Vermont: A Study of IndependenceRobinson, Rowland Evans
History
Vermont: A Study of Independence
Robinson, Rowland Evans
Vermont -- History
On the 2d of June Congress resolved that the acts of "the people of the
Grants were highly unwarrantable, and subversive of the peace and
welfare of the United States, and that they be strictly required to
forbear from any acts of authority over those of the people who
professed allegiance to other States."
In reply to these resolutions, Vermont declared that they were
subversive of her rights, and incompatible with the principles on which
Congress grounded the right of the United States to independence, and
tended to endanger the liberties of America; that Vermont as an
independent State denied the authority of Congress to judge of her
jurisdiction, and boldly declared that, as she was refused a place among
the United States, she was at liberty, if necessitated, to offer or
accept terms of a cessation of hostilities with Great Britain, with whom
she had no motive to continue hostilities and maintain an important
frontier for the benefit of the United States, if she were not to be one
of them, but only to be divided between her covetous neighbors. Thus was
foreshadowed the policy which Vermont was soon forced to adopt for her
own preservation. The declaration closed with saying that, "from a
principle of virtue, and a close attachment, to the cause of liberty,
she was induced once more to offer union with the United States of
America."
In September some attempt was made in Congress to decide the contest.
New Hampshire and New York presented their claims, denying the right of
Vermont to independence. Ira Allen and Stephen R. Bradley were present
as agents of Vermont, but were not treated by Congress as
representatives of a State, or of a people invested with legislative
authority. They were permitted to attend Congress on the hearing of the
question, and protested against the manner of investigation which gave
Vermont no hearing as a State. They declared her readiness to submit
this dispute to the legislatures of one or more disinterested States,
but protested Congress had no right to determine it by virtue of
authority derived from the acts of one or more States who were but one
party in the controversy. Congress heard the evidence of both New York
and New Hampshire, and again postponed consideration of the troublesome
question.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account