USA > Vermont > The history of Vermont, from its discovery to its admission into the Union in 1791. By Hiland Hall > Part 32
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55
Active and energetic measures were taken by the government of Vermont to enlighten the public mind in other states, in regard to the claim of the state to independence. In the preceding month of August an elaborate pamphlet had been prepared by Ethan Allen with the official approbation of the governor and council, setting forth the original title of New Hampshire to the territory of Vermont, the granting of its lands by that province and their settlement under that title, the order of the king transferring the jurisdiction to New York, the subsequent regranting of the lands by the latter province to city speculators, the attempts of the new patentees by the aid of that government to oust the settlers from their possessions, their for- cible and successful resistance to the unfriendly and hostile measures of both the colonial and later rulers of New York towards the inha- bitants .? At the time of the meeting of the legislature, this pamphlet had just been published, and pains was taken to have it extensively circulated among the leading men of the country. Col. Ira Allen
1 Williams's Vt., 113-116. Slade, 113-116. Vt. Assembly Jour., Oct. 19, 20, 21 and 22, 1779. Jour. Mass. Assembly. Wells's Life of Samuel Adams, vol. 3, pp. 144-147. Jour. Cong., vol. 3, pp. 368, 429, 430. Jour. N. Y. Assembly, Oct. 18 and 21, 1779.
2 The following is a copy of the title page of the work : " A vindication of the opposition of the inhabitants of Vermont to the government of New York, and of their right to form an independent state. Humbly submitted to the consideration of the impartial world. By Ethan Allen. Printed by
303
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
was appointed by vote of the assembly to visit the legislatures of the states of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland ; and by conference with their members and by distribution of "the vindication " to endeavor to produce an impression favorable to the interests of Vermont. Mr. Allen appears to have conducted the business of his mission with skill and ability, and with considerable success, and to have joined the agents of the state to congress at Philadelphia, prior to the expected hearing of the controversy by that body.1
By the adoption of the resolutions by congress, providing for the adjudication of the dispute, and by the addition of New Hampshire and Massachusetts as parties to it, new questions were presented for the consideration of that body and the public, which were thought to require special notice from the government of the new state. A pamphlet of fifty pages on the subject, was drawn up, under the direction of the governor and council, by Stephen R. Bradley, Esq., then a young lawyer, who had recently removed from Connecticut to Vermont, and who afterwards occupied a prominent position among the public men of the state. It was entitled "Vermont's appeal to the candid and impartial world; containing a fair stating of the claims of Massachusetts Bay, New Hampshire and New York ; the right of the state of Vermont to independence ; with an address to the Honorable American Congress, and the inhabitants of the thirteen United States." It was published at Hartford, by Hudson & Goodwin, in December, 1779. This appeal, after showing the weakness and invalidity of the claims of Massachusetts and New Hampshire to the territory in question, and treating of the unjust and oppressive conduct of New York, which rendered resistance to her authority a public necessity, proceeded in a clear and spirited manner to advocate the right of the state upon revolutionary principles, to maintain her independent jurisdiction.
Alden Spooner, 1779, Printer to the state of Vermont." On the second page was inserted a copy of a resolution, as follows :
" State of Vermont. In Council, Arlington 23d August, 1779. Resolved, that the following vindication be forthwith published, and that a number of the pamphlets be sent to the congress of the United States, and to the gene- ral assembly of every of these states; and that a number be likewise sent to the generals and other principal officers of the continental army, for their consideration. Per order of the governor and council.
JOSEPH FAY, Secretary."
The pamphlet covered one hundred and seventy-two pages.
1 Jour. Vt. Assembly, October 21, 1779. Ira Allen's Vt., p. 134. Ira Allen to Penn. Council, January 20, 1780, in Penn. Archives, 1779-1781, p. 89.
