USA > Vermont > The history of Vermont, from its discovery to its admission into the Union in 1791. By Hiland Hall > Part 43
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
1 Papers in state department Washington, No. 40, vol. 2. Clinton Papers, No. 4761, 4762, 4772. 4773, 4796, 4802. 4809, 4825, 4828, 4831, 4833, 4842, 4850, 4857, 4858, 4862. Hall's Eastern Vt., Chapter 456-470.
2 Jour. Cong., vol. 4, p. 105, 106.
3 Madison Papers, vol. 1, p. 198.
4 There was at this time a movement on foot for the formation of a new state beyond the Alleghanies to include portions of Virginia and Pennsylvania, against which the legislature of the latter state was taking strong meas- ures. Madison Papers, vol. 1, p. 475, 500.
413
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
Jersey whose delegates were under instructions." 1 These instruc- tions deprecated coercive measures against Vermont after her compliance with the resolutions of congress of August 1781, as im- proper and unjust. (For this instruction sec Appendix, No. 11).
On the 5th of December, the resolutions which had been presented by Mr. McKean, were seconded by Mr. Hamilton of New York, and were adopted by the vote of seven of the thirteen states. The resolutions were as follows :
" Whereas it appears to congress by authentic documents that the people inhabiting the district of country on the west side of Con- necticut river, commonly called the New Hampshire Grants, and claiming to be an independent state, in contempt of the authority of congress, and in direct violation of the resolutions of the 24th of September, 1779, and of the 2d of June, 1780, did, in the month of September last, proceed to exercise jurisdiction over the persons and properties of sundry inhabitants of the said district, professing them- selves to be subjects of, and to own allegiance to the state of New York, by means whereof divers of them have been condemned to banishment, not to return on pain of death and confiscation of estate ; and others have been fined in large sums, and otherwise deprived of property ; therefore,
" Resolved, That the said acts and proceedings of the said people, being highly derogatory to the authority of the United States and dangerous to the confederacy, require the immediate and decided interposition of congress, for the protection and relief of such as have suffered by them, and for preserving peace in said district, until a decision shall be had of the controversy, relative to the juris- diction of the same;
" That the people inhabiting the said district, claiming to be independent, be and they are hereby required, without delay, to make full and ample restitution to Timothy Church, Timothy Phelps, Henry Evans and William Shattuck, and such others as have been condemned to banishment and confiscation of estate, or have other- wise been deprived of property since the first day of September last, for the damages they have sustained by the acts and proceedings aforesaid ; and that they be not molested in their persons or proper- ties on their return to their habitations in the said district.
" That the United States will take effectual measures to enforce a compliance with the aforesaid resolutions, in case the same shall be disobeyed by the people of the said district.
Madison Papers, p. 215.
414
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
" That no persons holding commissions under the state of New York, or under the people of the said district, claiming to be inde- pendent, exercise any authority over the persons and properties of any inhabitants in the said district, contrary to the forementioned resolutions of the 24th of September, 1779, and the 2d of June, 1780.
"That a copy of the aforegoing resolutions be transmitted to Thomas Chittenden, Esq., of Bennington, in the district aforesaid, to be communicated to the people thereof."
By the articles of confederation a majority of all the thirteen states was necessary to carry any measure, and these resolutions were adopted by the vote of seven states-a bare majority only. Among the seven were the two states of New York and New Hamp- shire, whose delegates do not appear to have had any hesitation in voting, although the resolutions of congress of the 24th of Septem- ber, 1779, which it was now proposed to enforce by military power, had declared that neither of the states interested in the controversy "should vote on any question relative to the decision thereof." The other five states voting for the resolutions were, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, and North and South Carolina. Rhode Island and New Jersey voted in the negative, and the four states of Massa- chusetts, Connecticut, Maryland and Georgia, not being sufficiently represented, did not vote.1
That the passage of these resolutions by congress was mainly owing to the before mentioned causes assigned by Mr. Madison is doubtless true, though it is not improbable that the extravagant and ill-founded statements made by Mr. Phelps and his associate refugees, of the great strength of their friends in Vermont, and of the weakness of its government, as well as the alleged design of its officers to enter into a treaty with the public enemy ; all of which were industriously propagated by them and by other enemies of the state at that time, might have operated to influence the action of individual members. It is difficult to account for the votes of the New Hampshire delegates in favor of the resolutions, but upon the hypothesis of their expectation that if they should be enforced by military power, the territory of Vermont would be divided by the ridge of the Green mountain, and the eastern half assigned to their state. It seems incredible that they could have hoped for a decision in their favor against the claim of New York, which their province had for years acknowledged. They had long since pro-
