that you don't mention the thousands of BLACK men who died fighhting for their freedom. 

I am absoulutely flabergasted that you could make such a post.

I know Vermont does.  Dean, as bad as he was,


Howard Dean did not win my 100% appoval, but he was a darn goog governor.  Fiscally responsible, he extended health care to lotys of people, and pusued a moderate agenda that most Repubs could find no fault with.  Howard was cool.

As I suggested above, this is WAY off topic, but how can you call "the war of the great treason" "northern agression"?  You say that 1 of five southerns died defending the "rights" of 300,000 slave owners.  Was it worth it?  You bet your ugly a33.  Are you now going to defend slavery, which, by the way way, was not declining but inreasinging because of the demand for cotton.  More slaves were imported into the US in 1860 (illergaly) than were inported in 1808, when the trade was abolished.  I also notice that you don't mention the thousands of BLACK men who died fighhting for their freedom. 

I am absoulutely flabergasted that you could make such a post.


There is no question that slavery would be over today, wheather or not the south won that war.  The fact it is, the war between the states caused more American deaths than any other war.  620,000 people died.  Was that really worth ending something that was already on it's deathbed when the war started?

And cotton was not increasing, not exports anyway.  That's one of the reasons the south lost the war.  In 1861, right at the start of the war, Egypt starting exporting cheaper and better cotton to Britain and France, two countries the south thought they'd have on their side due to the cotton.  When the south asked France to help them in the war, they told the south they really didn't need them anymore because of Egypt, and said they'd only help if Britain did.  Britain said the same thing, that they didn't need the south's cotton anymore.  So the two biggest buyers of cotton didn't need the south anymore, so cotton would have been on the decline since that's where most southern cotton exports went.

Women and children were raped, people were tortured, whipped, set on by dogs, babies taken from there mothers, and the mother didn't even have the right to ask where.  Instead of one Sadaam there were hundreds and the fight by the confederates was one to ensure that they retained that right.  Were the deaths worth it?  Maybe not to you, but to the women and children who weren't raped, to the mothers who kissed their babies goodnight every night, to the people not whipped, hung, tortured, and exploited in the meanest sense, to the end(well in theory) of the absolute evil that despoiled the Constitution and made a mockery of the Bill of Rights, yeah it was worth it.  And let us be serious, the "movement" as you so capriciously call it would not ended without a fight.  The firehoses, lynchings, murders, rapes, and the everyday indignities suffered by the subsequent generations prove that.


That happened during the war, but the slaves lived their life like that everyday.
I think the way the slaves were treated was far worse than what happened during the war.

There is no question that slavery would be over today, wheather or not the south won that war.

As I said earlier, you are making a giant assumption there, especially considering all the racism that exists in the South even to this day, over a century after the North won the war, reconstruction, and about forty years of subjection to the so-called "liberal media."

The Confederate States of America thankfully cannot speak for itself in this matter. But I'd like to see some hardcore evidence to support such a bold claim.

Women and children were raped, people were tortured, whipped, set on by dogs, babies taken from there mothers, and the mother didn't even have the right to ask where.  Instead of one Sadaam there were hundreds and the fight by the confederates was one to ensure that they retained that right.  Were the deaths worth it?  Maybe not to you, but to the women and children who weren't raped, to the mothers who kissed their babies goodnight every night, to the people not whipped, hung, tortured, and exploited in the meanest sense, to the end(well in theory) of the absolute evil that despoiled the Constitution and made a mockery of the Bill of Rights, yeah it was worth it.  And let us be serious, the "movement" as you so capriciously call it would not ended without a fight.  The firehoses, lynchings, murders, rapes, and the everyday indignities suffered by the subsequent generations prove that.

The Republican Party today is not the same Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln.  It's just spelled the same!  The Republican Party today is Fascist because it believes the federal government should subsidize private business interests and force all the citizens to conform to their definitions of "patriotism" and religiosity.
If GWB2004 was a middle-aged white conservative in Georgia fifty years ago, he would be railing against the interference of northern commie-f*g-n*gg*r lovers in the traditional Southern way of life.  He would be an ardent supporter of Jim Crow segregation laws, and would have some unkind words for Jews and "Papists" as well.  Heck, I wouldn'd be surprised if he belonged to a local Klan clavern and voted Dixiecrat.
The fact that GWB2004, a middle-aged conservative white male living outside Atlanta, today condemns segregation, supports Israel, and believes in equal rights for all races has nothing to do with Southern conservatives.  For his extant political views, GWB2004, has Northern liberals and judicial activists to thank!

