USA > Vermont > The history of Vermont, from its discovery to its admission into the Union in 1791. By Hiland Hall > Part 39
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
1781-1782.
Gen. Stark at Saratoga in command of the northern frontier without the means of defence- The author of the life of Brant condens the Canada negotiation, but admits that it saved New York as well as Vermont front invasion and carnage- Letter of Gov. Chittenden to Gen. Washington on the negotiation and the affairs of Vermont - Civil war threatened in the territories newly acquired from New York and New Hampshire - Washington's reply to Chittenden, urging the relinquishment of the eastern and western unions and assuring him of the consequent admission of the state into the federal union - The legislature of Vermont complies with his advice, and appoints agents and delegates to Congress.
D URING the year 1781, while the negotiations of which an account has been given were going on, the frontiers of New York as well as those of Vermont, had been greatly exposed to incursions from the enemy, without any adequate means of defence. On the 25th of June Gen. Washington wrote Gen. Stark, then at his home in New Hampshire, requesting him to assume the command in northern New York, with his headquarters at Saratoga, informing him that the operations of the campaign made it necessary to recall the continental troops from that quarter ; that his principal force would be a body of militia from Berkshire county, Massachusetts, and " the militia and state troops of New York ; " and that he relied. upon him to use his utmost exertions " to draw forth the force of the country from the Green mountains," which, from his " unlimited influence with those people," he trusted he would be able to do. On the 15th of July, Stark wrote Washington from Derryfield that he should set out for Saratoga the beginning of the next week, and on his way there would " hold a treaty with the Green Mountain Boys, but," he added, " not having seen or been acquainted with those turbulent sons of freedom for several years I am at a loss to determine my reception, but hope it will be such as shall lead to the general good."
On the 9th of August, he again wrote Washington from Albany, that he had been at Bennington and made a visit to the governor, who together with the leading men of the country, had promised him every assistance in their power to repel the common enemy ; and,
374
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
he added, " I have reason to believe from their conduct that their promises are not fallacious ; for before I came to Bennington, Major Mckinstry, who has command of the troops at Saratoga, sent an express to apprise them of the enemy's advance for his post. The alarm was spread and in a few hours one hundred and fifty men on horseback, marched to his assistance. The alarm proved false, and next day they returned but not until they had visited Saratoga." As further evidence of the good disposition of these people, he stated that on the Monday previous, a party of eleven men princi- pally tories, had been discovered in the south-east part of Benning- ton, who had made prisoner of Esq. Bleecker of the New York government and were taking him to Canada, that they were pursued and captured by the Vermonters and their prisoner released. Gen. Stark suggested that they might be treated as spies, but referred the disposition of them to Gen. Washington who afterwards wrote him to consider them as prisoners of war. It may be added that Gen. Enos, who was in command of the Vermont troops, placed himself under the military direction of Gen. Washington, and his subordinate United States officers, and that he was in continued correspondence with Gen. Stark, and always in readiness to render him assistance and obey his commands.1
Gen. Stark, at Saratoga found himself in command of an exten- sive frontier, without any proper means of defending it against any serious attack of the enemy. The imbecility which characterized the efforts of the New York government in the early part of the season, of which an account has already been given, continued to a great extent to prevail. Want of men and destitution of sup- plies of every description were the constant complaints of the general ; and Gov. Clinton's best exertions, from the disaffection of his people and the consequent weakness of his authority, were in- sufficient to furnish adequate relief. In cases of alarm, which from the known strength and mysterious movements of the enemy in Canada and on Lake Champlain were not unfrequent, calls on the militia, if not wholly disregarded, were but tardily and partially responded to. There is no doubt whatever that the British force in Canada which at several times made hostile demonstrations from St. Johns, but which was kept at bay by the negotiation of the Ver- monters, was sufficient to have made a successful inroad upon the
1 Life of Stark, p. 211, 215, 275, 277, 282. Rev. Cor. vol. 3, p. 353. Cor- respondence of Gen. Enos with Washington, and Enos and Col. Walbridge with Stark, in the Washington Pupers, U. S. State Department, vol. 53.