1 Cong. Jour., vol. 4. p. 112, 113, 114. Slade, 177, 178.
415
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
posed such a division, as has been seen, and a grand committee of congress, the preceding winter, had threatened it against Vermont, in case she should not speedily comply with the terms of the resolu- tions of that body of August, 1781. There can be no doubt that the people of New Hampshire would much rather have seen Vermont an independent state, with her boundaries restricted as they had been by her own act to the west bank of Connecticut river, than to allow her territory to have increased the extent and power of New New York.1
These resolutions were of an extraordinary character ; based on a principle subversive of all regular and peaceful government. Con- gress, in their resolves of September, 1779, had invited the states claiming the territory of the New Hampshire Grants to pass acts authorizing that body to hear and decide the controversy between them and the people inhabiting the territory, and between each of the claiming states, promising to come to a determination of it, the ensuing February. It had been three years since both New York and New Hampshire had enacted laws submitting the decision to congress ; more than two years since both those states had been fully heard on their claims before that body, and more than one year since congress had, in effect, decided the controversy against both of them,
1 Such a division of Vermont was for several years the subject of occasional negotiations between officials of the states of New Hampshire and New York, though it is not probable that any treaty was ever consummated. It appears by a letter from Mr. Floyd, one of the New York delegates, to Gov. Clinton, dated February 18th, 1783, that a formal proposal for a com- promise had been made to New York on the part of New Hampshire the previous summer, of which Mr. Floyd urged the speedy acceptance by the New York legislature .- (Clinton Papers, No. 4934.) A compromise with New Hampshire was spoken of with favor by Alexander Hamilton, in letters to Clinton, written in the spring of 1783, and in July of that year, as the only way by which New York could acquire any part of the Vermont terri- tory .- (Life of Hamilton, Vol. 2, p. 198-200. Life of Gov. Morris, vol. 1, p. 214.) Gov. Clinton wrote Hamilton he would submit to a division of the territory by the summit of the mountain "for the sake of peace."-(Ibid.) Such a division of Vermont was also earnestly mentioned by the New Hampshire delegates to President Weare in letters of Dec. 11, 1782, and Jan. 16, 1783, as a proper matter for special legislative instruction. (Volume of Pupers Relating to Vermont in the office of the secretary of state, New Hampshire.) The impracticability of carrying into effect such an arbitrary measure, for which no claim of right could be set up, probably prevented its being actually attempted. On the last vote taken in congress on the Vermont question, the two states of New Hampshire and New York voted together, all the other states against them. Jour. Cong., June 3, 1784.
