USA > Vermont > The history of Vermont, from its discovery to its admission into the Union in 1791. By Hiland Hall > Part 46
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 Letter, 4th of March, 1778, and Life of Morris, vol. 1, p. 211 -215.
2 Life of Hamilton by his son J. C. Hamilton, vol. 2, p. 198-204.
1
443
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
necessity and policy of the measure ; against the constitutional power of the legislature to consent to the dismemberment of the state, and also against the injustice of thereby depriving the petitioners of their property without compensation, and alleged that the remedy which . they might have by the organization of a court under the articles of confederation would be entirely valueless, because "it would be attended with such an enormous expense as the petitioners could by no means sustain, and to which sovereign states alone would be found equal." He was answered by Mr. Hamilton, who argued with great power and ability in favor of the propriety and policy of conceding the independence of Vermont, which had now become fully established, and which it was beyond the power of New York to overthrow ; and he claimed that public necessity often justified governments in curtailing their former limits. He insisted that the state was not under a strict obligation to make compensation to the losing claimants. " The distinction," he said, " is this - if a govern- ment voluntarily bargains away the rights, or dispossesses itself of the property of its citizens in their enjoyment, possession, or power, it is bound to make compensation for that of which it has deprived them ; but if they are actually dispossessed of those rights or that property by the casualties of war or by revolution, the state, . if the public good require it, may abandon them to the loss without being obliged to make reparation." New York, he claimed, had done all in her power to preserve the rights of the petitioners, by striving for years to maintain her jurisdiction over the controverted district without success, and now, in yielding to the stern law of necessity, would only cease to keep up a vain claim to territory of which she was actually dispossessed, and which she could never recall. The bill was debated for several days and finally passed the house on the 11th of April by a vote of twenty-seven ayes to nineteen nays. It however failed to pass the senate.1
A few weeks after this action of the New York assembly, (May 14th) the convention that framed the constitution of the United States assembled at Philadelphia. In September following the re- sult of their labors was communicated to congress, and the constitu- tion, by crder of that body, was transmitted to the several states for their consideration. From that time till the middle of the following summer the public mind was greatly absorbed by the discussion of
1 Jour. N. Y. Assembly, March 15, 24, 28, April 11. For Mr. Harrison's argument see N. Y. Daily Advertiser, for April 3, 1787. For Hamilton's reply, see Works of Hamilton, vol. 2, p. 374-390. See also J. C. Hamilton's Republic of the U. S., vol. 3, p. 228, 235.
1
444
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
the new frame of government, and by the action of the several state conventions in regard to it; and during the year 1788 no movement in the New York legislature appears to have been made in relation to Vermont. The convention which formed the constitution had de- declared by resolution, that as soon as it should be ratified by nine states, congress should fix a day on which electors should be appointed by the states ratifying it, a day on which the electors should assemble to vote for the president, and the time and place for commencing proceedings under the constitution. Early in July 1788, congress at the city of New York, where its sessions had been held since January 1785, received official information of the ratification of the constitution by eleven of the thirteen states, and immediately took up the subject of putting it in operation. But the question in regard to the place where the new government should be first organ- ized, elicited such diverse views and such warm discussions that it was not until the 13th of September, after often repeated debates, during which the yeas and nays were taken over twenty times, that the city of New York was finally designated. The electors were to be appointed the first Wednesday of January 1789, were to assemble for the choice of president the first Wednesday in February, and proceedings under the constitutionx were to commence on the first Wednesday of March.1
The controversy in regard to the seat of government was in a great degree sectional, and if the then existing relative position of the states could be preserved the people of New York had strong hopes of continuing it in their city. Kentucky, with the assent of Virginia, had applied to congress for admission into the union as a new state, and the application, in July 1788, had been postponed for the consideration of the new government. There was no doubt that Kentucky would become a member of the union at an early day, and unless Vermont could also be admitted the preponderance in the states would be clearly against New York. For this reason, to say nothing of other influences in operation, many of the citizens of New York became quite anxious for the acknowledgment of the indepen- dence of Vermont.
