USA > Vermont > The history of Vermont, from its discovery to its admission into the Union in 1791. By Hiland Hall > Part 42
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
TF we would undertake to account for the indecision and changing conduct of congress, in relation to the claim of Vermont to an independent jurisdiction, we must look beyond the actual merits of her claim into the supposed effect of its admission or rejection upon other measures in which the members, or a portion of them, felt a deeper and stronger interest. It has already been stated that on the hearing of the respective claims of New York and New Hamp- shire in the year 1780, the disposition of congress towards Ver- mont, was influenced in a considerable degree by the effect which her admission unto the union as a separate state would be likely to have on the determination, in that body, of the question in regard to the western lands. These lands were claimed by Virginia and some other large states as their exclusive property, the claim of Virginia being the most important, including besides the present state of Kentucky, all the land in the United States lying to the northward of the Ohio river and east of the Mississippi. These exclusive claims were denied by the other states, by which it was insisted that the lands, at the commencement of the revolution, were not assigned to any particular province, but belonged to the crown, and that when they were wrested from the crown by the common exertions of all the states, they ought to be disposed of for the common benefit. At the time of the hearing before mentioned, several of the states that were opposed to these exclusive claims, and among them New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Mary- land, were disposed to favor the claim of Vermont, with the view
404
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
of obtaining an additional vote against the pretensions of Virginia and the other claiming states. By a change of circumstances, and by the skillful management of the delegates from New York, Ver- mont had now lost a portion of the support which she had received from that quarter, and it had been turned against her.
There being no tribunal to which an appeal could be made for the determination of thic controversy in regard to these western lands, congress, as the best means of bringing about an adjustment, had recommended to the states claiming them, to make liberal cessions of them to the United States, the territory ceded to be formed into new states of convenient size and the lands to be disposed of for the general benefit. New York was the first state to move in the matter, by the passage of an act, in Feb., 1780, authorizing her delegates in congress, by a proper instrument by them to be exe- cuted, to restrict the boundaries of the state in its western parts, in such manner as they should deem expedient. The claim of the state was generally deemed to be of a shadowy character, and her proffered cession appears for a considerable time to have been little noticed. It was not until March, 1781, that a deed was executed in congress, and it was a long time thereafter before it was accepted by that body.1 Of the claim of New York thus relinquished, Mr Madison said that it was "very extensive but her title very flimsy," and that she urged it " more with the hope of obtaining some advan- tage or credit by its cession, than of ever maintaining it."2 The advantage here referred to, no doubt related to her claim to the territory of Vermont, which she expected would be greatly strength- ened by the favor with which her cession would be received. A few days after the execution of the deed (March 12) Mr. McDougal, one of the New York delegates, wrote to Gov. Clinton, " that the cession of New York had removed the cause of opposition of Maryland," and other states, and that the question of the New Hampshire Grants would soon be favorably decided.3 But these expectations were not fully realized. In fact the members from the other states were slow to perceive that the cession was of much importance to the United States, though it did eventually serve to increase the number of the supporters of New York in congress to some extent, sufficient indeed to enable her delegates, with the aid of other influences, to procure the adoption of threatening though as it turned out, inopera- tive resolutions against Vermont.
