USA > Vermont > The history of Vermont, from its discovery to its admission into the Union in 1791. By Hiland Hall > Part 45
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 See Clinton and Legislative Papers in the New York state library, and papers in the office of the secretaries of state at Albany and Montpelier. Journal of Assembly and Council. Slade, p. 467, 470, 475, 476, 483, 490. For a more full account of the occurrences in Windham county during the period embraced by this chapter, see B. II. Hull's History of Eustern Ver- mont, chaps. 17, 18 and 19.
i
433
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
would " be considered as a denial of justice." Further instructions of a similar import urging a speedy decision of the controversy, were prepared by a joint committee of the two houses, and on the 2d of March the whole being adopted by both branches were for- warded to the delegates. On the 24th of April Messrs. De Witt and Paine, the New York delegates, presented to congress a written representation of the claim and demands of New York founded on their instructions, which was referred to a committee consisting of Mr. Read of South Carolina, Mr. Sherman of Connecticut, Mr. Ellery of Rhode Island, Mr. Hardy of Virginia, and Mr. Beatty of New Jersey.1
The journals of the New York senate showing the adoption of Mr. Duane's report, having been published, Gov. Chittenden by the advice of his council addressed a letter to the president of congress, in relation to it, and to the position then occupied by the state of New York in regard to the controversy, which is deemed worthy of insertion at length. The letter presents the unfair and inconsistent conduct of New York in a clear light, and for close logical argu- ment and cutting sarcasm, it will be difficult to find a state paper which is its superior. It is as follows :
" STATE OF VERMONT, ARLINGTON, April 26, 1784.
"Sir : With that respect for congress which the citizens of this state have ever maintained, I beg leave to transmit to your excel- lency the sentiments of the council of this state, on the late pro- ceedings of the senate and assembly of the state of New York respecting this state, that your excellency may lay the same before congress, for their consideration.
" On the 21st of October, 1779, the legislature of the state of New York passed a special law empowering congress to hear and determine the controversy between that state and this, not upon the principles of the confederation, but according to equity ; and on the 7th and 20th of August, 1781, congress proposed preliminaries of a settlement of the said controversy, to this state, which were ac- cepted and fully complied with by the legislature of this state at their session in February, 1782.
"The legislature of the state of New York, in the November preceding (1781) had spiritedly remonstrated against the prelimi-
.
1 Jour. N. Y. Senute and Assembly. History of Eastern Vermont, p. 522-525.
55
434
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
nary settlement of congress aforesaid, an extract of which remon- strance is as follows :
"' Resolved, That in case of any attempt of congress to carry into execution their said acts of the 7th and 20th of August last, this legislature with all due deference to congress, are bound in duty to their constituents, to declare the same an assumption of power in the face of said act of submission of this state, and against the clear letter and spirit of the second, third, ninth and eleventh articles of confederation, and a manifest infringement of the same, and do therefore hereby solemnly protest against the same.'
" But of late it appears, the senate and assembly of the state of New York are again urging congress to decide their controversy with this state. It seems they are willing congress should settle the dis- pute as they have a mind, but not otherwise.
" It appears from the late journal of the senate of the state of New York, ' That the delegates be further instructed to press con- gress for a decision in the long protracted controversy respecting the right of this state to the district commonly called the New Hampshire Grants;' and further, 'But that if she must recur to force for the preservation of her lawful authority, the impartial world will pronounce that none of the bloodshed, disorder or dis- union which may ensue, can be imputable to this legislature.' As to this bloody proposition the council of this state have only to remark that Vermont does not wish to enter into a war with the state of New York, but that she will act on the defensive, and expect that congress and the twelve states will observe a strict neutrality, and let the two contending states settle their own controversy.
" As to the allegation of the state of New York against the con- duct of this state in bringing a few malcontents to justice and obe- dience to government, whom they have inspired with sedition, I have only to observe that this matter has been managed by the wisdom of the legislature of this state, who consider themselves herein amenable to no earthly tribunal.
