USA > Vermont > The history of Vermont, from its discovery to its admission into the Union in 1791. By Hiland Hall > Part 33
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
------------
-
312
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
The governor's protest against the resolutions concluded in the following language :
" Notwithstanding the usurpation and injustice of neighboring governments towards Vermont, and the late resolutions of congress, this government, from a principle of virtue and close attachment to the cause of liberty, as well as a thorough examination of their own policy, are induced, once more, to offer a union with the United States of America, of which congress are the legal representative body. Should that be denied, this state will propose the same to the legislatures of the United States, separately, and take such other measures as self-preservation may justify."
This protest of Gov. Chittenden was committed to the care of Ira Allen and Stephen R. Bradley, who were directed by the governor and council to repair to Philadelphia and attend to the political affairs of the state before congress. Luke Knowlton of Newfane was also in attendance on that body in behalf of the friends of New York, in Cumberland county. The party who were for a state whose capital should be on Connecticut river, either by the division of Vermont by the range of the Green mountain, or by annexing the whole to New Hampshire, as should be found most feasible, were represented by Peter Olcott of Newbury. Preparations were also made for the contemplated hearing by the delegates of the two con- testing states of New York and New Hampshire.
On the 12th of September, the day fixed upon for the hearing, Messrs Allen and Bradley presented their commission as agents of Vermont, and accompanied it with the before mentioned protest of Gov. Chittenden, and a copy of the pamphlet therein referred to. The credentials of Mr. Olcott and a communication from those he represented, were also presented, which, together with the commis- sion of Allen and Bradley, and the protest of Gov. Chittenden, appear to have been read in that body on that day. But nine states exclusive of those who were parties to the controversy, not being represented, further proceedings were postponed.
On the 19th of September, the secretary of congress was directed to notify Messrs. Allen and Bradley, Mr. Knowlton and Mr. Olcott, to attend the hearing at six o'clock that afternoon. All of them were present and their several credentials were read. The further proceedings of congress on that day and the next are stated in their journal as follows :
" The delegates of New York, as agents for the state, delivered in sundry papers, which were read, with an intent to prove that the land known by the name of the New Hampshire Grants, west
313
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
of Connecticut river, is within the limits of the state of New York ; and that the state of New Hampshire have acknowledged this, and that the people on the said tract had been represented in the legis- lature of New York, since the year 1764."
" September 20, 1780.
" Congress proceeded to the order of the day, the parties being present as yesterday except the delegate for the state of New Hamp- shire, who was absent through sickness, when the state of New York, by its delegates, proceeded in stating evidence to prove that the inhabitants of the tract of country known by the name of the New Hampshire Grants, west of Connecticut river, as part of the state and colony of New York, were duly represented in, and sub- mitted to the authority, jurisdiction and government of the congress and convention of said state, till late in the year 1777; and that therefore the people inhabiting the said tract of country, have no right to a separate and independent jurisdiction." The evidence and argument on the part of New York being completed, the hearing in behalf of New Hampshire was postponed to the succeed- ing week.
At this stage of the proceedings, the agents of Vermont withdrew, and determined to attend the hearing no further. The following account of the proceeding is given in the language of Mr. Allen, one of the agents.
" The claims of New Hampshire and New York were put in, and both these states plead that Vermont had no pretensions to inde- pendence, but belonged to them. The agents of Vermont though present, were not considered or treated by congress as the agents or representatives of any state or people invested with legislative au- thority. Parts of two days were spent in hearing the evidence exhibited by New York, to show that the people on the New Hampshire Grants belonged to and of right were under the au- thority and jurisdiction of New York, and therefore had no right to a separate jurisdiction ; a day being assigned to hear the claim and evidence of New Hampshire. During this time the agents of Ver- mont retained minutes of the proceedings of congress, and of the evidence exhibited by the agents of New York, that they might the better be prepared to remonstrate against them, as they had no idea of submitting the independence of Vermont to the arbitrament of congress, or, of objecting in any way to the evidence adduced against Vermont, however irregular or provoking. The principles on which the agents of Vermont went, were to remain quiet, let the
40
- - -
311
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
business be conducted as it would; the worse, the more advantage they would have in remonstrating. They concluded it not advisable to attend and hear the claim and evidence of New Hampshire when it should be taken up by congress, therefore sent in their remon- strance to that body, and declined attending. Mr. Thompson, secre- tary of congress, called on and requested them to attend, which . they refused. He then requested to know what report he should return to.congress, when he received for answer, that while congress sat as a court of judicatory authorized by the claiming states ex parte, and Vermont was not put on an equal footing, they should not again darken the doors of congress."