1 Jour. Cong. March 1, 1781, vol. 3, p. 582 -586. Also vol. 4, p. 100.
2 Madison Papers, vol. 1, p. 121.
3 Clinton Papers, No. 3575.
i
405
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
The claim of Virginia extended to all the vacant lands that could be expected to be made available for a considerable period of time, and was the great obstacle in the way of an adjustment of the dis- pute. In January 1781, her legislature under the extreme pressure of Arnold's invasion, agreed upon a cession of the territory northeast of the Ohio, but it was clogged with so many conditions and reser- vations as to render it unsatisfactory to a large majority of congress. The state of Connecticut, which claimed a narrow belt of land ex- tending west to the Mississippi, had proposed a cession of all beyond Lake Erie. These cessions with that of New York, and the claims of certain land companies for lands west of the Alleghanies, were referred to a committee, who, against the solemn protest of the delc- gates of Virginia, went into a hearing of the evidence in support of all other claims, and made their report on the 3d of November, 1781 - the Virginia delegates declining to clucidate their title. The report denied any right in Virginia to the lands described in her deed of cession, and set up that of New York against it, which it was argued embraced the valley of Ohio, and was maintainable and valid against Virginia by way of the succession of New York to the title of the Six Nations of Indians. It recommended the accept- ance of the cession of New York, and that Virginia and Connecticut should reconsider their acts and make more liberal and satisfactory relinquishments of their claims.
With the view of giving the legislature of Virginia an oppor- tunity to make their proposed cession more acceptable, the report was suffered to lie until the coming spring, when it was taken up for consideration and discussed with great earnestness and warmth, so much so as to call away the attention of congress from almost every other subject. It was the misfortune of the claim of Vermont to admission into the union, to be overshadowed and put aside by this all-absorbing question. On the 16th of April, 1782, the report on the western lands was debated, but without any vote being taken. The next day (the 17th), the committee, of which Mr. Clymer of Pennsylvania was chairman, made their report in favor of the admis- siom of Vermont into the confederation, on the terms proposed by congress . the preceding August, and the failure of congress to fix upon a time for taking it into consideration, took place, as before stated. The next day, the debate on the report of the committee on the cessions of Virginia and the other states, was resumed, and was continued again on the first, second and sixth of May, when the order of the day for its consideration was postponed by a vote of all the states present except Virginia and South Carolina. This vote
---
406
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
was considered as a virtual rejection of the Virginia cession as then proposed, and it disposed of the subject for the time being.1
Mr. Madison, who took an active part in the debates in favor of the claim of Virginia and against the admission of Vermont, has left a record of his views on the state of parties in congress at this period in relation to both these subjects, which is deemed of suffi- cient importance to be inserted in full. In assigning the motives by which he alleges the delegations of the several states were governed in their action upon the Vermont question, it cannot but be noticed as a remarkable circumstance that no intimation is given that a single state or member was or could in any degree be influenced by a consideration of the real merits of the Vermont claim to independence. Whether the inhabitants of Vermont had a sufficient cause for separating from the jurisdiction of New York or not, or whether the resolutions of August, 1781, imposed an obli- gation on congress which it would be a breach of faith to violate, or otherwise, were entirely ignored. Each of the states, according to Mr. Madison, appear to have been governed solely by the supposed effect which the admission or rejection of the Vermont claim, would have upon their individual state interests, irrespective of the merits of the claim itself.
Mr. Madison's account of the state of parties at this time, is dated May 1. 1782, and is as follows :
"The two great objects, which predominate in the politics of congress at this juncture, are Vermont and the Western Territory.
" I. The independence of Vermont and its admission into the confederacy are patronized by the castern states (New Hampshire excepted) first, from an ancient prejudice against New York, secondly, the interest which citizens of those states have in lands granted by Vermont ; thirdly, but principally, from the accession of weight they will derive from it in congress. New Hampshire having gained its main object by the exclusion of its territory east of Con- necticut river from the claims of Vermont, is already indifferent to its independence, and will probably soon combine with other castern states in its favor.
" The same patronage is yielded to the pretensions of Vermont by. Pennsylvania and Maryland, with the sole view of reenforcing the opposition to claims of western territory, particularly those of Vir- ginia, and by New Jersey and Delaware with the additional view of strengthening the interests of the little states. Both of these con-
1 Jour. Cong., vol. 4, p. 11, 13, 14, 20-25, 55, 68-70, 82, 83, 100, 101, 265.
-----------
407
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
siderations operate also on Rhode Island, in addition to those above mentioned.
" The independence of Vermont and its admission into the union are opposed by New York for reasons obvious and well known.
