NH independence and Maine

Something I have not hitherto seen mentioned regarding NH secession –
If NH becomes independent it would leave Maine as another non-contiguous
state of the United States, along with Hawaii and Alaska.

What effect would this have on the general outcome? I have heard both
those outside Maine and Maine residents (Mainers? Mainites? Mainiacs?)
express the idea that Maine is something of another country anyway, in
language, customs, history, etc., perhaps being more closely related to
the Canadian Maritime provinces. Of course, it also borders on Quebec,
which has a strong independence movement, and NH.

That’s a interesting consideration that I’ve not heard talked about either.

People have to drive over Canada to get to Alaska.

So …

1 Like

There are a variety of reasons that NH is highly unlikely to succeed in a bid to leave the US, especially if it is first. This is just one more reason. The US isn’t going to want a) its citizens to have to cross a perceived hostile territory to get to their vacation homes. b) Maine to see that NH got away with leaving.

1 Like

Something would have to change for NH to go from 42 percent support for an independence referendum… to majority support. Just like it changed in Scotland and Quebec, where the numbers went from under 40 percent to roughly 50 percent. And those places did not need to achieve outright independence to achieve key goals, using independence drives as the method.

1 Like

It is my belief that a decision as important as secession should not be entertained at a level of support below 60%. If 60% of people support secession from an informed position, then it would be moral to implement.

1 Like

Mark, I must strongly disagree. I see no reason to presume any “moral” superiority for the position of wanting to remain part of a larger jurisdiction, all else being equal, nor to put the burden of achieving a super-majority on those seeking independence.

We know that non-rational factors like inertia, nostalgia, fear of change, etc., already tilt the playing field against independence movements. Not to mention the elephant in the room – the usual antipathy of existing governments toward giving up any territory under their control, which can add an element of fear around what an existing government might do, that can bias people’s positions on the issue!

Given these factors, I see a stronger argument for requiring independence bids to attain LESS than 50% support, than for requiring them to attain super-majorities in favor. But I think having a simple majority decide the issue one way or the other makes the most sense.

Consider also that a super-majority is not generally required to JOIN a jurisdiction, so why should a higher threshold be required to leave?

1 Like

Prior to the War for American Independence, the counties of Massachusetts, excepting Boston, had already declared their independence from England. Paul Revere carried the message to the Massachusetts delegates at the First Continental Congress, instructing them to vote for independence.

A vote for independence does not have to go through the NH legislature. If every “middlesex, village and town” declared their independence from the United States, NH would become de facto independent from the U.S. No need for a referendum at the state level. Representatives sent by the people to the state legislature would be bound to accept such declarations, and if they didn’t the people would be justified in ignoring anything the state legislature (or the governor) said or did. They would have de facto seceded from the state of NH in this situation.

I looked up how the Constitution was ratified and it looks like a state convention in NH brought NH into the Federal arraignment.

This being so, I guess I am forced to rail on about how interlopers from outside of NH picked it as their mad-science laboratory to come and tell the good people of NH how to live their lives. This is all fallacies but people think in fallacies. I feel that the new NH Republic will lack the authority to rule with a bare margin and that the same fact will be exploited by the Feds with the dirty tricks that will inevitably be employed.

1 Like

Russell Kanning of the Keene Free Press reports that he once went to a GOP meeting and asked almost everyone present what their position was on NH independence. The free staters, he says, were afraid to answer…but the longtime locals said something along the lines of hell yeah.

1 Like

Surely no one is forcing you to rail against immigrants, and surely that is not what you want to do in any case?

If you move as an immigrant to someplace like Honduras or Panama, do you want to be characterized as an “interloper” who is usurping the patrimony of the “good people” living there now by establishing a “mad science laboratory” on “their” land? I would reject any such attempt to smear an effort to establish a free area in which people’s individual rights are respected.

It seems as clear as day to me that parochialism, of which nationalism is a major strain, is a worldview at odds with libertarian values. How can elevating circumstances like nativity or seniority over human rights or property rights be conducive to creating a free society?

