“You solemnly swear or affirm that whenever you give your vote or
suffrage, touching any matter that concerns the state of Vermont, you
will do it so as in your conscience you shall judge will most conduce
to the best good of the same, as established by the Constitution,
without fear or favor of any person.”

The Vermont Freeman's Oath

It has become difficult lately for voters truly to abide by the Vermont
Freeman's Oath when election time rolls around, because nowhere on
their ballots is a choice offered that they “judge will most conduce to
the best good of” their beloved state of Vermont. And it will be thus
as long as their ballots are tied to the false, deceitful and cynical
political system of the overgrown United States of America.
And so some seek an alternative: Secession. Independence.
As the Green Mountain independence effort gathers steam, a number of
citizens advocating nonviolent secession from the U.S. empire have
suggested that Vermont citizens might organize a special statewide
convention and request that their Montpelier-based state legislature
submit formal articles of secession to representatives of the United
States government. Indeed, a new self-organizing effort at
www.freevermont.net urges Vermonters to organize in their towns to put
such a question to the Legislature through the annual town meeting
process.
What the federal behemoth would then do if Vermonters voted for
nonviolent secession, no one knows. But whatever form the federal
reaction takes, Vermonters must create a thoughtful plan that details
how they might maintain their sovereignty and newly declared
independence, as well as explaining how they will defend themselves
from whatever moves the federal government might make to block
secession.

One option is organized nonviolent citizen resistance to
federal authority, a strategy that can be traced to the Vermont
Constitution (1777). All Vermont citizens swore a “freeman's oath,”
administered by town governments, that called on Vermonters “of a quiet
and peaceable behavior” to follow their conscience as to “what will
conduce to the best good of the [state] ... without fear or favor of
any man.” The idea behind nonviolent resistance rests on the insight
that all governments and institutions depend upon the consent and
cooperation of those whom they would rule over. “When people refuse
their cooperation, withhold their help, and persist in their
disobedience and defiance, they are denying their opponent the basic
human assistance which any government or hierarchical system requires,”
observes Gene Sharp, author of Social Power and Political Freedom. “If
they do this in sufficient numbers for long enough, that government or
hierarchical system will no longer have power” or be able to function.

In short, if an overwhelming number of Vermonters were to “quietly and
peaceably” persist on their path of secession by refusing to send their
tax money to the Internal Revenue Service, or refusing to acknowledge
the legitimacy of federal authority in their state, what could the
federal government do to them that might make them recant? Imprison
them? Forfeit their property in other states? Withhold their Social
Security payments? Militarily occupy their neighborhoods? Impose a
trade blockade on the Green Mountains? Hold Vermonters' out-of-state
relatives hostage? And would any of these policies force a committed
group of Vermont citizens focused on nonviolent secession to change
their attitudes or actions? I hardly think so. I suspect such actions
would not only draw attention to the righteousness of Vermont's “David
vs. Goliath” struggle, but win Vermont many allies and supporters that
it otherwise might not garner. This crystallization of global public
opinion in favor of Vermont would further strengthen its position and
de-legitimize the attempts of the federal government to force Vermont
back into the U.S. Empire.

The Strength of Bare Hands and Stubbornness

To many thoughtful
citizens, Vermonters or not, who are frustrated with the imperial
status quo, the idea that they might defend themselves, their loved
ones, and their property nonviolently may seem inconceivable.
Nonviolent struggle, however, is rooted in a deep human propensity to
be stubborn, to persist in doing what has been forbidden, and to refuse
to do what has been ordered. As any parent knows, this stubborn streak
is present in children: they sometimes refuse to eat or do as they are
told, or they engage in delaying tactics. Adults, too, can be
recalcitrant. The good news here is that human stubbornness can be
directed towards admirable goals. We can cooperate with other human
beings to resist what we collectively view as persistently corrupt
policy-making or immoral behavior. Nonviolent struggle is simply the
widespread societal application of this obdurate trait, to accomplish
social, economic, or political goals.
Goals like peaceable secession. Many observers misunderstand the goals
and methods of nonviolent resistance. To call nonviolent resistance
“passive” or “for sissies,” as some do, is to totally
“mis-underestimate” (as the White House's current occupant might say)
its power.