" The like opposition is made by Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. The grounds of this opposition are, first, habitual jealousy of a predominance of eastern interests ; secondly, the opposition expected from Vermont to western claims ; thirdly, the inexpediency of admitting so unimportant a state, to an equal vote, in deciding on peace, and all the other grand interests of the union now depending ; fourthly, the influence of the example on a prema- ture dismemberment of the other states.1 These considerations influence the four states last mentioned in different degrees. The second and third, to say nothing of the fourth, ought to be decisive with Virginia.
"II. The territorial claims, particularly those of Virginia, are opposed by Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland. Rhode Island is influenced in her opposition, first, by a lucrative desire of sharing in the vacant territory as a fund of revenue ; 2 secondly, by the envy and jealousy naturally excited by superior resources and importance. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland are influenced partly by the same considera- tions, but principally by the intrigues of their citizens, who are interested in the claims of land companies. The decisive influence of this last consideration is manifest from the peculiar and persever- ing opposition made against Virginia, within whose limits these claims lie.
" The western claims, or rather a final settlement of them, are also thwarted by Massachusetts and Connecticut. This object with them is chiefly subservient to that of Vermont, as the latter is with Pennsylvania and Maryland to the former. The general policy and
1 In August 1781, a petition from over one thousand inhabitants of Ken- tucky for a new state had been presented to congress, to which there was an unwillingness on the part of Virginia, to accede. A similar feeling in favor of a new jurisdiction was known to prevail among the settlers on the Tennessee to the westward of North Carolina, and South Carolina and Georgia were not unlikely to be exposed to like dangers when the coun- try to the west of them should be occupied by emigrants. Sce Hildreth, vol. 3, p. 469, 539. Madison Papers, vol. 1, p. 164. Papersin State Depart- ment, Washington.
2 Doubtless a similar " lucrative desire" to that which prompted Virginia to wish to monopolize the whole of the "vacant territory " as an exclusive " fund of revenue."
408
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
interests of these two states are opposed to the admission of Vermont into the union ; and if the case of the western territory were once removed, they would instantly divide from the eastern states in the case of Vermont. Of this, Massachusetts and Connecticut are not insensible, and therefore find their advantage in keeping the terri- torial controversy pending. Connecticut may likewise conceive some analogy between her claim to the western country and that of Virginia, and that the acceptance of the cession of the latter would influence her sentiments in the controversy between the former and Pennsylvania.
" The western claims are espoused by Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and New York, all of these states being interested therein. South Carolina the least so. The claim of New York is very extensive, but her title very flimsy. She urges it more with the hope of obtaining some advantage or credit by its cession, than of ever maintaining it. If the cession should be accepted, and the affair of Vermont terminated, as these are the only ties which unite her with the southern states, she will immediately connect her policy with that of the castern states, as far at least as the remains of former prejudices will permit." 1
It will be perceived from this view of Mr. Madison, of the state of parties in congress, which was doubtless in the main correct, that sectional feeling operated strongly against Vermont, and that the four southern states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, on that account as well as on the ground of their claims to western lands, were opposed to her independence, although they had all voted for the resolutions of the preceding August, specifying the terms on which she should become a member of the federal union, which terms had been fully complied with. With these four states and New York opposed, it would of course be impossible to obtain nine of the thirteen states in her favor. This the agents of Ver- mont, who were in attendance when congress on the 17th of April, 1782, had declined to consider the report of the committee in favor of their state, plainly saw. It was evidently useless for Verinont to continue longer knocking at the door of congress for admission. The agents had accordingly left Philadelphia, addressing a letter to the president, informing him that they should expect to be officially . notified if their attendance should again become necessary, as has been before stated. No such notice was ever given to them or their
1 For this sketch of Mr. Madison's views, sce Madison Papers, vol. 1, p. 122, and Sparks's Washington, vol. 8, p. 547.
409
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
state, and whatever proceedings were afterwards taken in congress against Vermont, were wholly ex parte. In regard to these subse- quent ex parte measures, it may be observed in general, that though brought about by the influence of New York, they were of no ad- vantage whatever to that state, and only served to prolong the existence and increase the bitterness of an unprofitable controversy. Though sometimes annoying and troublesome to Vermont, they were much more so to the few friends of New York, within her limits, who were thereby encouraged to keep up a fruitless and to them a damaging resistance to the Vermont jurisdiction.