The remonstrance of the agents earnestly complained of the mode of trial adopted as partial and unfair. declaring that the state of Vermont could not accede to it without denying itself, and argued at some length against the alleged injustice of the proceeding. The agents, nevertheless, professed their readiness on the part of the state of Vermont " to return to congress the number of the inhabitants of the state liable to do military duty ; and that the state should from year to year, during the continuance of the war with Great Britain, furnish their full proportion of troops with the other states, allowing congress to determine their quota, and that at the close of the war the dispute should be settled by the mediation of sovereign powers," and that such arrangement should not " be construed to take away the right any of the United States claim to have in or over Vermont." They further stated that they were willing to agree that some one or more of the legislatures of the disinterested states should act as mediators and settle the dispute. Or that congress should interfere to prevent the effusion of blood ; but that "they reprobated every idea of congress sitting as a court of judicature to determine the dispute, by virtue of authority given them by the act or acts of the state or states, that make but one party." The re- monstrance concluded as follows : "It gives us pungent grief that such an important cause at this juncture of affairs, on which our all depends, should be forced on by any gentlemen professing themselves friends to the cause of America, with such vehemence and spirit as appears on the part of the state of New York; and shall only add that if the matter be thus pursued, we stand ready to appeal to God and the world, who must be accountable for the awful consequences that may ensue."
This remonstrance bore date the 22d of September, and on the 27th the hearing was resumed, as appears by the following entry upon the journal.
- هبت قدم
315
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
"Congress proceeded in the order of the day respecting the juris- diction of the tract of country, commonly called the New Hampshire Grants, all the parties being present, except Ira Allen and Stephen R. Bradley, who being notified, declined to attend; when the agent of the state of New Hampshire proceeded to state the evidence tending to prove that the tract of country, known by the name of the New Hampshire Grants, was within the state of New Hampshire, and that therefore the people inhabiting the said tract of country, have no right to a separate and independent jurisdiction. The gen- tlemen [Messrs Knowlton and Olcott] appearing in behalf of sundry inhabitants of the said Grants, having nothing to add, and pressing congress to come to a determination. withdrew."
" Resolved, That the further consideration of the subject be post- poned."
The principal argument at this hearing, in behalf of New York, was made by Mr. Duane, the veteran leader on that side of the controversy. It was very elaborate, and, as written out by him, has been preserved in the archives of the New York Historical Society, and of which there is a copy in the office of the secretary of state at Montpelier. In regard to the original right of New York and the transactions of the settlers during the colonial period, the argument is substantially the same as that found in "The State of the Right," which had been prepared by him in 1773, and of which full notice has been before taken. The additional argument before congress was based upon the alleged acquiescence of the inhabitants of the Grants, more especially those to the eastward of the Green mountain, in the authority of New York, at a later date. This has also been already sufficiently noticed.
Of the argument made in behalf of New Hampshire, no particular account has been found. Judging from the statements in a letter from Gen. John Sullivan, the delegate having the matter in charge, to president Weare, dated Sept. 16, three days before the hearing commenced, the managers for New Hampshire must have relied for success more on grounds of policy than on those of a legal or equita- ble character. Gen. Sullivan says, "I have assisted the Yorkers in establishing the fact of an utter aversion of those people [the Ver- monters] to live under their jurisdiction, and at the same time have taken care to maintain the harmony which has ever subsisted between them and New Hampshire. This I find is likely to have the effect intended ; the members begin to see that if the lands are judged to New York the continent must be involved in a war to enforce the determination of congress, which can only be averted by
316
.
