|
|
|
||||||||
Communications from visitors
to the websites of
The New England Confederation
A Coalition for New England's Future
We've received so many good wishes from all over North America that this page is straining our space limits. So with thanks to the many well wishers, especially our friends in the League of the South, we must with apologies limit comments reproduced here to New Englanders or expatriates with particularly relevant things to say.
Many people who give permission to reprint comments here ask that their names be withheld, and most of these have said that it's for fear of the government, particularly the Internal Revenue Service! We find this chilling and yet another indication that New England needs to go its own way. We sincerely hope that this fear will give way to some courage -- and a good measure of righteous indignation -- as New England patriotism revives.
AS YOU READ THIS PAGE, PLEASE BEAR IN MIND THAT MOST OF THE COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TOOK PLACE WHEN THIS WAS MY PERSONAL SITE AND I WAS ACTIVELY ADVOCATING NEW ENGLAND INDEPENDENCE AS A SHORT-TERM GOAL. AFTER JOINING "THE NEW ENGLAND CONFEDERATION, A COALITION FOR NEW ENGLAND's FUTURE," MY POSITION HAS MELLOWED AS I HAVE ACCEPTED THEIR MORE REALISTIC APPROACH. NEVERTHELESS, I'M SURE THE PAGE MAKES FOR INTERESTING READING. SOME OF THE WRITERS HAVE SINCE JOINED THE NEC, CNEF.
Concerns
about Massachusetts liberalism
Surprised
to find that others believe as he does.
New England will "rise from the
ruins"
All
sovereignty movements are "gimmicks."
Washington bureaucrats bully New
Hampshire
Disagrees
with idea of New England independence
Support
from an expatriate New Englander
Secessionist
feeling in Montana/the New England flag
8/21/97
"Ben" from Massachusetts writes:
I visited your site today for the first time and was happy to see that others have have the idea of New England independence. I agree with your arguments that it is doable and the best defence against Washington hegemony.
This support, however, is with reservations. Grass-roots activism and temperism of an oppressive Gov't would be much easier in a NE Confederacy. What I am worried about, however, is the very liberal tendencies of the region and my home-state of Mass. Would Fed. incursions on personal liberty simply give way to local ones?(a la "People's Republic of Vermont/Burlington") Perhaps N.H. would be an acceptable bastion for liberty, but Mass. certainly won't! As it is now the Fed constitution limits the powers of the Gov't (though not in practice) and protects rights such as in the second amendment. The second amendment is likely to never exist in Mass.(don't know about current Constitution) As it is now areas of the country such as the South and West moderate the socialist aspirations of our area.(if it weren't for them we'd have Fed. health care!)
As for Maritime Canada; they would be an unhealthy influence, as they, more than any other part of Canada, are dependent on the extensive social welfare of the Canadian Gov't. I, myself, am a libertarian and value any chance of liberty (resurrection of our US Constitution) above greater local control and autonomy. Any comments?
PS: Don't be so tough on militias. Most aren't terrorists. Just freedom-loving individuals who believe in the protection of our borders and Constitution by the people themselves.
(Response: Gandhi once said something to the effect that there are no people in the world who wouldn't prefer their own bad government to the good government of foreigners. I agree that a New England government ought to be easier to control, but I also hope to see more state control and more local control than there is now. I believe that "community standards" should have real power in the new New England.
But as I've said elsewhere on this site, we New Englanders are a motley and hard-to-please lot: There are raving liberals, raving conservatives and everything in between. There are people of every conceivable race, religion and national origin. Unless we're prepared to live with that and make the best of it, we might as well give this all up.
Frankly, I can't predict how a future autonomous or independent New England will shape up politically or socially. I do know that things have to change, and I trust us to do it for ourselves far more than I trust Washington to.
8/20/97
John Grimes of New Hampshire writes:
Bravo! I'm amazed to find after all these years of suspecting myself just a bit crazy that others believe as I do: I have a lot more in common with somebody from Connecticut or Maine than with a surfer from Malibu or a cowboy from Montana, and I want Washington, DC, out of my life! I'm sick to death of the phony union it represents, and, given half a chance would happily hang the thieving politicians who pullulate in its bowels, regardless of their party affiliation. Other than that, I have no strong opinions about this matter.
