The Connecticut courant, and the weekly intelligencer — Hartford [Conn.], 1782-02-12 00:00:00, page 1

The present State of the Controversy between
the States of New-York and New-Hampshire
on the one part, and the State of Vermont on
the other. ( Inserted by particular Dejire.)
(Concluded from our left.)
THAT the inhabitants of those diftrids were, by natural
fixation to the waters of the northern lakes, and ex
pofednefs with the inhabitants of the old territory of Ver
mont to the excursions of the enemy from Canada, which
in this orin future wars would render it expedient and bed
that they should belong to this State, as well as more re
motely to to the United States, as it will make a Strong bar
rier againit Canada. But be it in future as it will, at pre
sent, sets-preservation and mutual defence rendered itindif
penf^hy ueceflary, that the inhabitants of those diftfifts,
with those of the old territory, should unite in one entire
State, and accordingly, on the ip day of February 1781.
the legislature ofVermont laid a jurifdi&ional tlaimto them,
in consequence of which they became incorporated into
this State.
Nor have the States of New-York or New-Hampshire, or
either of them, upon the Rating of their own claims, any
more right of complaint against Vermont, for forming the
late unions, titan fa fof:ning government within its firft li
mits; for as much asthey denominate the whole of Ver
mont, Unions and all a usurped government, and call its
inhabitants their revolted futjeds, and threaten the fubju
g?tion of them. However it is no ways probable that Ver
mont would have laid a jurifdialohal claim to any part of
the jurisdiction of those claiming States, had they nor per
fiited„ra th^rrofecution of their unreasonable oloims against
the independence of this State. Though it is observable,
that-neither the old territory or either of its unions, were
ever included in any grant or charter from the crown of
England to either of the governments or people of New-
Hampshire or New-York, or to their predecessors, but were
extra provincial land, without the limits of any original jn
rifdi&ion whatever, but was altered from one jurisdiction to
another by the foveteign mandates of the King of Great-
Britain. But if those royal mandates are admitted at this
day to be binding, that to his Excellency Governor Philip
Skeen, from the fame royal authority, which was the last of
the fort which affected th; old disputed territory of Ver
mont and its weftcin union, over which it vested him with
jurisdictional authority, and which on the position of the
validity of royal traditions and boundaries, would fatally
operate agaiuft the claim of the State of New-York, and
wholly fruftrate their arguments deduced from the kingly
Settlement of their boundary line with New-Hampshire of
1764 aforefaid.
, The written express condition upon which Vermont ad
mitted those unions, was, that provided Vermont should be
admitted into the federal union with the United States,Con
gress should determine its boundaries (alias its unions) a
greeable to the mode prescribed by the Articles of Confe
deration of the United States.
On the 27th of August last Congress proposed, that Ver
mont should exclude or nullify their laid unions, and then
be admitted intcithe federal union of (he United States.
But why did not the legislature of Vermont at their ft ffions
in October luff, dissolve their said unions and end the contro
versy as Congress proposed ? It was not in their power to
do it ; the previous conditions of dissolving the unions wete
impossible, as the inhabitants ofthofe unions were in the
most Solemn manner admitted to all and lingular ofthe pri
vileges and protections of government, in common with
thole other citizens who firft erected it. The faith of go
vernment was pledged for their fccurity, and they became
incorporated into the fame political body, and.compofe a
refpe&able part of its legislature. Previous to the forming
ofthofe unions, had Congress proposed a union of Ver
mont with the United States, bonfires and public rejoicings
would have been displayed as testimonies of their gratitude
to Congress, and its legislative body would have rfitedly
complied with it. Notwithstanding the good intention of
Congress, had Vermont abandoned their unions to thevin
didivc rage of New-York and New-Hampshire, had it
been in their power; would have been to their indelible
and eternal reproach. Had the legislature of Vermont at
tempted a dissolution of their unions, it would have flung
them, and confequendy the whole State, into such intestine
broils, that they would have fell an easy prey to their watch
ful competitors, viz. New-York and New-Hampshire, and
not only be damned and tantaliz'd over by them, but Spurn'd
and derided by the New England States, to whom they have
granted a large quantity of land, and incorporated it into
townships.
Tre legifliture of the State of New-Yoik, at their late
TC^bn, renewed their claim to the property and fovrreigwy
*.f the lands of Vermont, as far to the eaflward as Connec
ufy^xiver, and to latitude forty-five degrees north ; and
WFFKTY INTFITIGEWCPR
HARTFORD : Printed by H SON and GOODWIN, wear the Great Bridge.
