76 



CIVIL HISTORY OF VERMONT. 



Tart IT- 



JiDHER>;yTS OK N. V. PUMSHEl). RESOLUTIONS OF OONGRESS. REMONSTRANCI OF VT. 



tain her independence and jvovernment, 

 there were some anionnr her citizens 

 whose submission was reluct.int, and who 

 were ready to embrace any favorable op- 

 portunity to renounce their allegiance 

 and support the claims of New York. 



As the continental troops had been with- 

 drawn from the northern frontier, and 

 ns Vermont was exposed to invasion by 

 the enemy from Canada, she found it ne- 

 cessary to order a draft of rnilitia for the 

 purpose of defence. Those citizens of 

 Vermont, who were disaffected toward 

 the government, resolved to take this op- 

 portunity to resist its authority. They 

 were encouraged in this measure by the 

 governor of New York, who gave com- 

 missions to sundry persons in tiie soutli- 

 eastern part of the county of Windham, 

 and had recommended the organization of 

 a military force i()r the purpose of oppos- 

 ing Vermont, and enforcing the laws of 

 New York. Vermont became alarmed at 

 these proceedings, and, having employed 

 lenient measures in vain, ordered out the 

 militia to suppress them. The leaders in 

 llie rebellion were taken, fiveof tiie most 

 obnoxious of whom were Ijanishod from 

 the state, and others fined or otherwise 

 punished. 



Disappointed in their attempts to resist 

 the autliority of Vermont, tlie insurnfents 

 applied to the government of New York, 

 under which they pretended to have act- 

 ed, for support and remuneration fortlieir 

 sacrifices and losses in consequence of 

 their rebellion. But the desired support 

 New York was not able to afford. Vermont 

 feared not her power, and tlierefore her 

 promises and her threatenings were alike 

 disregarded. A remonstrance was then 

 forwarded to Congress setting forth that 

 Vermont liad proceeded to exercise juris- 

 diction over the persons and property of 

 Bundry persons, wlio professed themselves 

 to be subject to the state of New York. 

 This remonstrance was seconded by a let- 

 ter from the governor of New York, and 

 on the 14th day of November, 1782, the 

 committee in Congress to whom the sub- 

 ject was referred, reported " That the 

 measures complained of were jirobably 

 occasioned by the state of New York hav- 

 ing given commissions both civil and mil- 

 itary to persons residing in Vermont." 

 They also recommended, that said com- 

 missions be revoked, and that Vermont 

 should make satisfaction to the persons, 

 who had been banished, or who had sus- 

 tained damages. But Congress refused 

 to adopt the resolution recommended. 



On the 5th of December, Concrress 

 again took \\p the matter, but instead of 

 fulfilling their engagement to Vermont 



made by the resolution of the 20th of 

 August, 1T81, their proceedings were full 

 of censure and threatening against Ver- 

 mont, for having exercised authority over 

 persons, who professed allegiance to the 

 state of New York, in violation of the 

 resolutions of Congress,* passed on the 

 24th of September, 1779, and on the 2d 

 of June, 1780. Among other things tliey 

 resolved, that Vermont be required to 

 make full restitution to the persons con- 

 demned to banishment or confiscation of 

 property, and that they bo not molested 

 on their return to said district. They 

 close by resolving, "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." 



The faith of the people of Vermont in 

 the wisdom and integrity of Congress, 

 weakened by several of their former acts, 

 was by the foregoing nearly destroyed, 

 and with it the reverence and respect of 

 the people for that body. The governor 

 and council of Vermont, on tlie 9th day of 

 .January, 1783, returned a spirited re- 

 monstrance t to the above resolutions, in 

 which Congress was reminded of their 

 solemn engagement to the state of Ver- 

 mont, in the resolution of the 20th of 

 August, and which, after the fullest com- 

 pliance on the part of said state with the 

 r(>quirement of Congress, Congress had 

 refused or neglected to fulfil. Congress 

 were told, that, by their own articles of 

 confederation, they had no right to inter- 

 meddle with the internal policy of any of 

 the United States; and least of all with 

 that of Vermont, from which she had re- 

 ceived no deiegated authority whatever. 

 It asserted that \'ermont had as much 

 authority to prescribe measures to Con- 

 gress, as Congress had to revoke the le- 

 gal decisions of Vermont in the case of 

 the criminals already mentioned. 



The remonstrance went on to assert 

 that Vermont had had an independent ju- 

 risdiction since the roval decision in 17()4, 

 and they did not intend to be resolved out 

 of it by the influence, which their o/f/ ad- 

 rcrsun/, New York, possessed in Con- 

 gress; — that Vermont had nocontrover-sy 

 with the United States, as a whole ; but 

 that she was at all times, read)^ and able, 

 to vindicate her rights and liberties against 

 the usur|)ations of New York. It declares 

 that Congress has been so mutable in 

 their resolutions respecting Vermont, that 



* These Resoliitionjmay be found in Slade's State 

 Pa)?rrs, pnt'O 177. 



t Tlii^ al)lB (lociimeiit, wlircli is alike distincuisli- 

 orl for force of rensoniiifr, and severity of rebuke, 

 may be found in Slade's State Papers, page 178-lb5. 