304
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
In immediate reply to the resolutions of congress, the appeal declared that the government of Vermont could not view themselves as holden either in the sight of God or man. to submit to the execu- tion of a plan which they had reason to believe was commenced by neighboring states; that the liberties and privileges of the state of Vermont, by said resolutions, were to be suspended upon the arbi- trament and final determination of congress, when in their opinion they were too sacred ever to be arbitrated upon at all, and what they were bound to defend at every risk ; that the congress of the United States had no right to intermeddle with the internal police and government of Vermont; that the state existed independent of any of the thirteen United States, and was not accountable to them, or to their representatives, for liberty, the gift of the beneficent Creator ; that the people of Vermont were not represented in con- ยท gress, and could not submit to resolutions passed without their consent, or even knowledge, and which put everything that was valuable to them at stake ; that there appeared a manifest inequality, not to say predetermination, that congress should request of their constituents power to judge and determine the cause, and never ask the consent of thousands whose all was at stake. It also declared that they were, and ever had been, ready to bear their proportion of the burden and expense of the war with Great Britain, from its first commencement, whenever they were admitted into the Union with the other states, but that they were not so lost to all sense and honor, that after four years war with Britain, in which they had expended so much blood and treasure, they should now give up everything worth fighting for, the right of making their own laws, and choosing their own form of government, to the arbitrament and determination of any man or body of men under heaven."1 Copies of this pamphlet were furnished to the several members of congress prior to the expected hearing before that body, and were extensively distributed among the other public men of the country.
Jonas Fay, Moses Robinson, and Stephen R. Bradley, agents of the state of Vermont, were in attendance at Philadelphia on the first day of February, and presented to congress their credentials, together with " Vermont's appeal " and " a book containing the con- stitution and code of laws as established by the freemen of said state." In their letter to the president of congress, they announced their readiness to unite with that body in placing Vermont on the same footing with the other states of the confederation, but declared that they had no authority to close with the terms of the resolutions
' Vermont's Appeal, 38-40. Williams's Vermont, p. 253.
305
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
of the 24th of September preceding, and that the people of the state they represented did not deem themselves under obligation to do so. They further declared that if congress should determine to proceed under those resolutions, a postponement of the hearing would be indispensible to the rights of Vermont ; that they had the strongest reasons to believe they should be able to show, if sufficient time were allowed them, " that in consequence of their remonstran- ces and petitions to the court of Great Britain, that power had made a distinct government of the territory now comprehending the state of Vermont, and appointed Gov. Skene to preside over the same pre- vious to America's denying its supremacy ;" that such evidence would overthrow the titles, under the crown, of the other claiming states, and "would oblige every man, even those interested, to acknowledge that Vermont had an equal right with the other American states to assume an independent government," and that until they should have had time to obtain and publish such evidence in support of their cause, they would never by reason of any partial adjudication "voluntarily surrender the liberties God and nature had vested them with."
The delegates from the claiming states were also in attendance upon congress, but the subject does not appear from the journals to have been mentioned in that body on the day appointed for its con- sideration. On the Sth of February, papers in relation to the con- troversy were read in congress, but no action was taken in regard to them. On the 2d of March, the succeeding Tuesday was assigned by congress for the consideration of the subject, but the matter seems to have been passed over, without further notice, until the 21st of that month, when it was ordered " that the same to be postponed, nine states exclusive of those who are parties to the question, not being represented in congress."
A majority of the members for various reasons, some of which will be noticed hereafter, were undoubtedly averse to coming to a decision of the controversy. Mr. Folsom, one of the delegates from New Hampshire, writing from Philadelphia, on the 17th of April, to Josiah Bartlett, says : " As to Vermont, there were several vio- lent attempts by the delegates of New York and New Hampshire to bring the matter before congress, but without the least appearance of success. I have no expectation of any settlement till after the war is over, if I can believe the present members." The agents of Vermont had sometime before this returned home.1
1 Ira Allen's Vt., 134. Williams' Vt., 254. Jour. Cong., vol. 3, p. 420, 438, 439, 444. Clinton Papers, No. 2714. B. HI. Hall's Manuscript.
39
!
306
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
CHAPTER XXVII.
THE HEARING OF THE CONTROVERSY IN CONGRESS.
1780.