" Before I conclude this letter I beg leave to remind your excel- · lency that it appears to the council of this state improper that the states of New York and New Hampshire, who are competitors for the jurisdiction thereof, should vote in congress on any motion which respects Vermont, and also contrary to the express resolution of congress of the 24th of September, 1779, in the words following : ' And that neither of the said states shall vote on any question relative to the decision thereof ;' that is, relative to the independ- ence of Vermont, although it appears from the journals of congress
7
-
.
435
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
that those claiming states have ever since voted on all matters in which the interest of this state has been concerned.
"Sir: I conclude this letter with the satisfaction of reminding congress that this state is still desirous of a confederation with the United States.
" I have the honor to be, etc., .
" His Excellency,
THOMAS CHITTENDEN
The President of congress."
This letter was read in congress the 17th of May, and referred to the same committee to which had been committed the representation of the New York delegates and other papers relating to the disturb- ances in Vermont. This committee reported the 20th of May, fully in favor of Vermont, reciting the resolutions of congress of August, 1781, which offered preliminaries of settlement, and their accept- ance by Vermont, affirming and declaring the binding obligation of congress to acknowledge the independence of the state, and con- cluding with a resolution as follows :
" Resolved, That the district of territory lying on the west side of Connecticut river, called Vermont, within the limits and bounda- ries described in the act of congress of the 20th of August, 1781, and the people inhabiting the same, be, and they are hereby recog- nized and declared to be a free, sovereign and independent state, by the name of the state of Vermont. That the said state of Vermont, being within the limits of the United States, shall be considered a part of the confederacy, on the same principles as the new states, who shall have established permanent governments agreeably to the act of congress of the 23d of April last, until it shall accede to the articles of confederation and be admitted into the federal union of these states."
In regard to the sufferings of individuals by banishment and confiscation of property, etc., complained of in the papers submitted to them, the committee reported that "if congress should judge it expedient to take any further order respecting those matters, it would be proper again to commit those papers." The papers were not again committed. It was now well understood that a majority of the states were favorable to Vermont, but it required the con- currence of nine of the thirteen to acknowledge her independence and admit her into the union, and as that number could not be obtained, her friends in that body were averse to coming to a vote on that question. On the 3d of June, a few days after the report
436
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
was made, the delegates of New York moved to postpone another matter which was under consideration, for the purpose of taking up this report, but only the states of New York and New Hampshire voted in favor of the motion. 1
This appears to liave been the last motion made, and the last vote taken on the Vermont question in the Continental congress. From this time forward, Vermont was allowed to pursue the even tenor of her way, without any interference on the part of the government of the confederation.
With the month of March, 1784, all active opposition to the jurisdiction of Vermont ceased. At the session of the general assembly in October following, many of the disaffected persons pre- sented petitions for relief from the penalties for which they were liable, and an act was passed granting twenty-six of them by name, a free pardon, and ordering any property of theirs which had been seized by the authority of the state, and not disposed of, to be restored to them, on condition that they should within three months appear before some justice of the peace for the county of Windham, and take the oath of allegiance to the state. Of these persons, seven were from Brattleboro, eighteen from Guilford, and one from Marlboro. At the same session, Charles Phelps petitioned the legislature for a pardon, and for a reversal of the sentence of the supreme court, attainting him of treason and confiscating his pro- perty. The committee, to whom the petition was referred, reported that the petitioner " had been meritorious in his former opposition to the regranting of lands by New York," and "in opposing the uniting and associating of the people of Cumberland county with New York," and had been "very servicable to his country by pro- curing and selling, without profit to himself, a quantity of arms, ammunition and salt;" but that "he had been for a number of years past exceedingly obstinate against and troublesome to the state." On the whole the committee, "on account of his former merit, his advanced age and the bad circumstances of his family," recommend that a full pardon be granted him, and that all his estate which had been confiscated, and not disposed of for the use of the state, should be restored to him, on his payment of the sum of thirty-five pounds lawful money "towards defraying the extra- ordinary cost that the government had been at on account of the exertions of himself and his associates against it." An act was
1 Pupers of the old Congress in the state department at Washington, No. 40, vol. 2, p. 465 and No. 186. Jour. of Cong., June 3, 1784.