You may print my name, for I no longer respect or fear the federal rascals. I'm proud to be a New Englander and, borrowing a phrase popular with our brothers in Quebec, wish to shout to the four winds,
"Un pays, OUI!"
(Response: Your opinions certainly echo mine and those of many New Englanders I have heard from. Now that the New England Confederation is forming chapters, I hope to see you and other patriotic New Englanders joining us. Thanks for your comments!)
7/27/97
A Boston correspondent who asked that name, etc., be withheld, agrees that the Union is in trouble:
"I have read with great interest the recent National Review article on your organization. I know that one day, soon, a nation of New England will rise from the ruins of the decadent United States. Our United States is sliding into third-world status. Our taxes are squandered on strangers in NYC or LA on welfare and to countries with which we have no business ("No entangling alliances," George Washington). Our federal government has surrendered control over America's borders and condemns those who wish to regain control as "racists" and "fascists."
The government has no qualms about using force in suppressing "politically incorrect" groups--on its own citizens! We have seen the government send out its secret police force in hammering down fringe elements like those in Texas and Montana. No remorse or quarter can be expected from the government--just ask these men: Weaver, Koresh and Kahl."
(Response: You touch on a number of sticky issues here. Personally, I have no tolerance for religious cults and militia groups, but it's hard to deny that the government went around the bend at Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. in pushing the bounds of the law and abusing human rights. That's one perfect reason for our New England movement to be strictly a "jacket and tie" affair! As more and more New Englanders join our "committee of correspondence," the only rule is that advocacy of violence is not in the picture.
I certainly agree that America's immigration and citizenship policies are a mess. It's not a question of racism, it's a question of how many foreigners can be absorbed into society and the economy in an orderly way AND BECOME AMERICANS in the proper time and manner. To me, that last point is crucial. Some immigrants with whom I have personal experience regard America as a cash cow: They admit that they're here to make money and send it back to Russia, Central America, Asia or wherever. A few (I must admit that I haven't found that many) just live off welfare.
On the other hand, I have Cambodian-American neighbors who work hard, own their home, vote, participate in the community, pay their taxes, take care of their children and ARE PROUD TO BE AMERICANS. In my opinion, those are the kinds of immigrants we want.
New England has a heterogenous population, not just ethnically but ideologically as well. While this used to be true mostly in southern New England, it's increasingly true in the north, too. And with some exceptions, I think we do rather well in living and working together. This is the social reality our movement will have to deal with, as will any future New England government. That's why I've made it clear that our efforts must include New Englanders of ALL backgrounds. Frankly, I can't think of a more basic issue for us to unite behind than our relationship to the Union.
While I would choke to think that New England would become another welfare state, there would have to be some sort of social policy (hopefully just on the state and local levels) and a clear immigration policy. But in my opinion we have plenty of work to do before we get to that.
Top
of the Page
7/26/97
Christine Nordstrom of New Hampshire fears all separatist/sovereigntist movements:
"The issue of New England independence seems connected to a trend catching on in other states. For example, Alaska and Hawaii have secessionist movements, each originating from their own unique histories. The Republic of Texas, with several different rival factions has gained the public's attention recently.
The problem with all of these movements is that they do not have the support of most state citizens. Even with the heavy-handedness of the Federal government, most people would rather see the United States operating with one currency and a strong military that protects all states. There is no doubt that the federal government needs it's (sic) wings clipped, but the Sovereignty movement seems to be more of a gimmick designed as a thorn in the side of the powers that be. It also blends together various philosophies within the larger Patriot movement, including belief in common-law, jury nullification, and militias that cannot be called the Unorganized militia as defined in the Constitution because these militias defend only their own "Republics". The Republic of Texas , with it's (sic) own self-described defense forces illustrates my point.
The sovereignty movement, or "Republic of..." movement. or whatever else you might call it, is a bad idea which would result in anarchy if adopted."
(Response: Thanks, Ms. Nordstrom, for your thoughtful response. I believe, however, that you are confused and quite wrong to lump all sovereignty movements under the same label of the "Patriot" movement, a term with which I am not familiar. It seems to me that each of these movements is quite different, depending, as you yourself suggest, on their own history, culture and circumstances. And to throw peaceful, law-abiding groups such as the Southern League into the same pigeon hole as the militias is grossly inaccurate and unjust.
Were this 1777 instead of 1997, your list of villains would have to include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams. They called for secession from their lawful king and Empire while an estimated two-thirds of the colonial population either was opposed to the action or indifferent to it.