Negotiations between New Hampshire and New York for dividing the territory of Vermont between them, with the ridge of the Green Moun- tain for a boundary - Vermont notwithstanding the resolutions of Congress of Sept., 1779, confiscates tory estates, grants unappropriated : lands and compels Yorkers to contribute to the defence of the frontier __ Congress by resolution of June 1780 censure the conduct of Vermont and fix upon the second Tuesday of September for the hearing of the controversy - Protest against the resolutions by the governor and council of Vermont - Proceedings at the hearing - Obstacles in the way of the success of the claiming states- Many of the members of congress favor- able to Vermont - Congress resolve to postpone the subject.
THE many obstacles encountered by the New York delegates, in their efforts to obtain the efficient action of congress against Vermont, seem to have induced them to look favorably upon a pro- posal from the New Hampshire delegates for a division of the disputed territory between the two states. There was little doubt, if congress could be brought to a decision of the controversy between the two states, that it must be in favor of New York. New Hamp- shire had appealed to that body to prevent encroachments by Vermont on her territory east of Connecticut river, and probably, with little hope of making her title good against New York to the westward of it. If the danger to her territory from that source should be removed or overcome, as it was liable to be, she would have but small desire to continue the prosecution of a claim which was likely to result in the aggrandizement of her antagonist. The manners and institutions of the inhabitants of Vermont were similar to those of New Hampshire, and there is no doubt that the people of the latter state would have been much better pleased to see Vermont, to the westward of Connecticut river, an independent state, than to have the territory form a part of New York. But without the zealous cooperation of New Hampshire with New York, it was doubtful whether congress could be induced to come to a decision of the controversy ; and the continuance of such coopera- tion could not be depended on unless some other inducement to action should be presented. The ridge of the Green mountain, which divides Vermont into two nearly equal parts, by a north and
307
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
south line, might form a natural and convenient boundary between two states, and the eastern portion would greatly add to the wealth and power of New Hampshire. The idea of such an ultimate division was undoubtedly suggested at the time of the passage of the resolutions of September, 1779, and might have contributed to the unanimity with which they were passed.
A design of this character, which sought to bargain away the right of large bodies of people to choose their own form of govern- ment, could not be publicly avowed. But that it was seriously entertained, if not fully agreed upon, there is no doubt.
It appears from Mr. Jay's report to Gov. Clinton, dated the day after the passage of the resolution of the 24th of September, 1779, that there were some reasons that induced the passage of those resolutions which he was not " convinced of the prudence of com- mitting to paper." It is probable they related to this matter. In a letter of the 7th of October, two weeks afterwards, Mr. Jay pro- ceeded to prepare the mind of the governor for such an arrangement as follows :
" One of the New Hampshire delegates seems much inclined to make the ridge of mountains instead of Connecticut river the bound- ary between us; and that the soil between the mountain and the river should remain the property of those to whom it had been granted, either under New York or New Hampshire. He observed, and I think with propriety, that this line, by dividing the disaffected between the two states, would render the reduction of them to good order less difficult, and by interesting both states in their allegiance, prevent their again acting in a body, or easily uniting their councils for purposes injurious to government. My reply to this, gentlemen, was, that I had no authority to say any thing on this subject, that I knew the state of New York to be sincerely disposed to cultivate harmony with her neighbors, and was persuaded that no settlement founded in justice and mutual convenience will be disagreeable to them. To you, however, I must confess that the line he proposes does not appear to me to be impolitic. We have unquestionably more territory than we can govern, and the loss of that strip, would not in my opinion, overbalance the advantages resulting from it. On the contrary, unless I am much mistaken, exclusive of other considerations, the less our people have to do with Connecticut river the better. I would rather see the productions of our country go to sea by another route."