437
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
passed in accordance with this report, and Mr. Phelps continued a peaceable citizen of the state during the remainder of his life, which terminated in April, 1789, in the seventy-third year of his age. His descendants have been numerous and respectable, and some of them have occupied very honorable positions in the state and country.1
The Windham county sufferers in the cause of New York, after- wards petitioned the legislature of that state for compensation for their losses, alleging in substance that they had been occasioned by the confidence they had placed in the assurances of congress and the government of New York, of eventual support and protection against the jurisdiction and authority claimed by the Vermonters, in which they had been disappointed. In 1786, the legislature, in response to their petition, appropriated a township of land eight miles square, for their benefit, situated on the Susquehanna river, since known as the town of Bainbridge, which was divided among more than one hundred claimants, in supposed accordance with their proportionate losses, the largest quantity assigned to any one person being three thousand eight hundred and forty acres, and the smallest ninety acres.
Many of the leading friends of New York removed from Vermont, while others remained and became quiet and peaceable supporters of the government.2
1 Jour. Vermont Assembly for Oct. 23, 26, 1784, and Slade, p. 494, 495.
2 Hall's Eastern Vermont, p. 541-546, and Appendix K, p. 757. Doc. Hist. N. Y., vol. 4, p. 1014-1022.
438
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
CHAPTER XXXIX.
FROM THE PEACE WITH GREAT BRITAIN UNTIL THE ADMIS- SION OF VERMONT INTO THE UNION.
1784 -1791.
Vermont after the peace is practically independent - Exercises sovereign authority from necessity - Such as prescribing a standard of weights and measures, regulating the value of coins, and in the establishment of Post Offices - In common with other states, coins copper .- Free from the embarrassments of the confederation, is not anxious to become a member of it - Movements in New York by Hamilton, Jay, Schuyler and others for the admission of Vermont into the Union - After the adoption of the constitution of the United States, commissioners are appointed by New York and Vermont, who agree upon terms, securing the Vermont land titles ; and upon an adjustment of the controversy, the state is admitted into the Union in 1791.
BY the definitive treaty of peace, signed at Paris, September 3, 1783, and ratified by congress the following January, Vermont was included in the territory acknowledged by Great Britain to belong to the United States. Though claimed by New York her jurisdiction over it was merely nominal. For all practical purposes Vermont was independent of every other government. The con- federated congress could, indeed, be scarcely considered a government. Its powers from the beginning had been almost exclusively of an advisory character, depending for their execution upon thic separate will of each individual state. In the early stages of the contest with the mother country, thic requirements of congress of the states had been received and treated with respect. But as the war pro- gressed jealousies sprung up among its members and among the states, and its requisitions became continually less and less regarded ; and when the pressure from without was withdrawn by the restora- tion of peace, little or no attention was paid to then. The paper currency which congress had emitted had become worthless, their revenues were exhausted, the public creditors were full of complaints against their proceedings, and they were without resources to answer the numerous demands that were perpetually made upon them. Their wisdom, as well as power, was very generally distrusted, and incapable of relieving themselves from their embarrassments, con- gress was daily sinking into insignificance and contempt.