In February, 1789, a bill was introduced into the New York assembly declaring the consent of the legislature to the erection of the district called Vermont into a separate state, which passed that body by a vote of forty yeas to eleven nays, but like that of 1787
1 Jour. Congress, September 28, 1787, and from July 3, to September 13, 1788, vol. 4, p. 776-782, and 828-867. Appendix to vol. 4 of Journal, p. 28 to 61.
.
445
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
for the same object, it was defeated in the senate.1 But at a brief session of the legislature in July following, the advocates of Ver- mont were more successful. On the 6th of that month a bill was introduced into the assembly, providing for the appointment of com- missioners to negotiate with the Vermonters in regard to their inde- pendence. On the Sth, a petition of John Jay and fifty-seven others was presented, stating that although the petitioners were interested in the lands in the district of Vermont under New York · patents, they were nevertheless extremely desirous, on public con- siderations, for the admission of the district into the federal union as an independent state, and were willing for their land claims, "to receive justice in any manner which the nature of the case and the situation of public affairs might point out as most expedient." How much influence this petition had on the action of the legisla- ture is not known .? But on the 14th of that month, a bill became a law, appointing seven commissioners with full powers, “ on such terms and conditions and in such manner and form, as they should judge necessary and proper, to declare the consent of the legisla- ture " to the erection of the district of Vermont into a new state. It was however provided, that nothing in the act contained should be construed to give any person claiming lands in such district to be erected into an independent state, any right to any compensation whatever from this state."3
An official copy of this act, having been transmitted by the commissioners therein named to governor Chittenden, he laid it before the legislature at their session in October following. By this time the new government of the United States under the con- stitution had been put in operation, a system of laws for its practical administration had been adopted, with decided indications that it would rescue the country from the embarrassments under which it had been laboring, and establish its nationality on a firm and credit- able basis. Gen. Washington, in whom the people of Vermont had the most perfect confidence, and whom they had always considered as specially friendly to them, was now at its head as president, and this improved condition of affairs offered new and additional induce- ments for the state to become a member of the Union. With the assent of New York, which now seemed almost, if not quite assured, the only obstacle in the way of such Union was the condition of their land titles. While the state remained wholly independent,
1 Assembly Jour., February 27.
2 Clinton Papers.
3 Laws of N. Y., 13th Sess. p. 2.
446
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
the inhabitants were safe against the New York claimants, but whether they would be so under the federal government, might perhaps be questioned. By the new constitution the federal courts would have jurisdiction in all the states, between citizens of different states ; and the claimants under New York would be at liberty to institute suits in Vermont before such courts for the recovery of the lands they claimed. If such suits should be successful, a large portion of the inhabitants would be deprived of their property and homes, and the great object for which they had for years been con- tending would be thereby defeated. Although such a decision in favor of the claims of New York after her jurisdiction had been discarded and successfully overthrown by revolution, was extremely improbable, yet there was too much at stake to allow any risk to be run in relation to them. .
This matter had been the subject of correspondence the previous year between Nathaniel Chipman of Vermont and Alexander Hamil- ton, in which the latter had admitted the propriety of providing against such a contingency, and had suggested as a means of doing so, that Vermont should by a convention called for that purpose " ratify the constitution upon condition that congress should provide for the extinguisliment" of the New York claims. This plan, which depended for its execution upon the uncertain disposition of congress, and under the most favorable circumstances that conld be anticipated, was likely to be attended with great delay, does not appear to have been seriously entertained on the part of Vermont. The readiest and most feasible mode of accomplishing the object in view seemed to be for the state of New York to provide for the extinguishment of the claims of her own grantees, by making some compensation to the claimants, towards which the government of Vermont on an amicable 'adjustment of tlie matter might properly be called upon to contribute.