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
adjudging it to New Hampshire, and I am convinced this will finally turn the scale in favor of New Hampshire."
It is probable that this apprehension of difficulty in enforcing a decision in favor of New York, was very unfavorable to her claim, but that it tended to strengthen that of New Hampshire is more doubtful. A determination in favor of the independence of Ver- mont would have equally avoided the danger of a civil war, but that as well as a decision in favor of New Hampshire, would have grievously affronted New York. All difficulty would be most effectually avoided by congress, by forbearing to make any decision.
Vermont had warm friends in Congress, who believed the oppres- sion of New York fully justified her people in opposing the jurisdic- tion of that state, and political considerations also operated in her favor, with other members. The question in relation to the dis- position of the vacant western lands which were claimed by Virginia and several other states, to the exclusion of the residue, had long agitated and divided congress, and had hitherto prevented the adoption of the articles of confederation by all the states. Of these claims, that of Virginia was the most extensive and important. It reached west to the Mississippi, and indefinitely to the northward, including the present six states of Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin. North and South Carolina and Georgia, also claimed west to the Mississippi. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Dela- ware and Maryland were among the states whose rights to the avails of the lands was denied, and they, with apparent reason, claimed that those lands wrested from the crown of Great Britain by the common exertions of all the states, should be appropriated for the common benefit. The articles of confederation, which contained no provision in regard to those lands, had been agreed to by some of the states under protest that the adoption of them should not be considered a waiver of their right to a proportionate share in their proceeds. But the state of Maryland, had absolutely refused to sign the articles, until an amendment should be inserted providing for a fair participation of all the states in them. New York had set up a vague claim to western territory by way of inheritance to the six nations of Indians, and her delegates acted with those of Virginia and the other claiming states. If Vermont were declared to be a part of New York, her power and influence would be increased, but if admitted a member of the confederation, another vote would be added in opposition to such exclusive claims. The question in regard to these lands doubtless influenced the
317
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
action of many of the members, and operated with other considera- tions to prevent a decision in favor of New York.
Some of the difficulties encountered by the delegates of New York in their efforts to obtain the action of congress in their favor, may be seen from the following extract of a letter written by John Morin Scott, one of their number, to Gov. Clinton, dated September 26th. He says : "New Hampshire, represented by Gen. Sullivan, seems too favorable to the people of the Grants, and countenances an idea too prevalent in congress, that the dispute between New Hampshire and New York should be settled by a court of commis- sioners constituted agreeably to the articles of confederation. The end in view is evident. It is to create delay and thereby to dis- courage the subjects of our state, and strengthen the Vermonters. We have, however, gone through with the evidence on our own part
* * I am at a loss what is best to be done. If we push for a determination we may gain it by a bare majority, and even this depends upon the prospect we have of New Jersey. Mr. Duane is of opinion that Maryland will be with us. I differ with him. In short it seems to be the system of the smaller states to compel the larger (the western bounds of which are undefined) to large con- cessions. This they expect to effect by embarrassing us with respect to the settled parts of the country. Gen. Sullivan is sick which has suspended business for a few days. * I am of opinion the sooner we press the matter to its crisis, the better; for I fear the interest against us is growing. Not that I imagine a majority will express it by deciding against us, but that it may continually be done by procrastination."