·
439
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
The United States had contracted an immense debt in the prose- cution of the war, and congress was making constant, though almost useless calls upon the states and their people to furnish the means for its payment. From these annoying calls Vermont, in conse- quence of having been refused admission into the union, was exempt. The several states were also deeply in debt. But the government of Vermont, by the disposition of her public lands, the imposition of taxes payable in provisions for the supply of her troops, and by her policy of deluding the enemy into inaction, had come out of the contest with but few outstanding obligations. Much of her territory was yet ungranted, and settlers from other states, invited to her territory by the mildness, as well as the efficiency of her government, the comparative lightness of her taxes, the fertility and cheapness of her public lands, annually made large accessions to her population and resources. The confidence which the people of Vermont originally had in the wisdom and ability of congress, had been greatly impaired by the evasive and vacillating conduct of that body towards the state, and they were now well prepared to share in the general want of respect with which their irregular and imbecile pro- ceedings were viewed. They could not fail to see and feel that while their own condition was gradually improving, that of their neighbors was constantly growing worse. Under these circumstances, it cannot be matter of wonder that their admission into the federal union should cease to be an object earnestly sought after, or even very much desired. On this subject, the people of Vermont became content to remain passive for several years, cultivating a friendly feeling and intercourse with the neighboring states, and ready to unite with them on equal terms in any measure that should promise to be of general public benefit.
A great evil under which the people of Vermont labored at the close of the war grew out of their defective land titles. Until after the organization of the state government in 1779, there was no office in which conveyances of land were recorded, and consequently no place to which a purchaser could resort to ascertain the validity of a title. The New Hampshire charters had then been granted fifteen years or more, during which period numerous frauds had been practiced by base men who had made it a business to obtain the confidence of persons wishing to purchase, and to deed them lands to which they had no manner of claim. By this means very many of the settlers found themselves occupying land of which they could not show a chain of conveyances from original proprietors, but on which they had in good faith made extensive and valuable im-
-
440
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
provements. By the common law, formed for a very different state of things, they were liable to be turned out of their possessions by any stranger who could show a legal title, without receiving any compensation for their improvements, although they may have increased the value of the property four or even ten fold. The legal owner had voluntarily, perhaps designedly, neglected to make an early claim to the land, and it would be manifestly in the highest degree unjust, to allow him thus to reap the fruits of the labor and expenditures of another. This was clearly seen, but there was no precedent for a remedy, and the lawyers with a professional bias against change, were not in general disposed to aid in devising one. After several legislative suspensions of all land trials, and the con- sideration of various projects, a bill by the efficient aid of Nathaniel Chipman, one of the best jurists of his time, was framed for that purpose and enacted into a law at the session of the general assembly in October 1785. By this act a proceeding was pointed out by which after a judgment in ejectment for the plaintiff, any defendant who had purchased a title supposing it to be good in fee, and had entered into possession of the land and made improvements upon it, might have the value of such improvements ascertained by the verdict of a jury, and unless the plaintiff in ejectment should pay for them, he was not to be availed of the benefit of his judgment. This law, though novel in its character, was founded on the clearest principles of natural justice. It has always been popular in the state, and several of our sister states, availing themselves of our invention and experience have adopted the same system.1 The act concluded with a section declaring that no action whatever for the recovery of lands should be prosecuted, where the cause of action had accrued previous to its passage, unless such action should be commenced within three years from the first day of the preceding July. The whole act was well adapted to the condition of titles and of society at the time of its passage. This act when spoken of in reference to its first provisions, which, secured to the occupant com- pensation for the improvements he had made in good faith, was usually denominated the Betterment act, and in reference to its latter provision, the Quieting act.
The government of Vermont during this period of her independ- ence exercised all the powers of sovereignty which her isolated political situation seemed to require. Among them were those of
1 Slade's State Papers, p. 500, also p. 388, 405, 488, 494, 392, 411, 443. Life of Nathaniel Chipman, by Daniel Chipman, p. 62, 65.