Generally, one can hardly argue with your point that most people in the various states do not support these movements. Yet, I'm not so sure that this is as much the case in the South as it is elsewhere. Through my wife's family, I have many friends and acquaintances among ordinary, workaday people in several Southern states. It seems crystal clear to me that there is wide support, both silent and overt, for the Southern League's point of view across a wide segment of the population - and even across ethnic lines.
In New England, I find that there is a surprisingly positive reaction from most people ONCE THEY ARE EXPOSED TO THE IDEA of independence or at least greater sovereignty. So that's what I'm trying to do - in as positive a way as possible. I realize vividly that our lawful state governments must take any future action to redress the grievances that we have or, in the end, "to remove our star from the flag," as the governor of Alaska so eloquently put it.
I feel that the best of the secessionist movements - and I do not believe that the best of them are "gimmicks" at all - can and should be, as you say, thorns in the side of the powers that be. In a free society, if that's what we still have, that's very often how things get fixed.
I am the first to admit that I may be wrong, but I do not believe that the Union can be fixed without drastic changes to the existing federal structure. Things are not quite as clear cut as you suggest. I can't see how any reasonable person can deny that Washington is out to protect itself and its own power, not you, your community or your freedoms.
Neither history nor current precedent support your contention that "anarchy" necessarily results from secession or from sovereignty. It's about the need for LOCAL CONTROL here in New England, Ms. Nordstrom. It's about controlling our own economy and our own destiny in the region that has America's most profound democratic traditions and some of its most vibrant economic possibilities.
In my opinion, your arguments reflect not logic or facts, but the "rabbit hole" syndrome: I'm comfortable. Don't rock the boat. The storm troopers will never come for me because it can't happen here.
Well, it can happen here. And with Washington in charge, it probably will.
Top
of the Page
6/20/97
Stephen Abbott of Bedford, N.H., an active supporter of New England independence, writes of federal pressure on his state:
Yet another example of federalism in action: "EPA: Test Emissions - Or Else" - from the Manchester Union Leader, June 20, 1997:
"CONCORD - Federal regulators say the state has 18 months to come up with a better auto emissions testing program to reduce smog-causing chemicals. Under the 1990 Clean Air Act, New Hampshire and other states where pollution exceeds federal limits are required to implement enhanced auto emissions testing programs. The federal Environmental Protection Agency wrote a letter to the state earlier this month saying that pollution in Rockingham, Stratford and Hillsborough counties exceeds limits during the summer.
If the state does not develop an acceptable emissions inspections program by December 6, 1998, it will face sanctions from the federal government, the letter said.
In the past, Washington has threatened states with loss of federal aid.
...
The state has objected to the EPA approach not only because of inconvenience to motorists but because it targets what science has shown is "the wrong pollutants", according to Ken Coburn [director of NH's Division of Air Resources]. ...
The Department of Safety developed requirements and put a contract out to bid in 1994 for a centralized testing program. But at about the same time in Maine, vehicle owners protested over a similar program. Maine halted its program, and New Hampshire ended up putting its plans on hold."
Way to go! Fight the power! ;-) The feds learn once again that New Englanders aren't ones to join in lockstep and march to their beat!
- Stephen Abbott
2/22/97
David Martucci of Washington, Maine, writes to correct me on my New England flag history (I reprint those comments at the end of this page) and to disagree with the idea of New England independence:
"As far as your arguments go, I do not agree that independence is inevidible (sic) or desireable (sic). I do believe that the union of the states makes us stronger and wealthier. We have no impediments to border, currency, culture, language, etc. All these things were real threats in 1775. They may come back to haunt us. Also, what happens to our share of the National Debt if were to go our own way? I believe we cannot and should not try to abrogate our fair share of this obligation. Remember, more than 82% of the National Debt is owed to ourselves. At any rate, I doubt if theer (sic) could ever be a serious independence movement here, even if Quebec goes its own way. The costs of doing business on our own (military, international, economic) would kill us."
Thanks,
Dave Martucci (martucci@midcoast.com)
(RESPONSE: The question of whether independence is inevitable is, of course, a matter of opinion and, to some degree precedent (re: the Balkans and, yes, it CAN happen here and anywhere else because human nature is human nature). I'm the first to admit that the North American scenario I present here and that I happen to agree with may be wrong. My point is that we should at least begin a serious discussion of the issue in case it's right. Do you really think it's prudent not to even think about the matter as the next century and a very different world approach?