The New York act, in regard to her colonial land claims, was un- satisfactory to the Vermont legislature; but by entering into nego- tiation with the commissioners appointed by it, explanations might be made to them that would lead to further legislation by that state which would be acceptable. The legislature of Vermont therefore, on the 23d of October. 1789, passed an act appointing commission- ers with authority " to treat with commissioners that now are or hereafter may be appointed, by the state of New York," and grant- ing them full powers " to ascertain, agree to, ratify and confirm a jurisdictional or boundary line between the state of New York and the state of Vermont, and to adjust, and finally determine, all and every matter or thing which in any wise obstructs a union of the
447
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
state with the United States." The aet further declared that every act or agreement of the commissioners appointed by it, made and entered into with "certain commissioners that now are, or here- after may be appointed by the state of New York should be as effectual to every purpose as if the same had been an immediate aet of the legislature." The only limitations to the powers of the commis- sioners were, that they could not lessen or abridge the then existing jurisdictional limits of the state, or oblige any claimants to lands under grants from New Hampshire or Vermont to relinquish their claims, or "in any wise subject the state of Vermont to make any compensation to different persons claiming under grants made by the late province, and now state of New York, of lands situate and being in the state of Vermont and within the jurisdiction of the same." The commissioners appointed by the act were Isaac Tichenor, Stephen R. Bradley, Nathaniel Chipman, Elijah Paine, Ira Allen, Stephen Jacob, and Israel Smith, any four of whom were author- ized to perform the duties assigned to the whole.1
The commissioners of the two states met in the city of New York in February 1790, when after spending several days in the inter- change of views and proposals, it became apparent that the New York commissoners had no authority under the aet appointing them to make any satisfactory stipulations in regard to their colonial land patents, and the negotiation was consequently broken off." But the legislature of the state was then in session at Albany and a bill was soon introduced repealing the former aet, and conferring additional powers on commissioners for the adjustment of the controversy, which bill on the 6th of March became a law. By this act full power was conferred on the commissioners, not only to relinquish the jurisdiction of New York over the territory of Vermont, but also to provide in such manner and form as they should deem proper for securing the titles to lands therein " against persons claiming the same lands under grants from the state of New York while a colony or since the independence thereof." And the act further provided that any compensation that should be received by the state by the agreement of the commissioners for the relinquishment of the jurisdiction of the state over the territory of Vermont, or of the elaims of New York grantees to lands therein, should be for the use of such land claim- ants and not for the use of the state. The commissioners appointed by this act were Robert Yates, Robert R. Livingston, John Lansing
1 Slade, p. 192.
2 Ms. Correspondence of Coms. and Reprot of Vt. Commissioners to the assembly of October 21, 1790.
448
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
Jr. Gulian Verplanck, Simeon De Witt, Egbert Benson, Richard Sill and Melancton Smith. It is perhaps worthy of remark that Gov. Clinton's unrelenting hostility to Vermont, as well as his character- istic obstinacy, was shown in a vain attempt to defeat this measure for an amiacable adjustment of the long continued controversy. When the bill reached the council of revision he filed written ob- jections against it and moved its rejection, but he was overruled by his associates, Chancellor Livingston and Judges Yates and Hobart. It thus escaped a veto, and became a law.1
The commissioners of the two states agreed upon a meeting at Stockbridge on the 6th of the ensuing July, but owing to the sick- ness of two of those of New York no meeting was held. But on the 27th of September following, the commissioners came together in the city of New York, and on the 7th of October, their negotia- tion was completed by a satisfactory arrangement, depending only for its final consummation upon the favorable action of the Ver- mont legislature. The New York commissioners entered into a formal written stipulation, declaring " the consent of the legislature of the state of New York that the state of Vermont be admitted into the Union of the United States of America, and that immedi- ately on such admission, all claim of jurisdiction of the state of New York, within the state of Vermont should cease ;" and further declaring, "the will of the legislature of the state of New York, that if the legislature of the state of Vermont should, on or before the first day of January, 1792, declare that on or before the first day of June, 1794, the said state of Vermont would pay to the state of New York the sum of thirty thousand dollars, that immedi- ately from such declaration by the legislature of the state of Ver- mont, all rights and titles to lands within the state of Vermont under grants from the late colony of New York, or from the state of New York, should cease," those only excepted, which had been made in confirmation of former grants under New Hampshire. The requisite act for the payment of the thirty thousand dollars to the state of New York was passed by the Vermont legislature on the 28th of the same October, in which act it was also declared that " all grants, charters, or patents of lands lying within the state of Vermont made by'or under the government of the late colony of New York," with the exception of the before mentioned confirmatory grants, were " null and void and incapable of being given in evidence in
Street's Council of Recison, p. 418. Laws 13th Session, p. 13.