Gov. Clinton and his associates in the government of New York, were untiring in their exertions to obtain the aid of congress. In addition to the proposed relinquishment of their alleged claim to western territory, they sought to conciliate the favor of the members by a new show of fairness and liberality towards the inhabitants of Vermont. An act was accordingly passed on the 14th of April, 1782, granting pardon and amnesty to her people for all past offences against the New York authority. On the same day, another bill entitled " an act for quieting the minds of the inhabitants in the northeastern part of this state" became a law. By this act all charters granted both by the colony of New Hampshire and the " assumed government of Vermont " prior to any grant of the same land by New York, were declared to be valid, and parties occupying lands in opposition to prior New York titles were to be quieted in their possessions- all on condition that the people submitted them- selves to the New York jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the compre- hensiveness of the language of this act, it left a very large portion of the equitable claims against the New York title unprovided for, as might be readily shown. 1 But there was an inherent defect in the measure which deprived it of its power of protection -the want of authority in the legislature to invalidate the titles it proposed to set aside. The constitution of New York had declared the grants of the colonial governors in the name of the crown to be valid, and the grantees had acquired a property under that government in their
1 Among the inequitable New York claims which this act would allow to be valid, would be the million and a half of acres that had been patented to the city land jobbers in known violation of the king's prohibitory order in council of July, 1767, which patents had been properly treated as void by the Vermont government and disregarded in their subsequent grants. See Jour. of Vt. Axxembly for Oct. 25, 1780, when it was resolved unani- mously that such patents " should not be considered a sufficient bar against granting the same lands to respectable and worthy petitioners."
52
410
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
grants of which the legislature could not deprive them. The New York courts, upon the acknowledged principle that a grant once made, could not be recalled at the option of the grantor, would un- doubtedly decide in favor of the titles of the New York patentees. But the establishment of a new state would invalidate the New York patents. This was well understood.
The act was without influence in Vermont, and appears not to have been much regarded in congress. On the 21st of May, the two acts of the New York legislature were presented and read in congress, when it was moved by Mr. Scott from New York, and seconded by Mr. Middleton of South Carolina, that they " be com- mitted to a special committee to report thereon," but the motion was decided in the negative, and nothing further in regard to them appears on the journal. 1
The subject of the western lands occupied much of the attention of congress during the residue of the year, and parties ran high in regard to it. The finances of the country were in a deplorable con- dition, the continental currency had become worthless, the confede- ration was deeply in debt, and being without power to levy contribu- tions on the people or the states, their credit was wholly exhausted. Under these circumstances a large majority of the members looked upon the western lands as a source from which the public credit might perhaps be resuscitated. A grand committee of a member from each of the states, made a report in July, recommending a liberal relinquishment of those lands by the claiming states, and declaring that they would thereby constitute " an independent fund for the discharge of the national debt." This report was discussed from time to time with much warmth, but without definite result. The great obstacle in the way of making use of these lands for the benefit of the United States, being the tenacity with which Virginia adhered to her extensive claims. If Virginia should cede her claim, her example would be likely to be followed by the states to the south of her, which cessions of those four southern states would include all the waste lands within the territory of the United States. Tired of waiting for the compliance of Virginia, a majority of the members came to the determination to set up and maintain the claim of New York against it. It was held that Virginia was wholly without title, and though that of New York, which comprised an indefinite portion of the valley of the Ohio, and clashed with that of Virginia, was not deemed as strong as was claimed by her delegates, it could
1 Jour. Congress, vol. 4, p. 31, 32, 33, 34. Slade, 173-176.
1
....