To this letter Gov. Clinton returned an immediate answer, hoping that congress would be pressed to a decision, even if it should be carried " by only the vote of a single state." But all efforts of the New York delegates to obtain a decision in their favor werc ineffectual. On the 29th of November, Mr. Duane wrote to Gov. Clinton, that the Vermont business remained quiet, but that he foresaw there must be a rehearing in consequence of the changes in several delegations.1
Dr. Williams, writing when the memory of this hearing before congress was fresh, thus speaks in regard to it in his history :
1 Clinton Papers, Nos. 2856, 2865, 2981, 3181, 3215, 3240, 3258, 3393. Jour. Cong., vol. 3, p. 462, 464, 465, 513, 518, 520, 526. Slade, 118, 124. Ira Allen's Vermont, p. 140 -146. Ms. of B. H. Hall. Cong. Doc., in state department at Washington, No. 40, vol. 1. Journals of Vermont Assembly, Oct. 14, 1780. Williams's Vermont, p. 257.
318
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT
" At no time had the spirit of parties run higher than at this period. During the whole of this trial, it does not appear that either of the contending parties, had any idea -of conciliatory measures ; all seem to have been determined to effect their purposes. And although Vermont was not admitted to appear as one of the parties before congress, her expectations and prospects had at no time been so high. She well understood the ground, on which she stood, and it was generally believed in the other states, that some of her leading men would incline to join with Canada, and make the best terms they could with the British government, if no alternate was held out, but submission to the government of New York. In this state of the parties it was as dangerous to the American cause, to decide against Vermont, as against New Hampshire or New York. Congress felt and wisely endeavored to avoid the difficulty. A question was made whether congress had the power to form a new state, within the limits of the union. Those who remember the virulence of these parties, and the precarious situation of the American contest at that time, will not wonder that congress found reasons to avoid coming to any decision at that period, for no decision could have been made, that would not have proved highly irritating to some of these states, already too much inflamed by the violence and duration of the contest."
319
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
INVASION FROM CANADA, A TRUCE, AND PREPARATIONS FOR THE FUTURE DEFENCE OF THE STATE.
1780-1781.
Military events of 1780- Frontier forts garrisoned and militia in readiness for service -Their promptness commended by Gov. Clinton - Invasion from Canada in October and Capture of Fort George and Fort Ann on the New York frontier, and the destruction of Royalton, Vermont - Great alarm and flight from the New York border-Gen. Ethan Allen's truce with the enemy by which their farther ravages in New York and Ver- mont are prevented, and they retire to Canada - Accusations and com- plaints against Allen- He vindicates himself before the Vermont assembly, who approve of his conduct - Vermont assembly obtain pro- visions for the supply of troops for the ensuing year by assessing the several towns for their delivery in kind, and raise money and add to the power of the state by grants of land - The governor of Vermont, by circulars to the adjoining states, demands a relinquishment of their claims to her territory, and proposes a union with them for mutual defence against the common enemy - Massachusetts relinquishes her claim.
THE military events with which Vermont was connected in the year 1780 cannot be passed over without a brief notice. All the Continental troops being withdrawn from her territory, she was left entirely to her own resources and exertions for protection against the enemy in Canada. The forts at Rutland, Castleton and Pittsford were strengthened and were continually occupied by small garrisons of militia levies, and measures were taken to have the body of the militia held in readiness to turn out en masse when required. Two companies of rangers were also kept in constant service, for patrolling the frontiers and keeping watch for approaches of the enemy. The promptness and activity of the Vermonters against the common enemy was such, on one occasion, as to extort praise from the governor of New York. In the month of May Sir John Johnson, with a body of tories and Indians, made an unex- pected irruption from Canada into the Mohawk valley and ravaged the country in the vicinity of his former residence at Johnstown. Gov. Clinton, with some militia from Albany, hastened to Lake George for the purpose of intercepting him on his return. At the south end of the lake, before crossing it, he dispatched a request to the commanding officer at Castleton to meet him at Ticonderoga with such force as he could muster. The next day after the call was received, Major Ebenezer Allen, of the Vermont rangers,
.
