The more likely scenario is that New Hampshire's independence would lead the way for other states to follow. There are independence movements in numerous states around the USA: Alaska, California, Hawaii, South Carolina and Vermont, to name only a few. The more people who withdraw their consent from the federal government, the less power it has to wage war. If the federal government begins preparations for warfare against New Hampshire, it is only likely to hasten pro-independence attitudes in the rest of the Union.

New Hampshire holds little strategic value for the United States. The Civil War began only after the South attacked a federal fortress. Obviously, violence against the federal government would be met with violence. But we envision a peaceful separation in which there would be little incentive for the federal government to use violence to force us to remain in the Union.

Would the US impose trade embargoes on us in retaliation?
That is a possible scenario. But if so, that would be their loss. As our platform indicates, we would maintain strong trade relationships with the rest of the world. Our free trade policy would more than compensate for loss of US trade. New Hampshire possesses a seaport, and a border with Canada that would enable us to transport goods without moving them through the United States.

We should also think more long-term. Any trade embargo is likely to be for the short term only. The British were once furious with America for declaring independence. Now, the British government is the closest ally of the United States. Time has a way of healing wounds, whether real or imagined. After at most a few short years, we believe that normal trade relations with the US would be resumed.

Isn't this "un-American?"
Many have commented that it feels "un-American" to withdraw from the Union. Some feel that it betrays those who have given their lives for freedom.

If one is to equate "America" with a federal government, it is understandable that a person would feel this way. However, we believe that America is not about a "government," it is about a set of principles that we all hold dear: liberty and justice for all. Those who gave their lives for America gave their lives for freedom, and it would dishonor their sacrifice to allow freedom to be destroyed so that a government might live.

Our founders understood this. Though they considered themselves "British," their loyalties were to the principles for which they believed Britain should have stood, not to the British government itself. Therefore, they were willing to declare independence when the British government trampled on their precious liberties.

Without trying to minimize the suffering of our founders, we feel that the tyranny presented by the federal government is far worse than anything endured by our founders at the hands of the British. Faced with such tyranny, Jefferson said that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." If we wish to maintain the altogether patriotic and American legacy of our founders, we must not permit sentimentality to be placed above substance. If one holds, as we do, that the Federal Union has become a source of great tyranny, it must be our obligation to declare our independence.

What about international travel? Would my US passport be invalid?
Although your federal passport would be invalid when independence is achieved, as an independent nation, New Hampshire would issue its own passports.

What would happen to federal officials performing their duties within New Hampshire's jurisdiction?
Federal agencies depend upon the state to enforce their jurisdiction. New Hampshire would no longer recognize federal agencies, and these officials would lose their legal status and their ability to enforce federal decrees. Of course, these individuals may wish to remain in New Hampshire, and we would certainly welcome them as our brothers.

What about Maine? It would be exiled!
This is so. Maine would not be connected to the rest of the Federal Union. However, this need be no threat. Alaska functions quite well without being connected to the rest of the "mainland," as does Hawaii. New Hampshire would certainly extend hospitality to anyone traveling through our nation for the purpose of visiting Maine. We have no hostilities toward our brethren in the other states, even as we have no hostilities toward Canada. Independence is a political distinction, not a cultural one.

Would New Hampshire have airline access?
Certainly New Hampshire would have airline access. Independence does not mean that we are cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world. Like any other stable independent nation, New Hampshire would have connection with the rest of the world through airlines, freighters, etc. Of course, each airline has its own policy relating to which countries are served. If there are not enough airlines serving New Hampshire, the free market would naturally create new airlines to fill the need.

Would stock and financial exchanges remain open?
Although governments often regulate the exchanges, stock and financial exchanges are not a function of government, but rather of the free market. Governments only limit exchanges, they do not create them.

Since our vision for New Hampshire foresees a laissez-faire approach to the economy, it is possible that in the future New Hampshire would have sufficient need, and an exchange would naturally develop. Until then, we could continue to use any of the world's exchanges for our financial needs. This is commonplace. Investors from many different nations use the New York Stock Exchange, for instance.

Would Social Security and Medicare payments continue to be made?
It is our position that Social Security and Medicare are obligations made by the United States of America to individuals, not to the states. Currently, if a Social Security recipient moves to a foreign country, he continues to receive his benefit. We see no reason why the United States would not continue to pay benefits to recipients in New Hampshire.

Of course, it is wise to be prepared for the worst-case scenario. The United States government has mismanaged the Social Security Trust Fund to the brink of bankruptcy. It is unlikely that Social Security will be around much longer for anyone, regardless of where they live.

Several innovative ideas have been proposed for providing an income to those who rely on Social Security in the event of its demise. One concept is leasing our state parks to private companies that would operate them for a profit. The lease payments could be used to provide substitute Social Security payments for those in need.

Undoubtedly, many options would be considered. However the matter is ultimately decided, one thing is clear: The federal government has proved itself incompetent to solve the Social Security crisis. New Hampshire could do no worse.

What if I am living in New Hampshire, but do not wish to lose my US citizenship?
Simply pay your federal income taxes and write the US Department of State a letter saying that, although you are residing in NH and it is declaring itself sovereign, you in no way wish to renounce your US citizenship. Many US citizens live outside the country, and the courts have ruled that a US citizen must actively renounce his citizenship, otherwise the default position is that US citizenship is retained. Your letter to the Department of State saying that you do not wish to renounce your citizenship is probably overkill, therefore, but it puts you on the safe side as you now have proactive proof that you intended to remain a citizen, and in fact that your continued residence in a different country should not be taken to mean that you have renounced your citizenship.