1 Like

States like New Hampshire are seen as sovereign in ways that mere towns or counties are not. The fact that they are called “states” and not “provinces” or some such, reflects that. While I would welcome any more localized declarations of independence, I think there is strength and unity in having a state-level affirmation. Lacking such a statement, the Feds might more readily bring pressure on smaller localities and “pick them off” one by one, perhaps with the assistance of state authorities.

1 Like

Individual towns and counties declaring independence in 1774/75 did not happen independent of each other, or in a vacuum. There had been secret meetings in each of these areas, and communication between them via Committees of Correspondence. Within a very short period of time, the counties had ousted the English officials, forcing them to sign resignations, sometimes marching them in disgrace down a street lined with sometimes thousands of armed men. These were very public demonstrations of the anger the English had evoked in the locals.

After the declarations had been made, any dissenters were disarmed. It was only a matter a few days or weeks before all of the English had essentially been driven out of the western counties.

The reason why Boston did not join them earlier was that the English were trying to make an example of Boston for various infractions, sometimes quite serious. Bootlegging and smuggling had become common… yes, many of the “Fathers of Our Country” became criminals in the face of English tyranny. The English believed that if they made an example of Boston that the western, less populous, counties would fall in line. It had the opposite effect, and stiffened the resolve of these western counties. Since a military occupation of the western counties was nearly non-existent, they took advantage of the situation and ousted the English presence.

This was a truly grassroots movement for independence. It’s what we need today. Going first to the legislature for their permission to poll the people about their feelings is the opposite of what we need. I think we need to begin in the towns, not in the state. If the people of the towns demand it, it will happen, with or without permission from the state. If it does not have the support of the people, to such an extent that the people demand it, it will never happen.

This is faint support. Don’t count on it as you plan the expenditure of your precious minutes remaining here on Earth.

Once a Youtube ad with eagles, fireworks and an aircraft carrier declares that Free Staters want to take your Social Security check and make banking impossible with meaningless secession, it will blow away like smoke in the wind.

New Hampshire last I checked was not a ‘hostile’ territory nor is NHexit going to make it such. This isn’t Russia. It’s more equivalent to Canadian independence from the US and as someone pointed out you have to drive through Canada to get to Alaska already. It’s also not the case that you couldn’t get to Maine without going through NH anyway. There is both Canada by road to Maine and ocean. It’s also possible that with independence NH could put forth an agreement to permit free travel between the US and New Hampshire, or put forth neutral territory or a road that would be independent of each country or similar as other countries have done.

1 Like

You underestimate the power of like-minded people coming together for the purpose of increasing freedom. It’s not the majority in control, but a minority. It’s just not us yet. However we already have a disproportionate voice relative to our numbers and our numbers have been growing both in movers (each year we see a greater record breaking number of movers) and in representation (at about 10 new reps every 2 years). We don’t need 51% of the state reps to gain control. We need a bit over 1/3. We’re already able to get some bills through and block some other bills from passing when our wants align with that of either republicans or democrats. In time we’ll make progress whether it be on independence, nullification, or similar. Independence isn’t all or nothing. It attracts like minded folks to the state and helps move things in the right direction whether or not actual independence is achieved in the short term.

1 Like

You don’t need to reason with me, I want you to be successful, I really do. I just don’t think you will be if you don’t prepare for the inevitable. If you begin to be successful enough to seceed, you will not be fighting geriatric Democrat volunteers in NH, You will be fighting the world’s most successful spies and killers. Well, you won’t be, because they will have assassinated you already in this scenario, but the people who have fought on in this fantasy will be fighting people that just orcastrated the Ruso-Ukraine War will see NH as a perfect spot for the Russians to launch a counter attack. This is the Big Laugues, kids, and y’all are woefully unprepared.

The best case scenario here is that they simply trot out the kind of lies and fear mongering that got Ian sent to the Pokey. Worst-case is assassinations, tanks and an invasion from Canada orcastrated by the US. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

1 Like

Who’da thunk that a simple observation would have generated this much respons?!?

With respect to an invasion from Canada: If we do it right, it would not be an invasion - it would have to be an occupation. The difference is that an invasion would require some kind of violence, and an occupation would require that there be military troops stationed here, but that no battle actually ensued.
I really don’t think that Canada would want to occupy any part of the US… it would essentially require that they annex the state, extending military rule over it. The US would not be happy with that!