375
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
exposed northern frontier of New York, with a fair prospect of ex- tending its ravages as far south as Albany. Col. Stone, in his inter- esting life of Brant, has given a detailed history of the military preparations and movements in the northern department during this campaign, together with some account of the Vermont troubles, in which he takes the New York view of the controversy, and attri- butes the worst of motives to the Vermont leaders. He nevertheless admits that the invasion of northern New York was averted, not by the military preparations for her defence, but by what he calls the treasonable negotiations of the Vermonters with the enemy.1
Mr. Stone is among the few writers of history who have charged the Vermont leaders with the serious intention of surrendering their state to the British crown. The evidence on which he appears to rely in support of this charge consists of the affidavits laid before the New York legislature early in 1782, by Gov. Clinton, of two persons who had been in Canada and had learned that Allen and Fay were there negotiating with the enemy for uniting Vermont to the British crown, together with information obtained and furnished the governor by an intelligent gentleman then lately in New York city, stating what were understood to be the terms of the treaty. It will be perceived that this proves nothing more than what has been fully stated in the preceding pages and has always been admit- ted, viz : that the Vermont leaders in answer to the advances made to them by the British officers, persuaded those officers that they were desirous of entering into such a treaty, whenever they could induce their people and legislature to concur in the measure. The question remains, what were the motives and objects of the Ver- monters in these proceedings ? Was the negotiation, as they al- ways insisted, an act of dissembling on their part to secure their state from the invasion and ravage of a public enemy, or were they really intending to surrender it to that enemy ? That the motive which they assigned for their conduct was amply sufficient to ac- count for it, without seeking for any other, cannot be questioned. And when their acts are well explained by the patriotic motive under which they profess to have acted, it seems unjust, as well as unnecessary, to undertake to convict them of others less pure, which they altogether disclaim and deny.
Mr. Stone, while charging the Vermont leaders with the design of delivering their state into the hands of the enemy, concedes that
1 Life of Brant, vol. 2, chap. 6 and p. 196, 197, 203. Life of Stark, p. 215, 286.
376
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
" there was never any intention on the part of the Vermontese to listen to the British proposals," and that " it was very certain from the conduct of the people of the Grants when they heard of St. Leger's regrets for killing the sergeant, that they were prepared for no such arrangement." In point of fact, there were doubtless fewer friends of Great Britain among the people of Vermont than in any other part of the country, of equal population. Their patriotism had been tried by the fiery ordeal of Burgoyne's invasion, during which the tory element had been sifted out. Most of those who had feared his power or could be allured by his promises, had passed within his lines and had not been allowed to return. His known sympathizers who had remained had been generally banished and their property, as well as that of those who had fled, confiscated. The state had thus been almost entirely purged of its tories, who had indeed, been more harshly dealt with, than those of any other state. Dr. Williams, in his history says : "So odious were the British proceedings and goverment at that time to the people of America, that it was with difficulty, the people of Vermont could be kept quiet, under the idea of a correspondence carried on with the British, though known to be designed for their protection. Onee or twice there were small insurrections to demand explanations ; and nothing but the well known strong attachment of the gentle- men concerned, to the independence of Vermont and of America, could have preserved them from open violence and destruction.".
Whatever the adversaries of the Vermont leaders may have alleged against their patriotism, their foresight and sagacity was never called in question. These qualities are sufficiently attested by the masterly skill and ability with which, for a series of years, they managed the affairs of their people to the discomfiture and defeat of the host of eminent and adroit politicians and statesmen of other states, by whom they were on every side assailed. These men well knew that any attempt to transfer the allegiance of their people from their common country to Great Britain would be wholly unavailing, and that whosoever should undertake it, however much they might have been formerly honored, would be at onee deserted and discarded by them. That such men should deliberately enter upon a measure which they could elearly see must end in their own disgrace and consign them to infamy, is altogether incredible. They were not fools and could never have been guilty of such folly. While the insidious advances of the enemy to the Vermonters were adroitly used by them for protecting their territory against invasion, they could not have been unwilling to discover that the negotiation
.
.