3
416
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
by resolving to acknowledge the independence of Vermont, on her acceding to certain terms which she had accepted. In the resolu- tions of September, 1779, when a speedy decision was contemplated, it was declared to be the duty of the people of the New Hampshire Grants, "to abstain, in the mean time, from exercising any power over any of the inhabitants of the district who professed themselves to be citizens of, or to owe allegiance to, any or either of said states;" and the several claiming states were required in the like manner to suspend executing their laws upon any of the inhabitants of the district, " except such of them as should profess allegiance to and confess the jurisdiction of the same, respectively." Here were three independent jurisdictions to be extended over the same territory, each to be exercised over such persons only as should voluntarily consent to come under its authority. If the government of Vermont desired to exert its authority over any individual, he might readily avoid it by professing allegiance to New York or New Hampshire. If, for instance, a creditor should wish to collect a debt, the defendant in a suit before a Vermont court might nullify the proceeding at once by professing allegiance to one of those states, and as neither of them had courts in the territory before which legal proceedings could be instituted, the mere declaration of his allegiance to another jurisdiction effectually deprived the creditor of all remedy. If a party were arrested on a Vermont warrant for theft or burglary or any other crime, and the accused should solemnly profess allegiance to New York, the court would be bound by the resolutions of congress to discharge him at once. Of course, if the resolutions were obeyed, contracts would be disregarded and crimes would be committed with impunity. The debtor or the criminal had only to profess allegiance to a jurisdiction, other than that under which he was charged, and he would go free. So when any service or contribution for the defence of the country or the public benefit was required, the lawless, the unpatriotic, and the parsimonious might readily take advantage of the provisions of these pliant resolves to screen themselves from liability. Hence the resistance to the levies of men for the protection of the frontier, and to taxa- tion for public purposes. It would seem also from the terms of the resolutions that a party might change his profession of allegiance from one jurisdiction to another, as might suit his interest or conve- nience. Such appears to have been their practical construction, by those who had lately been fined and banished by the Vermont courts, the greater part of whom had for sometime admitted the jurisdiction of that state and quietly submitted to its authority. Timothy
417
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
Church and William Shattuck, the highest field officers of the New York regiments, who were two of the five persons that had been banished, had both voluntarily taken the oath of allegiance to the Vermont government, months before receiving their commissions from Gov. Clinton. Church soon after his appointment signalized his change of allegiance by collecting his friends together and resisting the sheriff of the county when he came to levy an execution issued to enforce a judgment which had been rendered against him for debt by a Vermont justice. Shattuck had participated in an armed resistance to the execution of the laws of Vermont for levy- ing men for the defence of the frontier, and when sentenced to banishment, had repaired to Philadelphia to claim the protection of congress against the laws of a government which he had solemnly sworn to support and maintain.1
By the practical operation of the resolutions of congress of 1779, society would be resolved into its original elements, where any person, so far as his individual power extended, might do just exactly as he pleased, without being accountable for his conduct to any government or law whatever. Such a state of society never did and never could exist in any community for any long period of time, without producing lawlessness and anarchy too intolerable to be borne. Congress had at first prescribed it as a temporary expe- dient, but now, after its unsuccessful trial for more than three years, these resolutions of December 5, 1782, proposed to march an army into Vermont, and establish it permanently by military force.
1 Hall's Eastern Vt., p. 425, 438, 439, 477, 482. Slade, p. 184.
53
418
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
CHAPTER XXXVII.
VERMONT AND CONGRESS ON THE RESOLUTIONS OF DECEM- BER, 1782 -THEY ARE NOT TO BE ENFORCED.
. 1782-1783.
The Vermont legislature in October, 1782, appoints agents to negotiate a union with the confederation -The Vermonters are surprised at the ex parte December resolves of congress, and will not submit to them - Let- ter of remonstrance of Gov. Chittenden to the president of congress, and its subsequent confirmation by the general assembly - Gen. Washington alarmed at the prospect of a collision of arms, transmits his correspond- ence with Gov. Chittenden to congress, and earnestly objects to the employment of the army against Vermont -Gov. Clinton and the New York delegates urge speedy and decisive action, but congress will not use force, and forbears to act.
0 N the 10th day of October, 1782, a few weeks after the trial of Gov. Clinton's officers and their associates, for resisting the authority of Vermont, the general assembly commenced its session at Manchester. Aside from matters of ordinary legislation, the principal object of discussion was the relation of congress towards the state. Nothing had been heard from that body since the departure of the agents of the state from Philadelphia, the preced- ing April, when they had informed the president that they should expect to be officially notified whenever their attendance should again become necessary. There was not much hope of obtaining the favorable action of congress, and the question was raised and debated whether or not it was advisable to appoint agents to that body. But that nothing might be wanting on their part, to bring about an amicable union with the other states, it was finally resolved, " That it is expedient to choose persons to attend congress, to trans- act the business of the state, if necessary ;" and Moses Robinson, Paul Spooner, Ira Allen and Jonas Fay, were chosen for that pur- pose. Instructions were prepared for their government, which " vested them or any two of them, with powers as plenipotentiaries to negotiate the admission of the state into the federal union of the United States, and to agree upon and to ratify terms of confedera- tion in behalf of the state, whenever opportunity should present therefor." They were required " when directed by the governor
i 1
1
1
419
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
and council to repair to the American congress." 1 No prospect appearing that an application to congress would prove successful, the agents did not act under their appointment.