449
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
any court of law within the state." 1 At the same session a conven- tion was called to meet at Bennington on the 6th of the ensuing January, to act upon the question of the adoption of the United States constitution, which on the 10th of that month was ratified by a vote of one hundred and five yeas to two nays. The legislature holding an adjourned session at the same time and place, appointed Nathaniel Chipman and Lewis R. Morris, commissioners to attend upon congress and negotiate the admission of the state into the union. They immediately repaired to Philadelphia and laid before the president the proceedings of the convention and the legislature of Vermont, and on the 18th of February 1791, congress passed an act which declared " that on the 4th day of March 1791, the said state, by the name and style of the state of Vermont, shall be received into this union as a new and entire member of the United States of America." This act was passed without debate or objection, and thus was happily terminated by the free consent of all parties a con- troversy which had existed and been attended with more or less bitterness and violence for over a quarter of a century.2
This work has now reached the close of the period of which the author proposed to treat. In his investigations he has sought for the original and most authentic sources of information, and has en- deavored to state the facts of history in their true light. He thinks it satisfactorily appears that the early inhabitants of Vermont were under the necessity of uniting together in a separate and distinct community, and in forming an independent state, in order to main- tain their titles and preserve their property, and were fully justified in their resistance to the oppressive measures of New York, and in their revolt against its authority ; and that they conducted their public affairs, both against New York and the common enemy, with a patriotic energy and consummate ability, that commanded the respect of their contemporaries, and which entitles them to the honored remembrance of their posterity.
1 For an account of the distribution of the sum paid by Vermont among the New York land claimants see Appendix No. 13.
2 Jour. N. Y. Assembly. Ms. Correspondence of the Com. Report of the Vt. Commissioners to the Assembly, Oct. 21, 1790. Slude, p. 192-194. For a copy of the instrument executed by the N. Y. Com., of Oct. 7, 1790, sec the Vermont Gazetteer for Oct. 25, 1790.
57
APPENDIXES.
APPENDIX NO. 1.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF THE PRINCIPAL PERSONS MENTIONED IN THIS WORK.
Major Ebenezer Allen .- Ebenezer Allen was born at Northampton, Mass., October 17, 1743, emigrated to Poultney, Vt., in 1771, was a lieutenant in Col. Warner's regiment of Green Mountain Boys in 1775, removed to Tinmouth and was a delegate from that town to the several conventions of the New Hampshire Grants in 1776, and of those that declared the state independent and formed the state constitution the succeeding year. In July 1777, he was appointed a captain in Col. Herrick's battalion of state rangers, and distinguished himself in the battle of Bennington. In Septem- ber following at the head of forty of his men he took possession by night assault, of Mount Defiance, and on the retreat of the enemy from Ticonder- oga captured fifty of their rear guard, all of which is more particularly related in the body of this work. Among the prisoners on the latter occasion was Dinah Mattis a negro slave with her infant child, and he, being as he declares, " conscientious that it is not right in the sight of God to keep slaves," gave her a written certificate of emancipation, and caused it to be recorded in the town clerk's office at Bennington, where the record may now be seen. It bears date " Head Quarters Pawlet 28th November, 1777," and is signed "Ebenezer Allen Captain." Allen was afterwards promoted to a majority in the rangers and rendered other valuable servi- ces, showing himself to be a brave and successful partisan leader. In 1733, he removed to South Hero, where he resided till the year 1800 when he went to Burlington and died there March 26, 1806 .- Sec Deming's Vt. Officers p. 183-4, and Hollister's Pawlet, 13, 83.
Ethan Allen .- So much has been said of Gen. Allen in the body of this work, that little remains to be added, especially as he is already widely known to the reading public. Ethan Allen was the oldest son of Joseph Allen and Mary Baker, who were married at Woodbury, Conn., March 11, 1736, and he was born at Litchfield, January 10, 1737. The other children of Joseph and Mary Allen were Heman, Lydia, Heber, Levi, Lucy, Zimri and Ira.