377
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
was likely to have another favorable effect upon their interests ; that by operating on the fears of congress, its tendency was to induce its members the more readily to listen to their application for admission into the union of the states. This had been the long continued object of their ambition, by which they would be fully secured against all danger of ever being brought again under the oppressive and detested jurisdiction of New York. The favorable effects of these fears in congress on the claims of Vermont have already been noticed.1
The acts of St. Leger, before mentioned, showing his regret for the death of Sergeant Tupper, tended strongly to confirm the sus- picions which already prevailed to a considerable extent, of the existence of a treaty between the British and the Vermonters, unfavorable to the common cause of the country. Gen. Stark, at Saratoga, wrote to Gov. Chittenden under date of Nov. 5th, stating that being in command of the northern department, he felt it his duty to ask of him the perusal of the original letter of the British commander respecting the deceased sergeant, and the fullest in- formation on the subject, that he might report the same to the commander-in-chief. Gen. Stark, in his letter, spoke of the alacrity with which the militia of Vermont had "taken the field on every requisition," and stated that on receiving the news of the surrender of Cornwallis, he had caused the glorious event to be announced "by a discharge of fourteen cannon and of a like number of platoons, in honor of the United States of America," the fourteenth discharge being for Vermont. Gov. Chittenden did not decline an explana- tion, but made it directly to Gen. Washington, and so informed Gen. Stark.
The explanation, which gave the real character and object of the negotiation, was not entirely new to Washington. An official copy of the resolutions of congress, of the 7th of the preceding August, which it will be remembered, invited the Vermonters to appoint agents to repair to Philadelphia and consult with a committee of congress on the subject of the admission of their state into the federal union, had been committed to the general to be forwarded to Vermont. It was dispatched by a special messenger, Capt. Ezra Heacock, with a verbal message from Washington to Gov. Chitten- den, the object of which was to learn whether the people of Vermont would be satisfied with the independence suggested by those resolu-
: Life of Brant, vol. 2, p. 197, 203, note. Life of N. Chipman, p. 37-61, Sparks's Life of Ethan Allen. Hildreth's U. S., vol. 3, p. 408. Street's Council of Revision. p. 104. Lossing. Williams's Vermont, p. 272.
48
378
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
tions, or whether they seriously contemplated joining the enemy and becoming a British colony. Gov. Chittenden entered into a free conversation with the messenger on the subject of the affairs of Vermont, assuring him that the negotiation with Canada was resorted to as the only means of securing their state against invasion from the enemy, that their people were zealous supporters of the independence of the United States, and desirous that their state should become a member of the federal union ; but that under no circumstances would they be subject to the jurisdiction of New York. This conversation Cov. Chittenden requested Capt. Heacock to report to Gen. Washington.
The letter of Gov. Chittenden to Washington of which a copy will be found in the Appendix, No. 10, bore date Nov. 14, 1781. It contained a comprehensive history of the efforts of the people of the state to gain admission into the federal union, and to maintain their inde- pendence against the aggressive claims and attacks of the neighbor- ing states, of their patriotic and noble exertions and sacrifices in the cause of their country, and it gave a detailed account of their nego- tiations with the enemy, made necessary for their defence, in conse- quence of the hostility of the adjoining states and their neglect to furnish them aid. The letter expressed the utmost confidence in the wisdom and patriotism of Gen. Washington, and was in effect an able and manly appeal to him to use his great influence in favor of their claim to independence.'
The frontiers of Vermont were scarcely relieved from apprehended invasion by the withdrawal of the British forces to Canada, when serious troubles from conflicting claims of jurisdiction arose in both the eastern and western unions. In some places to the eastward of Connecticut river, justices, sheriffs, and constables, appointed by both Vermont and New Hampshire, were exercising or attempting to exercise jurisdiction over the same persons. In one instance a New Hampshire sheriff in undertaking in obedience to the direction of the New Hampshire assembly, to release two prisoners from Charlestown jail, was himself arrested and imprisoned by the Ver- mont sheriff. The latter being sent by the authorities of Vermont to Exeter as one of a committee " to agree on measures to prevent hostilities " was arrested and thrown into prison at Exeter and there held as a hostage for the release of the New Hampshire sheriff. The militia of both states were ordered to hold themselves in readi-
1 Sparks's Rev. Cor., vol. 3, p. 440. Ira Allen's Vt., p. 220. Williams's Vt., p. 276.
379
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
ness to march to sustain their respective jurisdictions. But the New Hampshire assembly issued a proclamation, allowing forty days to their revolted citizens to return to their allegiance, by which a conflict of arms was, for the time being, happily averted.