On the 9th of February following, after several unsuccessful attempts to induce congress to proceed to a hearing of the contro-
----------
==
308
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
versy in accordance with their previous resolutions, the New York del- gates addressed a formal letter to Gov. Clinton, recommending an accommodation of the dispute with New Hampshire. The letter, which with other papers that accompanied it, was transmitted by the governor to the assembly, is not now to be found in the archives of the state, but there is no doubt from other sources of information, that it contemplated a division of the Vermont territory, by the line suggested by Mr. Jay. The letter of the delegates, with the accom- panying papers, was referred by the two houses to a joint committee, of whom Mr. Townsend, who had been admitted as a representative in the assembly of the friends of New York in Cumberland county, was chairman. He was an intelligent lawyer of good character, possessing the entire confidence of the men he represented, and he had much influence in the body of which he was received a member. The letter of the delegates had been laid before the assembly the 21st of February, and on the 8th of March, Mr. Townsend reported from the committee the draft of a letter, in answer to it, which was adopted by the legislature, and transmitted to .the delegates. The answer of the assembly, after stating that they conceived "it ineligible at that time to attempt an accommodation with New Hampshire in the mode proposed " by the delegates, continued as follows :
" We forbear to assign particularly the motives which influenced both houses in their determination upon this important question. Let it suffice to observe that after numberless applications to con- gress for their interposition, the business is at length in a course of decision, and it is deemed prudent at least for sometime, to wait the result, and you are desired by every means in your power to press for a speedy trial and determination. At a future day, possibly the measure may appear not only expedient but necessary, and if from obstructions to a trial or any other causes, you should continue or be more confirmed in the sentiment of a separate settlement with New Hampshire, it is the wish of the legislature that in such case one of the delegates should attend them at
on the of next, to which time and place they are adjourned, in order that they may be fully possessed of information upon this momentous subject."
This proposed division of the Vermont territory would not proba- bly have been very distasteful to most of the land claimants under New York, whose grants which interfered with those of New Hamp- shire were almost exclusively on the west side of the Green mount- ain ; but it was earnestly objected to by Mr. Townsend in behalf of the friends of New York to the eastward of the mountain, who,
309
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
after their extraordinary exertions and sacrifices in endeavoring to establish the jurisdiction of their favorite state, were quite unwill- ing to be abandoned by it, to the mercy of those with whom they had long been in controversy. This opposition may perhaps have been the principal obstacle to the adoption of the proposal at that time.
It does not appear from the answer of the legislature, that its members were troubled with any scruples about the justice and pro- priety of thus bargaining away the people of Vermont without their knowledge, but only regarded it as a question of expediency, which they might be at perfect liberty to answer differently thereafter. It was long believed in Vermont that a full arrangement had been entered into between the two states, by which after a decision by congress in favor of New York, the eastern section of the state was to be relinquished to New Hampshire.' That this was not the finale of the project for dividing the territory of Vermont between the two adjoining claimants, will be seen hereafter. It seems to have been long entertained by delegates from New Hampshire, and not always unfavorably listened to by those of New York. There were, however, difficulties in carrying it into effect, which there never came a suitable time to overcome.
The legislature of Vermont, considering the resolutions of congress for adjudicating the dispute between New York, New Hampshire and Massachusetts as a virtual denial of her separate jurisdiction, and believing that any trial under them would be a mere mockery so far as the new state was concerned, had, as before stated, resolved, without regard to the injunctions of congress, to continue the full exercise of her authority as an independent state. She had accord- ingly, disposed of tory estates, granted vacant and unappropriated lands and levied troops to guard the frontiers, requiring the friends of New York as well as others to furnish men for that purpose. A full and perhaps in some respects an exaggerated account of the measures and conduct of the Vermonters having been sent by the friends of New York to Gov. Clinton, was by him transmitted to the delegates of the state in congress, who laid it before that body. Congress having already resolved to hear and decide the controversy, and having enjoined Vermont from exercising, in the mean time, the before mentioned acts of authority, could not well refuse, on the
1 Life of Jay, vol. 1, p. 88. Clinton Papers in Albany State Library, No. 2540, 2791, 2806. Jour. N. Y. Assembly of Feb. 21, 22, and March 8, 1780. N. Y. Assembly Papers, Miscellaneous, vol. 1. Slade, 112, 127.