Ethan Allen came from Salisbury where he had resided for several years, to the New Hampshire Grants, now Vermont, about 1769, and had
452
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
his residence here until his decease, living first at Bennington then at Arlington and Sunderland, and finally at Burlington. He was active in pre- paring for the defence of the ejectment suits brought against the settlers by the New York claimants, and attended the trials which took place at Albany in June, 1770. The titles of the settlers being declared invalid, they resolved to defend their possessions by force, if necessary, and Allen became their most prominent leader. With his corps of men styled Green Mountain Boys, he was successful in resisting the Yorkers, and also in the capture of Ticonderoga from the British, he and his men acquiring in both cases from Lieut. Gov. Colden, the name of the Bennington mob. In September, 1775, failing in an attempt with a volunteer force of Cana- dians, to capture Montreal, he was taken prisoner, sent to England in irons and treated with great indignity and cruelty. After remaining a prisoner over two years and some months he was exchanged and liberated in May, 1778. On the 14th of that month, congress, by resolution, granted him a brevet commission of lientenant colonel " in reward of his fortitude, firmness and zeal in the cause of his country, manifested during his long and cruel captivity, as well as on former occasions." He was afterwards brigadier general in the militia of Vermont, and rendered the state essen- tial and important services, both in a military and civil capacity.
In a letter from his brother, Ira Allen, to Dr. Samuel Williams in 1795, it is stated that Etlian began to prepare for college, but that the death of his father left the family in such circumstances that the design was not pursued. His early education was evidently defective, but he acquired much information by reading and observation, and held the pen of a ready, though an unpolished writer. His meaning was, however, always clear, and there was a peculiar boldness and quaintness in his language which attracted and fixed the attention of his readers, and was well calculated to inspire confidence in his sincerity of purpose and in the justice of the cause he advocated. He wrote largely on the subject of the New York controversy, first in several articles in 1772, mostly published in the Con- necticut Courant and New Hampshire Gazette, and some of them printed in hand bills. They were very effective, and exerted an important influence on the public mind unfavorable to the New York land speculators and to the colonial government that sustained them. In 1774 he published a pamphlet of over two hundred pages against the validity of the titles of the New York claimants to lands on the New Hampshire Grants, and in answer to " The state of the right of New York," which had appeared the year previous under the sanction of the assembly of that province. In this, many historical facts were brought to bear against the claim of New York to extend easterly to Connecticut river prior to the king's order in 1764; and the oppressive conduct of the government towards the set- tlers under New Hampshire was strongly exhibited. It also embraced the answer of himself and his proscribed associates, to the outlawry act of New York of that year. In 1778 he published a pamphlet of twenty-four pages, entitled An Animadrersory Address, in which he exposed thic deceptive and unsatisfactory character of the overtures contained in Gov. Clinton's proclamation of the 23d of February of that year. In 1779, a pamphlet of one hundred and seventy-two pages prepared by him en- titled " A vindication of the opposition of the inhabitants of Vermont to
ـط شتهمـ
453
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
the government of New York, and of their right to form an independent state; humbly submitted to the consideration of the impartial world," was published under the authority of the governor and council. He was also the author of other publications in pamphlets, in hand bills, and in the newspapers, during the subsequent controversies of the state with New York and New Hampshire, all of which evinced his accurate general knowledge of the political situation of the state and country, and liis ability to present his views in a clear and forcible manner. "A narrative of Col. Ethan Allen's captivity " prepared by him, was printed in Philadelphia, 1779, which was extensively read, and acquired great popularity, numerous editions of it having since been published. In 1784 appeared his theolo- gical work, a book of 477 pages, printed for the author at Bennington. The purport of it is sufficiently indicated by its title which was " Reason the only oracle of man, or a compendious system of natural religion." It is said to be more polished in style than his other writings. Its sale was quite limited, and the principal effect of it was to bring upon the author the sharp displeasure of the religious public.
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.