-
1
1
441
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
prescribing a standard of weights and measures, and of regulating the fineness and value of coins. These powers however, for the want of any action of congress in relation to them, had in like manner been exercised by states of the confederation. Vermont also provided for the coinage of copper. In 1785 an act was passed granting to Reuben Harmon, Jr., of Rupert, the exclusive privilege of coining copper for a limited period. In 1786 an additional act was passed extending the time for the exercise of the privilege, and prescribing more particularly the weight and devices of the coins. This power of coining copper appears to have been likewise exercised during the period of the confederation by Connecticut and other states. In 1784 an act was passed by the Vermont legislature under which post offices were established, and a post master general appointed to superintend their management ; and to the post riders was given the exclusive right of transporting letters and packages, " the rates of postage to be the same as in the United States." 1
These powers were exercised from necessity, rather than from a disposition to disregard any proper measures of congress. The revised constitution of the state of 1786 provided for the annual election of delegates to congress, though none ever had occasion to attend it, and in accordance with the spirit of the fourth article of the confederation, the legislature declared by law that all the citizens of the United States should be equally entitled to all the privileges of law and justice, with those of Vermont .? The people of Ver- mont, though temporarily estranged from the confederation were connected with the states which composed it in feeling and interest, and considered themselves as forming a part of the same nationality.
While the government of Vermont remained in a great degree inactive, in regard to obtaining an acknowledgment of her independ- ence by congress, it became a subject of serious consideration in New York whether it would not be to the advantage of the whole country, including that state, to have Vermont become a member of the con- federation. All well informed men had become convinced that any further attempt to recall her people to the jurisdiction of New York, would be altogether ineffectual, and worse than useless ; that
1 Vermont Laws edition of 1787, p. 105, 161. In regard to the coining of copper by Vermont and other states, see Appleton's Cyclopedia article coins. Slade, 509. Thompson's Vt., p. 135. N. Y. Hist. Mag. for January, 1868, p. 32. Vt. Hist. Gazetteer, p. 227. Anthony Haswell of Bennington was appointed post master general. See Slade, p. 498, and Council Minutes, March 5, 1784.
2 Slade, 449. Acts of 1787, p. 31.
56
442
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
their independence was a fixed fact that could not be changed. The interest of the state in the general affairs of the country was similar to that of New York, and her votes in congress would naturally favor that interest. Why then persist in keeping her out of the political fold, where her influence and action was quite sure to be beneficial ? It was difficult to give a sensible answer to this question. Although Gov. Clinton had manifested a uniform and untiring hos- tility towards Vermont, and by the efficient aid of his land claiming friends, had always (except in a single instance as previously related), been able to carry the legislature with him, there had long been prominent men in that state who did not concur in his views. Gouveneur Morris, early in the year 1778, and repeatedly afterwards, had written Clinton earnestly protesting against his policy of resisting the claim of Vermont to independence, which claim he insisted must prove successful.1 Gen. Schuyler, as has already been seen, had long favored Vermont's independence. Alexander Hamilton, a few days after entering congress, and while the subject was in a degree new to him, had advocated the passage of the hostile resolutions of the 5th of December, 1782, but he very soon afterwards became satisfied that the measure had been a mis- taken one, and he thereafter urged a friendly adjustment of the matter.2 Mr. Jay and other leading statesmen of New York, had also abandoned their early views on the subject and become favorable to Vermont independence.
In the spring of 1787, Mr. Hamilton, who was a member of the New York assembly, introduced into that body a bill "to authorize the delegates in congress to accede to ratify, and confirm the inde- pendence and sovereignty of the people inhabiting the district of territory commonly called Vermont." The bill made no provision in regard to land titles, under New York patents, but left the claimants to their remedy under the articles of confederation. These claimants, who principally resided in New York city, where the assembly was sitting, having had a meeting on the subject, presented a petition to the assembly, asking to be furnished with a copy of the bill and to be allowed to be heard in regard to it, by counsel. Both requests were granted, and Wednesday the 28th of March was assigned for the hearing. On that day, Richard Harrison, a lawyer of distinguished learning and ability, was heard at the bar of the house in opposition to the bill. He argued at length against the
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.