The danger of an armed collision was still more imminent in the territory of the western union. Col. John Van Rensselaer, whose residence was near San Coick, now North Hoosick, acting under the authority of New York, appears to have arrested at New City (Lansingburg) a person having a colonel's commission under Ver- mont, but who, after some riotous proceedings, effected his escape. Afterwards, about the first of December, Col. Van Rensselaer was himself arrested with several others and taken to Bennington, where, he says in a letter to Gen. Gansevoort, he was " treated like a gentle- man and discharged." Other arrests were soon afterwards made by both sides, cach party gathering its adherents in arms, who for several days encamped against each other in the vicinity of San Coick. On the 12th of December, Col. Yates wrote from San Coick to Gen. Gansevoort at Albany, informing him that the favorers of the Vermont jurisdiction appeared desperate, that he had only about eighty men and the insurrectionists one hundred and forty-six ; that the rioters were secured in a block house; that a field piece and artillerymen were wanted to dislodge them, and that speedy reen- forceinents were required, and urging him to come immediately and take the command. Ilitherto none but residents to the westward of the twenty mile line had taken part in the controversy. But Gov. Chittenden, having tried in vain to effect a temporary recon- ciliation, by a mutual release of prisoners, and a forbearance of further arrests until he could call the legislature together, saw no other means of preventing bloodshed, than by calling out a sufficient force from the original territory of Vermont to render it necessary for the New Yorkers to disperse at once. The regiment of Col. Walbridge from Bennington and its vicinity was accordingly ordered to march to Sau Coick, upon which as had been anticipated, Col. Yates with his small force retreated. Gov. Clinton, who was at Poughkeepsie, had instructed Gen. Gansevoort to raise the necessary force and quell the insurrection. The final result will be related in the words of Mr. Stone in his Life of Brant : "On the 16th Gen. Gansevoort took the field himself, repairing in the first instance to the headquarters of Gen. Stark at Saratoga, in order to obtain a detachment of troops and a field piece. But the troops of Stark were too naked to move from their quarters; and it was thought improper for him to interfere without an order from Gen.
380
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
Heath. Gansevoort then crossed over to the east side of the river. in order to place himself at the head of such militia as he could muster in Schaghticoke and Hoosick ; but was soon met by Col. Yates. in full retreat from the house of Col. John Van Rensselaer. He had been able to raise but eighty men of Col. Jolin Van Rensselaer's regiment to put down the insurgents ; and on arriving at San Coick he discovered a force of five hundred men advancing from the Grants to the assistance of the rebels. Gansevoort retired five miles farther, in order to find comfortable quarters for his men, and then attempted, but without success, to open a correspondence with the leaders of the insurgents. Calls had been made upon four regi- ments, viz : those of Cols. Yates, and Henry K. Van Rensselaer, as heretofore stated, and upon Col. Van Vechten, and Major Taylor. But from the whole no greater force than eighty men could be raised. Of Col. Van Vechten's regiment, only himself, a few officers and one private could be brought into the field. Under these discouraging circumstances, the general was compelled to relinquish the expedition, and the insurgents remained the victors, to the no small terror of those of the inhabitants who were well disposed, inasmuch as they were apprehensive of being taken prison- ers and carried away, as had been the case with others, should they refuse taking the oath of allegiance to the government of Ver- mont." 1
Notwithstanding the success of the Vermont government in vindicating its authority in the territory recently claimed from New York and the temporary restoration of quiet in that from New Hampshire, the position of the state was not entirely such as could be desired. While the states of New York and New Hampshire were seeking to appropriate her territory, and annihilate her juris- diction, and congress was apparently giving countenance to their efforts, she might perhaps have been justified by the law of self defence, or excused by that of retaliation, in extending her claims over portions of their territory. Under such circumstances her measures of annexation doubtless tended to increase her power and resources, and if no change had occurred in those circumstances, public opinion in other states might have permanently sustained and sanctioned the proceeding. But when congress voluntarily offered to acknowledge the jurisdiction of Vermont over all the
1 Life of Brant, vol. 2, p. 205-207. Clinton Papers, Nos. 4071, 4124, 4161, 4206, 4213, 4217, 4219, 4223, 4225, 4230, 4238, 4245, 4246, 4269. Life of Stark, p. 296, 300, 301, 302. Ira, Allen's Vt., p. 200-203. Wil- liams's Vt., p. 279, 280. Belknap's N. II., p. 391, 392.
