To The Daily Sun,

Rep. Raymond Howard Jr. has exhibited a disturbing progression over the years from bizarre but harmless proposals (such as his sponsorship of a costly bill to have state legislators paid in silver dollars) to truly alarming fringe behavior. At the end of 2020, he was a co-signer of a manifesto declaring himself and others to no longer be citizens of the state of New Hampshire. (Note, however, that he did not give up his seat in the state legislature of the state he no longer belonged to).

More recently, when Howard’s leader Mike Sylvia, head of the beleaguered Belknap County delegation, sponsored a constitutional amendment seeking to have New Hampshire secede from the U.S., many of us wondered if Ray Howard would join in this secessionist movement. As it turns out, Rep. Howard’s letter of Oct. 25, makes it clear that he has indeed endorsed the Free State movement declaration of independence. No more social security, no Medicare, no federal highways, no U.S. passports, and so on.

When Rep. Howard stated, in his condescending and erroneous letter, that “all 50 states are independent sovereign countries,” he was not only wrong (not that he offered any support for that fallacy), but dead wrong. As in, over half a million, and maybe up to 750,000 dead, in the Civil War. When the South seceded from the nation, it was a fatally serious movement with wounds that may never heal. The Confederate troops surrendered at Appomattox on April 9, 1865, ending the fiction of a divisible nation. Four years later, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt the final blow to the secessionist fantasy, when it declared in the case of Texas v. White (1869) that Texas (through its admission to the U.S. in 1845) had become part of an “indestructible union, composed of indestructible states.”

A look back in history, to the founding of the nation, provides additional support to the notion of “one nation.” New Hampshire ratified the Articles of Confederation (“The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union”) in 1778. The U.S. Constitution, drafted in 1787 and ratified by New Hampshire in 1788, opened with the line “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union...”, showing the intent to strengthen the union, not weaken it. A splinter group in New York state wanted to reserve the right to withdraw from the union, but Alexander Hamilton quoted a letter from James Madison declaring that “the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and forever,” resulting in the New York contingent withdrawing its objection and ratifying the Constitution without right of secession. In fact, no state reserved the right to secede.

Do the people of Alton, Barnstead, and Gilmanton, who reside in Rep. Howard’s district, want to be represented by a legislator who not only does not consider himself a citizen of the state of New Hampshire, but now does not want New Hampshire to be part of the U.S.? 

Ruth Larson


(2) comments

Politicus Marcus

For an education on why RUTH IS WRONG listen to Tom Woods' podcast on the topic. Episode 1989 Secession: The Constitutional, Historical and Moral Case.

"Texas v. White (1869)...declared secession unconstitutional without deigning to employ such coarse instruments as reason or evidence.

In fact, (1) secession is perfectly constitutional, and (2) in the last resort the states, which created the Union, can’t be held hostage by a court they themselves established, as James Madison explained in his Report of 1800."


Only a true psychopath would believe that a war that happened hundreds of years ago “decided” the fate of people living today. Do you also believe that a bully beating a kid up for his lunch money “decided that issue. The money belongs to the bully he’s the one who won the fight! In fact his children should get the money from all the victims children hundreds of years into the future!” Also a letter from one person to another is not a binding contract on people living hundreds of years later. If joining the union was the same as entering into a contract, the United States has not lived up to their end of the contract and therefore it can be ended and the state of New Hampshire can leave that contract. However you are wrong in saying that there could possibly be a contract signed by men hundreds of years ago that binded their children to it hundreds of years later. I want the feds out of New Hampshire all they do is take from us. The roads will not be torn out if we declare independence. If you move to another country and don’t revoke your citizenship you can still claim the things you’ve been paying into like social security but personally I’d take the right to keep all the money that leaves NH and goes to the fed over their little bowl of gruel they give people for retirement after the huge amount they steal from us anyway.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.