The Confederate States of America thankfully cannot speak for itself in this matter. But I'd like to see some hardcore evidence to support such a bold claim.


Can you think of anyone that condones slavery?  I know that no one I know personally wants slavery.  With the rise in technology, and the growing protests where slaves and white abolitionists were killing slave owners eventually would have ended slavery.  Hell, maybe the CSA Supreme Court would have ban it, something the US Supreme Court wouldn't.

I have no proof that the CSA wouldn't still be using slaves, though I feel it's extremely unlikely.

There is no question that slavery would be over today, wheather or not the south won that war.  The fact it is, the war between the states caused more American deaths than any other war.  620,000 people died.  Was that really worth ending something that was already on it's deathbed when the war started?

And cotton was not increasing, not exports anyway.  That's one of the reasons the south lost the war.  In 1861, right at the start of the war, Egypt starting exporting cheaper and better cotton to Britain and France, two countries the south thought they'd have on their side due to the cotton.  When the south asked France to help them in the war, they told the south they really didn't need them anymore because of Egypt, and said they'd only help if Britain did.  Britain said the same thing, that they didn't need the south's cotton anymore.  So the two biggest buyers of cotton didn't need the south anymore, so cotton would have been on the decline since that's where most southern cotton exports went.


What the south did was illegally declare themselves independent without any approval from the federal government. They tried to fight for their independence and lost. If any state tried to secede today, north or south, I would fully support federal military action. I firmly believe that states are subordinate to the federal government, and have no right at all to just withdraw from the Union, the Supreme Court I believe ruled on that sometime after the civil war. Actually the Confederacy was never a real country, it was an illegal rebel government. It had no international recognition whatsoever. The Confederate states were technically still part of the US and never really left (because secession is illegal), they were just in rebellion against the government.

What the south did was illegally declare themselves independent without any approval from the federal government. They tried to fight for their independence and lost. If any state tried to secede today, north or south, I would fully support federal military action. I firmly believe that states are subordinate to the federal government, and have no right at all to just withdraw from the Union, the Supreme Court I believe ruled on that sometime after the civil war. Actually the Confederacy was never a real country, it was an illegal rebel government. It had no international recognition whatsoever. The Confederate states were technically still part of the US and never really left (because secession is illegal), they were just in rebellion against the government.


When the south left, formed their own constitution, government, and had their own president; what they were doing was perfectly legal under US law at the time.  It wasn't until just after the civil war that the US Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has more power than the states, before that ruling it was thought the states had just as much power as the federal government.

When the south left, formed their own constitution, government, and had their own president; what they were doing was perfectly legal under US law at the time.  It wasn't until just after the civil war that the US Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has more power than the states, before that ruling it was thought the states had just as much power as the federal government.


Which ruling was that? To my understanding, once we scrapped the Articles of Confederation and ratified the Constitution, the federal government was supreme from thereon in.

The war of northern aggression.


"The Union must be saved" said Linclon, but southerns said that "the  south must have its territory".  Further, it was the south that opened fire on Fort Sumpter, which would have had to surrender regardless, an unneccesary act of aggression.  And southerners predicted, right after, that the stars and bars would soon wave from Feinial Hall in Boston.  So who was the aggressor?

Which ruling was that? To my understanding, once we scrapped the Articles of Confederation and ratified the Constitution, the federal government was supreme from thereon in.


I got the ruling right, but the date wrong.  I said it was after the war between the states, but it was before.

Anyway, it was the 1823 US Supreme Court case: Gibbons v. Ogden.

The case established the federal government's superiority over the states.

Well, all this Civil War (War of the Great Treason, War of Northern Agression) came up becausae some Vermonters are so disgusted with the US that they would like to join Canada.  That was the original focus of this thread.  Lets get back on topic. 

In many ways, Canadian programs and policicies are more in tune to Vermonters' values than those beign pursued by our Federal government.  One must ask, if our country deserts us, why should we continue to support it?