320
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
wrote him that he had reached Mount Independence, with over two hundred men, and was in the immediate expectation of being joined by one hundred more, but that he had no boats, which he trusted the governor would furnish to enable him to cross over to Ticonderoga. Sir John by passing farther north and striking Lake Champlain at Crown Point made his escape. But Gov. Clinton, writing to the New York delegates in congress, was constrained to say that " the punctuality and readiness of the militia of the Grants in complying with his request with about two hundred and forty men, did them great honor." 1
No serious invasions of the enemy were made during the summer, but early in October, Major Carleton came up Lake Champlain with a fleet of eight large vessels, containing upwards of one thousand men, regular troops, loyalists and Indians. Fort Ann was invested by a large force, and its garrison of fifty men was compelled to surrender. Captain Chipman commanded a part of Warner's regi- ment about eighty in number, at Fort George. On the morning of the 11th, he dispatched an express to Fort Edward for provisions, of which the post was nearly destitute. While on the way this person was fired upon by a party of twenty-five men, but he escaped and returned to the fort. Captain Chipman, supposing the party to consist of a scout from the enemy, sent out all his garrison except fourteen men. This detachment met the enemy a short distance from the fort, where a conflict ensued, in which almost every man was either killed or taken. The enemy then marched to Fort George, which, after a short resistance was surrendered by capitula- tion. On their way to Fort George they had burnt and destroyed all before them, and after demolishing the two forts which they had captured, they kept up continued demonstrations of making farther advances.
This invasion justly created great alarm. The militia of Ver- mont were called out and ordered to rendezvous at Castleton, under the command of Brig. Gen. Ethan Allen. Gov. Chittenden also sent to the militia of Berkshire county, Mass., for aid. The assem- bly, which was sitting at Bennington, adjourned for several days to enable the members to take the field. Gov. Clinton wrote from Albany to Gov. Chittenden, for assistance, and was answered on the 18th of October, that the militia of the state were at the north, but that he would send him those which were expected from Berkshire
1 Clinton Papers, May 29 and June 1, 1780, No. 2973. Life of Brant, vol. 2, p. 81.
321
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
as soon as they should arrive, adding that the state over which he presided " were always ready to cooperate in any measures for the defence of the frontier." In northern New York there was a perfect panic, and few men could be rallied against the enemy. On the 18th, Col. Webster wrote Gov. Chittenden from White Creek (now Salem) that the enemy were in large force at Ticonderoga, that they had burned Ballstown and were on their way to Stillwater or Sara- toga or Fort Edward, and earnestly asked for help. Gen. Schuyler on the 20th, wrote to Gov. Clinton in a similar strain of alarm, and a few days later Fort Edward was abandoned, the garrison retiring to Saratoga.
Simultaneously whit this invasion under Carleton, a party of about three hundred, most of whom were Indians, under the command of one Horton, a British lieutenant, had proceeded from Lake Cham- plain up Onion river and through the woods to Royalton on White river, which they reached the 16th of October. There they killed two persons, took about thirty prisoners, burnt twenty houses, killed a large number of cattle and committed other serious depredations. This irruption was a complete surprise, and before a sufficient force could be rallied to attack them the raiders had made their escape with their prisoners and such booty as they could carry off. At the same time Sir John Johnson, with a large force, principally Indians, was traversing the valley of the Mohawk, dooming the lives and property of the inhabitants to destruction. These three marauding expeditions were doubtless several parts of one concerted plan of the enemy.
Carleton's forces had passed to the westward of the Vermont settle- ments without molesting them. This forbearance was no doubt designed. The British ministry were aware of the position of Ver- mont towards New York and were desirous of profiting by the controversy. As early as March, 1779, Lord George Germain had written to Gen. Haldimand, who commanded in Canada, to give encouragement to the Vermonters. Similar directions had been subsequently repeated, and he had resolved to try the effect of a conciliatory policy towards them. There were citizens of Vermont, who had been captured by the enemy and were prisoners in Canada, and their friends had applied to Gov. Chittenden to effect their release. Among them were some officers of Col. Warner's regiment. He had accordingly, by the advice of his council, written to Gen. Haldimand, on the 27th of September, proposing a cartel for the exchange of prisoners. Gen. Haldimand had written a letter in
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.