310
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
urgent demand of New York to condemn their violation. Accord- ingly congress, on the 2d of June, 1780, adopted a series of resolu- tions, which after stating by way of preamble that the inhabitants "of the district of country commonly known by the name of the New Hampshire Grants, in violation of the injunctions of congress had proceeded as a separate government to make grants of lands and sales of estates by them declared forfeited, and had also, in divers instances, exercised civil and military authority over the persons and effects of sundry inhabitants within the said district, who professed to be citizens of and to owe allegiance to the state of New York," declared such acts to be " highly unwarrantable and subversive of the peace and welfare of the United States," and strictly required the inhabitants of said district to forbear all further acts of such authority, either civil or military, until the controversy should be heard and determined by congress. The resolutions also declared that the disputes should be taken up and decided as soon as nine states, exclusive of those who were parties, should be repre- sented in that body. On the 9th of June congress by resolution assigned the second Tuesday of September following for the hearing of the controversy under the resolution of the previous year.
Copies of these several resolutions, enclosed in a letter from the president of congress were received by Gov. Chittenden about a month after their passage, to which he by advice of his council, returned a spirited protest. It bore date July 25th, 1780, and after stating that the resolutions of the 2d and 9th of June, were considered by the people of Vermont as " subversive of the natural rights which they had to independence, as well as incompatible with the principles on which congress grounded their own right to independence," controverted the authority which con- gress had assumed by them, in the following logical language : " Vermont, being a free and independent state, have denied the authority of congress to judge of their jurisdiction. Over the head of all this, it appears that congress by their resolutions of the 9th ultimo, have determined that they have power to judge the cause, which has already determined the essence of the dispute; for if Vermont does not belong to some one of the United States, congress could have no such power without their consent, so that conse- quently, determining they have such power, has determined that Vermont have no right to independence; for it is utterly incom- patible with the rights and prerogatives of an independent state, to be under the control or arbitrament of any other power. Vermont have, therefore, no alternative ; they must submit to the unwarrant-
311
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
able decree of congress, or continue their appeal to heaven and to arms."
The governor then referred to the supposed understanding be- tween New York and New Hampshire for dividing the territory between them, likening it to the then reeent iniquitous division of Poland between three European sovereigns. He alluded to the maintenance of posts on the northern frontier by Vermont, not only for the protection of her own territory but also for the security of her three opposing neighboring states ; he declared that their conduct in thus guarding the frontiers, had secured the friendship of private gentlemen and yeomanry whose representatives seemed to be seek- ing their destruction, and that having the general approbation of disinterested states, the people were undoubtedly in a condition to maintain government; "but should they be deceived in such connec- tions," continued the governor, "yet, as they are not included in the thirteen United States. but consider themselves to be a separate body, they would still have in their power other advantages ; for they are, if necessitated to it, at liberty to offer, or accept. terms of cessation of hostilities with Great Britain, without the approbation of any other men or body of men ; for on proviso, that neither congress nor the legislatures of those states which they represent will support Vermont in her independence, but devote her to the usurped govern- ment of any other power, she has not the most distant motive to continue hostilities with Great Britain, and maintain an important frontier for the benefit of the United States, and for no other reward than the ungrateful one of being enslaved by them." The governor admitted that Vermont had " dealt with severity towards the tories, confiscated some of their estates, imprisoned some, banished some, and hanged some, and kept the remainder in good subjection," and that " they had likewise granted unto worthy whigs, in the neigh- boring states, some part of their unappropriated lands; the incon- siderable avails of which had been faithfully appropriated for the defence of the northern frontiers." He claimed that the state of Massachusetts having passed no law in compliance with the resolu- tions of congress, could not be longer considered as a party to the controversy ; that the claim of New Hampshire was too weak to entitle lier to be considered as a real party, and " as a bar against the right of New Hampshire to a trial for any part of Vermont," he transmitted to congress a pamphlet entitled, A Concise Refutation of the Claims of New Hampshire and Massachusetts Bay to the Territory of Vermont. This pamphlet, of about thirty pages. had been prepared with care and ability, by Ethan Allen and Jonas Fay, and published under the direction of the governor and council.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.