381
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
territory which had been originally claimed for her, and all for which her people had been for years contending, and to guaranty such territory to her against those adverse states, her government found itself placed in a new and unexpected position, one which it was difficult to vindicate by sound argument. This was attempted in a pamphlet of sixteen pages, published at Hartford in January, 1782, entitled : The Present State of the Controversy, etc. The writer presents very strong, if not conclusive reasons for the original extension of jurisdiction; but his argument is much less satisfactory on the question of its continuance in the altered state of affairs. Ilis principal objections to the overture of congress were the want of power in the Vermont legislature to dissolve the connexions which they had formed with the new territories, and the apprehen- sion that congress might not live up to their engagement and admit the state into the federal union, after she should have weakened herself by relinquishing the additional territory. This last objection was doubtless entitled to some consideration, and though such a violation of faith could not be reasonably anticipated, yet if it were actually to occur it would place congress so elearly in the wrong before the world as to add greatly to the moral strength of the cause of Vermont. Even in that event it might possibly be wise to accede to the proposition, for the maxim that " it is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong," is not only sound morality, but may often be the dictate of sound policy.
Although the legislature of Vermont, on the first announcement of the proposals of congress, had declined to accede to them, the people were by no means unanimous for their rejection. Probably a majority of the inhabitants of the original territory of the New Hampshire Grants west of Conecticut river, would from the first have gladly accepted the overture of congress, but for the entangling obligations in which they were involved towards those who had so recently united with them. The sentiment of the friends of Ver- mont in other parts of the country was undoubtedly in favor of such acceptance.
But whatever objections might have been entertained by the people of Vermont and those administering their affairs to the offer of congress, they were in great measure removed by an appeal to their reason and patriotism in a letter from Gen. Washington, written in answer to that from Gov. Chittenden to him before men- tioned. It bore date January 1, 1782, and urged in the strongest terms, a relinquishment of their recently acquired territory, in com- pliance with the wishes of congress. In the letter Washington says :
382
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
" It is not my business neither do I think it necessary now to discuss the origin of the right of a number of inhabitants to that tract of country, formerly distinguished by the name of the New Hampshire Grants, and now known by that of Vermont. I will take it for granted that their right was good, because congress by their resolve of the 7th of August imply it, and by that of the 21st, are willing fully to confirm it, provided the new state is confined to certain described bounds. It appears therefore to me, that the dispute of boundary is the only one which exists, and that this being removed all further difficulties would be removed also; and the matter ter- minated to the satisfaction of all parties. You have nothing to do but withdraw your jurisdiction to your old limits and obtain an acknowledgment of independence and sovereignty, under the resolve of the 21st of August, for so much territory as does not interfere with the ancient established bounds of New York, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. I persuade myself you will see and acquiesce in the reason the justice and indeed the necessity of such a decision. In my private opinion, while it behoves the delegates of the states now confederated to do ample justice to a body of people sufficiently respectable by their numbers and entitled by other claims to be admitted into that confederation, it becomes them also to attend to the interests of their constituents, and see. that under the appear- ance of justice to one they do not materially injure the rights of others. I am apt to think this is the prevailing opinion of congress, and that your late extension of claim has, upon the principles I have above mentioned rather diminished than increased the number of your friends, and that if such extension should be persisted in, it will be made a common cause, and not considered as only affecting the rights of the states immediately interested in the loss of terri- tory, a loss of too serious a nature not to claim the attention of any people."1
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.