As for independence not being desirable, I think your arguments, such as they are, are shallow and reflect the stereotypes of a bygone age. I am convinced that the America I was brought up to love and which I served proudly in the armed forces no longer exists to a very great degree. I'm no conspiracy theorist -- I think the growth of federal power was the fault of no particular individual or group: just a natural outgrowth of the modern welfare mega-state when our own comfort became more important to us than our freedom, and our individualism -- almost solipsism -- more important than our local communities.
Your statement that the Union makes us "stronger and wealthier" is belied by the fact that some areas of the country are poor while others are wealthy. New England, for example, is lagging far behind most other regions in many economic areas, particularly manufacturing and housing. I believe the yoke of federal taxes and regulations is largely to blame for stifling our traditional economic creativity. And what do you mean by "stronger"? The ability to use smart bombs on Saddam Hussein? Yes, the freedom of foreigners is worth fighting for (if that's what the Gulf War was all about) but not while our own freedom is being eroded by our own government. My greatest fear is that the federal government's information power -- in the wrong hands or even the right hands -- has the makings of a police state the like of which the world has never seen. We already know that the federal government lies to us right and left, equivocates on the Constitution and is rife with corruption. Do you REALLY trust it to protect your freedoms? The fight and the need for moral strength, Dave, is right here in New England.
With all due respect, some of your statements make me wonder if you have read a newspaper since 1784. There are "no impediments to border, currency, culture, language, etc." because of the growing global economy, to which New England already is well suited. What impediments there are are often created by the federal government. I'm well aware of the difficulties America faced under Confederation, but I believe that the very, very different economic and political situation today -- while creating problems of its own -- would mitigate many of the troubles that beset us before 1789.
Your point about the national debt is a very good one. Yes, it's a problem and a serious obligation if we hope to maintain international credit standing. But with a little over 13 million people (1990) out of the USA's 249 million, I don't think either that New England's share would be completely through the roof or that it wouldn't be eminently negotiable.
The fact that, as of March 17, yours was the only negative opinion on New England independence ever received at this website may harm the validity of your statement that there can never "be a serious independence movement here." And your contention that "The costs of doing business on our own (military, international, economic) would kill us" simply doesn't give the impression that you've given any thought to the facts. We already do business on our own within the limits allowed by federal regulations. And how many military commitments do you think New England would have? I can't really see us joining the ranks of superpowers anytime soon.
Read Thomas Jefferson! Read Thomas Paine! I have the nagging impression that, if our ancestors thought as you do, the Union Jack would still be flying over the local post office.
Thank you for your opinions, Dave. I believe that you and other New Englanders may not be used to thinking about these issues. With more thought, I think we can all come up with better arguments -- both for and against -- the idea of independence.
Top
of the Page
2/9/97
Al Benson of Arlington Heights, Illinois, writes:
"Although I live in the Midwest now (Illinois) my family and I are originally from New England. Having done research over the years I came to feel that the South was right, and indeed, we would have been better off had they won the War .... I am always glad to see fellow New Englanders find out the truth."
Mr. Benson mentions that he has a booklet available that deals with secession sentiment from the Declaration of Independence right up to today's Tenth Amendment Movement among the states. He's sending one along and you will undoubtedly see more about it on this website. He also publishes a newsletter along the same lines, which I will pass along information about also.
Top
of the Page
2/6/97
A "friend" from Waterville, Maine, writes:
"I rolled my eyes when I first saw your page but after reading it I was impressed. You do make sense and I have a lot to think about. One question -- If we become our own nation, what happens to all the nukes???"
(Response: As far as I know, there are no nuclear weapons stored on New England soil, so that may be a moot point for us, but a troublesome one for regions that do have them. As for nuclear power plants, all our states except Rhode Island have at least one. The future of these certainly would be decided in the normal course of our regional/national transition. As a smaller nation, our people's concerns hopefully would be acted on without their having to raise millions of dollars to form huge interest groups, as is often the case on the national level today.)
Top
of the Page
2/7/97
A young woman from Boston asks:
"Your ideas are very interesting. It almost scares me how much sense they make....where do you go from here?"