While the legislature of Vermont was thus manifesting a friendly disposition towards congress, the enemies of the state in that body aided by outside importunities were actively preparing hostile mea- sures against it, which, a few weeks later, found expression in the resolutions of the 5th of December, before recited. After some dis- cussion in congress in regard to the manner in which those resolu- tions should be communicated to the Vermonters, they were finally enclosed in a letter from the president, dated the 11th of December, and committed to the commander-in-chief of the army for transmis- sion to Gov. Chittenden. They were received by him towards the latter end of the month, and evidence of their delivery to him was furnished congress on the 15th of January, 1783, in a letter from Gen. Washington.2
These resolutions it will be recollected, required the government of Vermont to indemnify for their losses, certain persons who had been punished for resistance to its authority and to restore them to their former conditions, and also to submit to the establishment of two independent jurisdictions, besides its own, within the territory of the state. This ex parte proceeding was received by the people of Vermont, with great surprise, not unmingled with indignation, at what was considered a flagrant breach of faith, pledged to the state by congress, in their resolutions of August, 1781. No serious thought of complying with the resolutions appears to have been en- tertained.3
The communication from the president of congress, having by Gov. Chittenden been submitted to his council, he, in accordance with their advice, returned a spirited answer, remonstrating in strong and decided, but respectful language against the unexpected proceedings of that body. The remonstrance, which bore date Janu- ary 9th, 1783, began by stating that the subject would be laid before the legislative authority of the state, whose adjourned session would be held on the secend Thursday of the ensuing February. It then " reminded congress of their solemn engagement to the state in their public acts of August 7th and 21st, 1781," which were recited at length, and gave an extract from the letter of Gen. Washington of
1 Assembly Jour., Oct. 10, 16, 17, 18 and 21. Council Jour., Oct. 17 and 21.
2 Madison Papers, vol. 1, p. 228, 229, 240.
3 Hall's Eastern Vt., 478, 479, and Clinton Papers.
420
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
the first of January, 1782, in which he declared that Vermont had " nothing to do but to withdraw her jurisdiction to the confines of her old limits and obtain an acknowledgment of independence and sovereignty under the resolve of the 21st of August." It then stated that " confiding in the faith and honor of congress " proffered in those acts, and having " great confidence " in the assurances of Gen. Washington, the legislature of the state had circumscribed their claim of jurisdiction in compliance with the terms offered them by con- gress; and had informed congress of their compliance by agents appointed for that purpose ; that a committee of congress to whom the matter had been referred, had reported " that the conditional promise and engagement of congress " to recognize the independence of the state and to admit it into the federal union had "thereby become absolute and necessary to be performed;" that congress, having delayed action on this report, the agents had returned home, but that others had been appointed at the last October session of the legislature with full powers to negotiate the admission of the state into the union, whenever congress should be ready to consider the subject; that the inhabitants of the state having thus secured as they supposed, the friendly disposition of congress, could not be otherwise than alarmed on receiving their late hostile resolutions. It was then insisted in the remonstrance that the resolves of Sep- tember, 1779, and June, 1780, on which those of December 5th, 1782, were predicated, were by their terms only to continue in force until congress should act upon and decide the controversy between the claiming states and Vermont ; that the resolves of August, 1781, engaging to admit the state into the union on certain conditions, which had become absolute by a compliance therewith, could not be otherwise considered, than as a decision of the dispute in favor of Vermont, and consequently as putting an end to the operation of those prior resolutions, and rendering them null and void. It was further insisted that congress, under the articles of confederation, had no authority whatever to control the internal police of any of the states ; much less that of Vermont, whose inhabitants had lived in a state of independence from their first settlement, governing them- selves, until their state government was formed in Jan., 1777, by com- mittees and conventions in the manner afterwards followed in the other states on their first separation from the British government. It was argued at some length and with great force of reasoning, that the execution of the threatening resolutions of the 5th of December, passed at the instance of their old New York enemies, would be equally arbitrary and unjust with the measures attempted to be
