Seceding seldom succeeds, but Vermonters try

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | Nov 8, 2005 | Josh Burek

[Verginius Rufus]

Can one party to a contract unilaterally reinterpret the meaning of the contract years after it is signed? How many of the states which initially created the current U.S. government by ratifying the Constitution in 1787-1788 believed they were taking an irrevocable step?

[Cheburashka]

So when are you moving to Vermont?

[vetvetdoug]

Where do we go to get ready to invade Vermont? I can't wait to pillage the old farmhouses and homes so I can get some antique furniture and collectibles. I hear there are some good horses there too so maybe I can get several of them also.

Gee, isn't this the way seceding is treated here in the US? This is the way it was done years ago, it should be good enough for today's Vermonters.

[SouthernBoyupNorth]

As the Civil war is over the point is moot... who started it... who lost it... who cares.
I hope Vermont does do this.... Maybe the south will rise again and my Confederate money will be worth something....

[DaiHuy]

"Can one party to a contract unilaterally reinterpret the meaning of the contract years after it is signed?"

I would have to say yes if it is the federal government. Look at socialist insecurity, they change the rules on that all the time. the court has ruled on this once, and when a territory becomes a state they have to follow the covenants set down before they are admitted. Sort of like buying into an HOA you may not have been there when it is formed, but if you want to buy there you have to agree to follow their rules.

Although I find it interesting to note that when the war was over the Fed Govt required the Confederate States to rewrite their constitutions before they would be readmitted. Which begs the question, if they never truly seceeded because the Union was inseperable, how could they be required to rewrite their State Constitutions before they could be readmitted?