4
1 1
:
411
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
nevertheless be made to appear plausible and even equitable as against a party having no title whatever. With the view of using it to supplant the claim of Virginia, or at least to induce that state to make a more liberal cession, it was on the 29th of October, voted to accept the cession of New York as already made, the state of Virginia alone voting in the negative, the delegates of both North and South Carolina being divided. 1
Mr. Madison, a few days after this vote (Nov. 5), wrote from Philadelphia to Edmund Randolph as follows:
" Besides the effect which may be expected from the coalition with New York, on territorial questions in congress, it will I surmise, prove very unfriendly to the pretensions of Vermont. Duane seems not unapprized of the advantage which New York has gained, and is already taking measures for a speedy vote on that question. Upon the whole, New York has, by a fortunate coincidence of circumstances, or by skillful management, or by both, succeeded in a very important object. By ceding a claim, which was tenable neither by force nor by right, she has acquired with congress the merit of liberality, ren- dered the title to her reservation more respectable, and at least damped the ardor with which Vermont has been abetted." 2
About two weeks after the acceptance of the New York cession the Vermont question came again before congress. It has already been stated that when the sheriff of Windham county with his military posse arrested several of the newly appointed New York officers, Charles Phelps, one of the most active of them, had made his escape, and fled to Poughkeepsie to make report to Gov. Clinton. From that place, contrary to the governor's advice who seems to have distrusted Phelps's discretion, he went to Philadelphia, where he arrived early in October. He presented a memorial to congress, setting forth in his peculiar, involved and inflated language, the griev- ances of himself and politicial friends. He was not long afterwards joined by Shattuck and Evans who also memorialized congress, giving an account of their arrest, trial, and banishment for opposing the authority of Vermont. Gov. Clinton had written earnestly to the New York delegates to insist upon the immediate interposition of congress for the relief of the fugitives, and for the vindication of the New York claim of jurisdiction. All the papers on the subject had been referred to a committee, before which Mr. Phelps had been allowed several hours to present his case, and he had been very busy
1 Jour. Congress, vol. 4, p. 100.
2 Madison Papers, vol. 1, p. 470.
.
.
412
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
for weeks in exhorting and importuning individual members, in which for a portion of the time he had the assistance of Messrs. Shattuck and Evans.1
A committee to whom these papers had been recommitted made a report which was taken up for consideration on the 14th of Novem- ber. It ascribed the measures complained of in the papers referred to them to " the state of New York having lately issued commissions, both civil and military, to persons resident in the district called Vermont," and recommended the state of New York to revoke the commissions ; to the government of Vermont to make satisfaction to the sufferers and to allow them to return unmolested to their habita- tions ; and to both governments to adhere to the resolves of congress of September 24, 1779, in the exercise of their jurisdictions, until a decision of the controversy should be made by congress. Several votes were taken on questions in relation to the report which indi- cated that a majority of the members were not satisfied with it, though it was not, definitely disposed of .? Mr. Madison, in a memorandum of this day's proceedings, says : "The temper of congress on this occasion, as the yeas and nays show, was less favorable to Vermont than any preceding one, the effect probably of the territorial cession of New York." 3
The exertions of the New York delegates, aided by the zealous importunities of Mr. Phelps, to obtain the action of congress against Vermont were actively continued and were eventually in some degree successful. On the third of December, the report of the committee was postponed to make way for a set of resolutions still more hostile to that state, introduced by Mr. McKean of Delaware. Under this ยท day's date Mr. Madison says: "The proceedings on this subject evinced still more the conciliating effect of the territorial cession of New York on several states, and the effect of the scheme of an ultra-montane state within Pennsylvania, on the latter state.+ The only states in congress which stood by Vermont were Rhode Island, which is supposed to be interested in lands in Vermont, and New
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.