As philosopher Hannah Arendt observed, the use of nonviolent
resistance is one of the most efficient and effective ways of
collective action ever devised by human beings, because it cannot be
countered by fighting. Only mass slaughter will assure the violent
opponent an ultimate victory, but even then “the victor is defeated,
cheated of his prize, since nobody can rule over dead” people. To be
clear, nonviolent citizen resistance demands widespread unity of
opinion among the population, and careful research and strategic
planning; its adoption must be preceded by widespread preparation and
training; and its execution calls for considerable courage and
discipline. Could an army be successful if its soldiers had no
training? Nonviolent resistance is no different in this regard. It is
also helpful to remember that even trained armed forces lose their
battles much of the time. There are many advantages that accompany
nonviolent resistance. First, a nonviolent army is not limited only to
the physically fit. Children, seniors, people of every age and
condition, even the infirm, are capable of refusing to do what they are
told to do. Second, even though suffering and death are an inevitable
part of any social struggle, nonviolent resistance minimizes both the
numbers of casualties and the amount of destruction. A third advantage
comes with recognizing that there is no such thing as final defeat, as
long as citizens stay focused on maintaining independence of mind and
spirit, and refusing to bend to the will of any would-be ruler.
Consider Tibet's example. “After more than forty years the Tibetans
continue to resist the Chinese military occupation,” Sharp explains.
“If the will to resist is maintained ...the defense cannot be
defeated.”

The Historical Tradition of Nonviolence

The term “people power” is part of a surprisingly long and robust
tradition of bringing about social change by nonviolent means. Probably
the first recorded act of civil disobedience in history is the refusal
of the Hebrew midwives to obey the Pharaoh's order to kill male Hebrew
babies in 1350 B.C. (Exodus 1:15-19) Those who have studied the history
of nonviolent movements have cataloged a surprisingly long list of
examples, often beginning with the English colonial boycotts, tax
refusal, and acts of civil disobedience that culminated in the violent
struggle for secession from the British empire. The most pertinent
observation about the American Revolution came from New Englander John
Adams, who observed that the real revolution took place in the hearts
and minds of the English colonists long “before the [official] war
commenced” in April 1775. Nonviolent resistance also played a
significant role during 19th- and 20th-century social and political
struggles, and its practice can be found in a wide variety of
“political, cultural, and geographic
conditions,” including in many secessionist struggles.

Here are but a
few explored by Gene Sharp in his book:

• Hungarian passive resistance to Austrian rule, 1850-1867

• Finnish resistance to Russia, 1898-1905

• Nonviolent resistance to the Tsardom during the Russian Revolutions
of 1905 and 1917

• German general strike and non-cooperation to the Kapp Putsch in
1920

• Resistance to the French and Belgian occupation of the Ruhr,
1923-1925

• The Rosenstrasse protest of over 600 German women of mixed
marriages, which resulted in the Gestapo release of some 1500 Jewish
prisoners in February 1943

• The Indian independence movement led by Gandhi, 1930–1947

• The Muslim Pashtun (Pathan) Movement of the North-West Frontier of
India, 1930-1934, led by Badshah Khan

• The resistance of more than 14,000 Norwegian teachers and clergymen
to Nazi rule during World War II

• Czechoslovakian resistance to Soviet invasion, 1968-1969

• The Intifada, the Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation,
beginning in 1987

Much can be learned from these experiences, concludes Sharp. For
example, Badshah Khan's organization of Pathans, known as the Khudai
Khidmatgar, destroyed the myth that nonviolence can only be practiced
by those who are gentle (the Pathans were known as some of the most
violent fighters in the world). These examples also show that
“resistance is possible in a wide variety of situations and conflicts,
even in extremely difficult and repressive ones.” Nevertheless, Sharp
also points out that nearly all of these historical examples of
nonviolent resistance suffered from the absence of strategic planning,
preparation, and training. Even where they failed, however, none of
them invalidated the “proposition that all government, even
totalitarian government, is based on the consent and cooperation of the
ruled,” and every one of them tended to prove that if the consent of
the populace is taken away, then every regime, even the most ruthless,
will collapse.