Second question: If Maine could be accessed via the Atlantic Ocean, how far out would ships have to go out to remain outside NHs claimed territorial waters? How far out would NH claim? Originally, territorial waters were determined by how far out you defend - the 3-mile limit was how far cannons could shoot a cannonball! How far out could NH defend?

The Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, and Space Force are all covered by the dictates of the restrictions of posse comitatus law. The Coast Guard is not… early on I believe it was the United States Revenue Cutter Service under the Department of the Treasury, and now is managed by the Department of Homeland Security.
Posse comitatus originally related to counties (see the earlier mention of the counties prior to the American Revolutionary War).

In case of a serious secession movement in NH (or anywhere else), the National Guard is the ones to watch.
So long as we do not become violent, or use force to keep federal officials from performing their lawful duties, we should be alright… unless treachery, deceit, negative propaganda, etc. are implemented on the part of of the feds.

The president can request state National Guard troops, but the governors are not required to activate them. National Guard troops from one state can be used in an adjacent state without presidential interference if both states agree.
If the president wants to use National Guard troops from one state in another state, federalizing the National Guard, he can simply ask around for a governor who supports him in that endeavor, and those troops can be used to put down an insurrection in the other state. However, federalizing the National Guard would bring them under the restrictions of posse comitatus. This would apply to the situation that would obtain if New Hampshire declares independence, and the feds lie about violent forces within New Hampshire. The president is allowed to put down insurrection, rebellion, etc. in a state wherein state officials are either unable or unwilling to put down the rebellion.

Something like the above occurred during the January 6, 2021 “riots” in D.C. There was a request for National Guard troops from the states, but only nine states sent anyone. There is no requirement that governors must to honor such a request.

My guess is that most states in this situation would not want to risk allowing out-of-state National Guard troops into their own state, and so any attempt to garner the approval of Congress would result in an almost unanimous rejection by them. Any president would likely be impeached over taking the action himself, and likely lose his position.

We are then left with civilian federal law enforcement agencies to counter any bid for independence. This would involve DEA, FBI, CIA, IRS, FDA and other alphabet agencies. They would try to find every infraction under their own regulations, and would probably descend en masse at some point.

We would have to be vigilant, for some years before any actual attempt to secede. Intelligence gathering will be paramount. I’m not worried about the weapons that might be used. I’m more concerned about personal, individual, protection protection.

I noted above both the counties of Massachusetts and the posse comitatus. Those two things are inextricably bound together. I came across the following:

Gautham Rao’s article The Federal Posse Comitatus
Doctrine explains: “In its migration to America, however,
colonists transformed the posse comitatus from an
instrument of royal prerogative to an institution of local
self-governance.” The posse “functioned through,
rather than upon, the local popular will.” In other words,
the Americans brought the posse back to its traditional
Anglo-Saxon role, shaking off six centuries of how
the Norman Conquest and succeeding monarchs had
partially undemocratized the posse and the sheriff.
According to Rao, “[t]he colonists’ control of the posse
comitatus—of the legal means of coercion—all but
precipitated the American Revolution.” The policies
of the government in London had so alienated the
Americans that they were no longer willing to enforce
what London wanted. The Prime Minister, Lord North,
recognized the problem: the posse had switched
sides; rather than providing the manpower to enforce
Parliament’s will, the posse was now actively resisting
that will: “[O]ur regulations here are of no import, if
you have nobody in that country to give
them force.” The problem was exacerbated by the
fact that most sheriffs leaned Whig (towards citizen
rights) rather than Tory (towards the authority
of the monarch). So at the advice of Lord North
and his party, the British government attempted
to resort to military coercion of the Americans,
and, starting in the fall of 1774, a gun control
program designed to disarm them. Forcible
disarmament with house-to-house searches by
the British redcoats was attempted at Lexington
and Concord on the morning of April 19, 1775.
The Americans resisted with their personal arms,
and the Revolutionary War began.

In recent years, sheriffs in the United States have been at the forefront of resistance to increased federal gun laws. It’s happening right now, and will likely continue in the future.