(Response: Along with continuing to "get the word out," there are beginnings of a plan to form an informal "think tank" on this issue, with 10 or 12 people, to draw up policy and position papers and to plan the next step should this indeed become a movement. Personally, I consider it crucial that this first body consist not only of "official" or "establishment" types and intellectuals of each gender, but New Englanders of different races and backgrounds and, especially, some average, workaday folks. It's this latter group that often has to endure the consequences of social and political policy made by highbrow think tanks.)
Top
of the Page
2/8/97
After mentioning that there is secessionist feeling in Montana, a friend from there asks:
"The New England flag conjures up thoughts of straight-laced Puritans and Pilgrims! What is that little green thing in the corner?"
(Response: That's a pine tree, a symbol of New England since the 17th century, and a symbol used by the natives before that. The flag you see on this web site is one of several variations on a New England flag and was used from 1686 to about 1707. It is believed to have been carried by some of the New England forces at the Battle of Bunker Hill. After the Revolution, the English "Cross of St. George" was removed and there was just the pine tree in the white corner (or "canton" in flag lingo) of the red flag. Both are used today, however, and there is a third variation, blue with six white stars for the six New England states, sold by a company in Ipswich, Mass. If you're interested in this subject, check out the home page of the New England Vexillological Association at http://www.midcoast.com/~martucci/NEFlag.html
(Postscript: The New England flag is not the point of this website, but flag expert David Martucci of Washington, Maine, has very kindly taken the time to respond to the above response, so I reprint his statement here:
"The variant you list as "believed to have been carried by some of the New England forces at the Battle of Bunker Hill." was conclusively *not* used at Bunker Hill. As far as documentary evidence concerned, a leading panel of vexillologists determined in 1975 that probably no flag was used at Bunker (Breed's) Hill. The only one that may have been used, if at all, is the flag depicted in "The Battle of Bunker's Hill" paintd in 1785 by John Trumbell (spell that "Trumbull" PFE). He was in Massachusetts at the time of the battle but was not at Breed's Hill. There *is* documentary evidence that the 3rd NE Flag (Red with a white canton bearing just a pine tree) was used in the American Camp in Cambridge at that time and was the unofficial Continental Flag until George Washington hoisted the Continental Colors on Jan. 1, 1776. Note that this was not "after the Revolution."
In fact, it is believed the 1775 NE Flag was used at the Hartford Convention in 1814. Your statement that "both are used today" is baffling. Who uses both? And in what context? I am aware you can buy both from commercial sources, but strictly as "historical" flags. Is this what you mean? The Blue flag with the stars is pure invention for the sole profit of the Ebinger Company. It is based on false history. Your page should be more explicit about this.
Also, the New England Flag page is not a part of the NEVA site, although it is closely related. I put that up before NEVA went online on my own. NEVA's URL is "http://www.midcoast.com/~martucci/NEVA.html"
(Response: Thanks for that information, Dave. Yes, when I say that "both are used today" I meant that both are commercially available and that I have seen both versions flying over private homes and even at a few public functions. For example, both usually appear at one place or another in the Bristol, R.I., July 4th parade, the oldest in the country. As for Ebinger's version, my opinion is that we should allow for some natural evolution in the design. His version of the New England flag seems to me no more unnatural than the first Stars and Stripes was in comparison with the old British Red Ensign. In fact, I once spoke on the phone with Mr. Ebinger about his design and he struck me as very sincere in wanting to represent New England with a modern flag. Personally, however, I do prefer the more historical design.)
AS OF 2/23/97, I'VE CHANGED THE NEW ENGLAND FLAG DISPLAYED AT THIS SITE FROM THE "SECOND FLAG OF NEW ENGLAND" TO THE LATEST, or 1775 EDITION, the "THIRD FLAG OF NEW ENGLAND." (PFE)
Here's the "blue with
stars" variation on the New England flag. It's copyright 1968 by K. Albert
Ebinger. Mr. Ebinger is not associated with the New England Confederation,
A Coalition for New England's Future.
Top
of the Page
THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSES
TO THE NEW ENGLAND CONFEDERATION/RHODE ISLAND WEBSITE! KEEP YOUR RESPONSES
COMING. NO RESPONSES WILL BE POSTED HERE WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION.
Paul F. Eno
The Evidence: Questions and
Answers
of other movements for local control
Return to the Rhode Island Chapter Welcome
Page