But what of a Hitler or a Stalin? Could such despotic
dictators be resisted nonviolently? Does nonviolent resistance work
against extremely ruthless opponents?
“Absolutely,” say advocates of nonviolence. Based on their
understanding of the theory of nonviolent resistance and an examination
of history, they conclude that nonviolent resistance has never failed
because it was ruthlessly suppressed. Instead, nonviolent resistance
failed because it was never systematically and consistently used. The
key question is not how ruthless the opponent, but rather how committed
the practitioners of nonviolence are to their strategy. Nonviolent
struggles have a greater chance of success if they are strategically
planned and systematically implemented. Even lacking this, nonviolent
resistance “works” because it rests on a fundamental insight into the
nature of political power. As Mohandas Gandhi said, “Strength does not
come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will. No
power on earth can make a person do a thing against his will.” “Endure
unto the end, but violence to no man”

As many know, the idea of civil
disobedience in the 19th century United States was popularized by
transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau, but few realize that nonviolence
as applied to the defense of a community was probably first described
by a New England abolitionist, Charles King Whipple. His "Evils of the
Revolutionary War" booklet was published in 1842 by the Telegraph Print
in Brandon, Vermont. Whipple challenged the assumption that “we could
never have freed ourselves from British imperial domination, except by
war.” His thesis was that the English colonists could have attained
their independence “as effectually, as speedily, as honorably, and
under very much more favorable circumstances” if they had not resorted
to arms. Instead, Whipple maintained, they should have engaged in a
“steady and quiet refusal to comply with unjust requisitions; publicly
declar[ed] ... their grievances, and demands for redress; and
patient[ly] endur[ed] ... whatever violence
was used to compel their submission.”

Even if the signers of the
Declaration of Independence had been executed for treason, even if
hundreds or thousands of Americans had been jailed for their refusal to
comply with British demands, Whipple believed that ultimately Britain
would have tired of dealing with the contumacious colonists. After all,
he pointed out, the British Empire was not so much defeated on the
battlefield as it was “tired of fighting.”
Whipple was the first of many observers to note that nonviolence might
be used as a means of community defense. In the case of Vermont's
peaceable secession from the United States, it is possible to envision
the occupation of Vermont by soldiers of the United States Army. The
governor and members of the Legislature might be imprisoned. But if
Vermont business, religious, and political leaders refused to back
down; if union members, police, members of the Vermont National Guard,
school teachers, and citizens held firm, the federal government would
have to call in other non-Vermonters to “fill the breach.”

It would be
very difficult and costly for the federal government to create a new
government for Vermont. If new teachers were imported, the parents
could refuse to send their children to school and home-school them. If
the federal government tried to land federal planes at the airport in
Burlington, the air controllers could go on strike. Whatever the
federal government touched in Vermont would instantly become paralyzed.
Numerous advocates of nonviolent resistance have pointed out that its
practitioners do not have to embrace pacifism as a philosophical or
religious tenet in order for it to be successful. In fact, most of the
nonviolent struggles of the past have involved masses of people who
were not pacifists. The American Friends Service Committee published a
1967 study that pointed out that civilian-based defense “is based upon
confidence in nonviolent methods rather than a belief in nonviolence in
principle.” It also compared the differences and similarities between
nonviolent resistance and guerrilla warfare. Though both modes of
fighting attempt to win the hearts and minds of the people, the latter,
depends on secrecy and sabotage; the former on openness and
non-cooperation. Guerrillas would blow up the train tracks; nonviolent
resisters would block the train by standing on the tracks or by
convincing the train crew to refuse to fuel or operate it. It was the
studied opinion of the report's authors that measures and policies
based on nonviolence could provide an effective means of societal
defense, whether the area to be defended was a large nation or a small
community. “An army can beat an army, but an army cannot beat a
people.” Thus it becomes possible to understand why nonviolent
resistance is not really a matter of repelling violence, but of
bringing clarity to misinformed subjects.

Citizens must be prepared
mentally, spiritually, and physically to resist the demands of the
federal government when it opposes Vermont's peaceable secession. The
greatest enemy of secession “and the most powerful weapon in the hands
of the [federal] authorities is fear. [Those] who can liberate
themselves from fear and who will boldly accept suffering and
persecution without fear or bitterness or striking back have managed to
achieve the greatest victory of all.”
The citizens of Vermont (and those in all other states) must come to
realize that they do have a choice: that they “have the option of
refusing to cooperate if they are willing to pay the price.” The
central lesson here is that even when threatened by government violence
and government weapons, there is still that something that governments
cannot seize. No government, foreign or domestic, can obtain the
voluntary compliance of the citizenry without their collective consent.
Such a stance against a government that has hundreds of thousands of
soldiers and billions of dollars invested in the latest technological
armaments may seem foolish, even insane.

However, as Leo Tolstoy noted,
those who choose to resist “have only one thing, but that is the most powerful thing in the world – Truth.”