421
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
enforced by the English crown on the colonies, and that congress ought not to demand submission to them. In regard to the mea- sures which had been adopted by the Vermont goverment to enforce its authority, Gov. Chittenden's remonstrance proceeded as follows :
" Although this state is not amenable to the tribunal of congress for the management of their internal police, I nevertheless will give them a brief narrative of facts, relative to those delinquents, in whose behalf congress in their resolution of December last have interfered. At the session of the general assembly of this state in February, 1781, they made a general act of amnesty in favor of all persons within this state, who had previously made opposition to its. authority ; upon which they unanimously submitted to this govern- ment, and all opposition to it ceased for more than a year, when the legislature having ordered a certain quota of men to be raised in the several towns throughout this state, for the defence of the fron- tiers, evil minded persons in the town and vicinity of Guilford, in the southerly part of the county of Windham, opposed the raising and paying of them, and Gov. Clinton of the state of New York, by letters to them and otherwise, interfered in their behalf, which caused a second insurrection in this state, and though every prudent and lenient measure was taken by the government to reclaim the offend- ers, they proved ineffectual. In the meantime Gov. Clinton gave commissions, civil and military, to sundry of those disaffected per- sons, and they had the effrontery to attempt to exercise the laws of New York, over citizens of this state, when a military force, was by direction of the government sent to assist the sheriff of Windham county, in the execution of the laws of this state ; and the procedure of the court, relative to the five criminals, who were banished, and to sundry others who were amerced in pecuniary fines, was in due form of law. The notorious Samuel Ely, who was a ringleader of the late seditions in the state of Massachusetts, a fugitive from jus- tice, was one of the banished. He had left that state, and was beginning insurrection in this, when he was detected, and carefully delivered to the sheriff of the county of Hampshire, in the state of Massachusetts, who, as I have been since informed, has secured him in jail at Boston, to the great satisfaction and peace of that state.1
1 Dr. J. G. Holland, in his History of Western Massachusetts, vol. 1, p. 230, treating of the disturbances in that state in 1782, thus speaks of this person : " The earliest and most inveterate demagogue in the field was Samuel Ely. He was a cast-off, irregular clergyman, who had acted as a minister of the gospel in Somers, Ct. He was a vehement, brazen-faced declaimer, abounding in hypocritical pretensions to piety, and an industrious
422
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
This same Samuel Ely, Timothy Church and William Shattuck, who were three of the banished, had previously taken the oath of alle- giance to this state, and so had a greater part of those who were fined ; and many of the towns in which they resided, had for several sessions of the assembly, previous to their insurrection, been repre- sented in the legislature of this state."
On this state of facts, it was claimed that the offenders, having previously submitted to the government of Vermont, were even by the resolutions of 1779 and 1780, under obligation to obey that government, and could not escape from its authority by merely . changing their professions of allegiance to that of New York, and that consequently their punishment could be no violation of those resolutions. After some severe remarks on the character and conduct of Charles Phelps, at whose instigation it was supposed the resolves of the fifth of December had been passed, the remonstrance of Gov. Chittenden concluded by a renewal of the offer of Vermont to become a member of the federal union. This remonstrance was transmitted to the president of congress, and was laid before that body on the 4th of February. It was also published in pamphlet form and extensively circulated among the leading men of the coun- try, and especially among the officers and soldiers of the army, that they might have some knowledge of the merits of the controversy, in case they should be called upon to enforce the hostile resolutions of congress.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.