T U E S A Y, February 12, 1782.
remor.ftrated againftthe said resolution of Congress of the
2ad of Auguftlali—and also against the authority of Con
grcls to, determine the independence of Vermont, which
they predicate on the articles of their confederation. So
that what effe& this peremptory remonstrance, grounded on
former compact;, would have had with Congress, relative
to the admittance o£this State into the union of the United
States, provided Vermont were difincumbered of its unions,
is uncertain, though most probable it would have prevented
it. Congress may now, if they think proper, admit Ver
mont into union, and then determine its boundaries; or
which is the fame thing, its unions, agreeable to the con
dition upon which the unions took place ; so that it is in the
power of Congress, by taking Vermont into union with the
United States, legally to datfohye the unions if'they think<
belt; but not in the power of rhe legislature of Vermont to
do it. The legislative body of Vermont at their session in
O&obor last, proposed to th, legislatures of the States of
New-York and New-Hampshire, to refer the dilutes rela
tive to their refiu&ive boundary lines, to the final arbitra
ment and decision of indjfifene men, and pledged the faith
of government to abide their determination, which pro
posals were officially transmitted to both of those States,
but no manner of ar,fwer has been returned to this State —
And why, the cause is very obvious ; for had those States
complied with the proposals of this, they mult have neces
sarily surceased their igfpcaire claims to the old territory
of Vermont (an object too dear to them to pare with) for
there could be no arbitration without parties, and no par
ties without Vermont was admitted to be a State, which
would have been implicitly acknowledged by those States,
by arbitrating on its boundaries. But queries may arise in
the mind of the. reader, Was it hemett in Vermont to extend
thehsrifdi&ion upon the States of New-York and New-
Hamfyhire ? Previous to the folutfoe of this question, it is
requisite to determine whether , honesty is trumps or not.
Sfop is rhe -word. Each of those States had in the firft place
laid their refyeaive claims to the old territory of Vermont,
and though Vermont, prior to extending its claims, had
earnestly solicited them to surcease their claim to Vermont
—accede to their independence, and make an alliance with
them against the common enemy, which proposals were
officially transmitted to those States : But no ; they would
return no answer to revolted fubjeds—Let them Struggle in
their insignificant notions of independence, they will an
swer as a forlorn hope to Secure the liege fubje& of New-
York and New-Hampshire ; they are nicely Situated to Ca
nada, and when the war is terminated, if any of them re
main alive, we old confederated States can easily fubje&
them ; but if we think it most prudent, we have a right to
call on the whole confederacy of the United States to crush
them ; so that at Aloft they are but our vassals, and cheag'd
with imaginary prospers of liberty (a thing greatly tasked
of in this world, anti but little enjoyed) will go through the
hazards and fatigues of that expoled part of our frontiers,
better than as though they had some time pall been subju
gated, which we old and politic States can do any time
when it best serves duf purposes ; we know rhe length of
tbeir tether, and can shorten it when we please, and have
Some time Since divided their territory between us ; we have
them Snug enough, andfcorn to aniwer any of their propo- 1
lais. This is the language of their Silence and of their
claims ; so that the question concerning Vermont's unions,
is not so much whether it accords with old homerun hones
ty, as whether it is politically so ; or in fine, whether it was
houeft for Vermont, in their trying circumstances, to make
dry acceflions ofpower against the avowed coercive defigrs
of those States, or the common enemy. Before we leave
this fubje% we will query, whether it was not as honest in
this S^te to lay a jurif'diaional claim to the grants ealt of
Connedicut river, as it was for New-Hampshire previoufiy
to break over the mutual settlement of their boundary line
with Vermont on Connecticut river, and lay claim to the
then whole territory of Vermont. So much for honesty.
But, fay the enemies to the independence of Vermont,
why was there but little or no fighting between them and
the enemy in Canada last campaign ? Surely there is force
negotiation taking place between them inimical to the U
nited States of America-—Rouse the whole confederacy and
dettroy Vermont-—But why, what evil have they sustained
from the northward ? Have the enemy been permitted <o
pass through Vermont to invade the United States ? No, riot
yet ; but it is going to be done—So is the lalt trumpet go
ing to found, but pot yet, and it is more than probable that
neither ofthefe events will take place in pur days. Bur how
came all this jealousy and talk in America ? It was undoubt
edly firft promoted bythofe who were impatient that the
inhabitants of this State should have been defiroyed by the
common enemy (or by weak and fetf-conceired politicians
which arc apt co swarm in republican governments) To
the former it is a mystery that Vermont yet lives; th y
think that having prevented its union with the IL itedStates ;
ftmuft have terminated in their dtftru&ion ; and inasmuch
as they are at a k>fs about all these and those things, itmaz
be best that they remain so. This publication is by no means
meant to open their byes, bat leaves them to grope in the
dark, cofycluriug what to theirdepraved ideas of politics
appears mast eligible. However, there are rumours circu
lated that the whole confederacy of the United Stares will
join and extirpate Vermont, which is as unlikely as th>t the
t.,1 of the next comet will fettle world on fire. What e~
minent ferv iecs have Vermont done in the common caute
in the course of this war, even to those claiming States who
are devoting it to dclhu&ion, in order to take posse flion of
the fertile territory ; but as it is merely interested views
which unite those claiming States to endeavour the ruin of
Vermont, which cannot be an inducement to the other
eleven United States ; it is not supposable that they will be
duped to cipoufe their cause, the reward of which could ba
nothing but infancy and disgrace. How inglorious would
die victorious Continental Troops, just returned from the
capture ofa proud and haughty army, with a Cornwallis the
pride of England at their head, appear in arms, puiffantty
trampling on the rights of a brave and meritorious people,
and ficrificingthe liberties which they have been valiantly
fuppurting ; and all to coircberare the venal and ambitious
designs of controverting States ? Heavens for bid it ! Preserve
thtir laurels, and smile prupirioufly on Vermont, v ho wane
nothing but justice should take place between themandtheir
competitors.
Did not Vermont strike a refpca,ble part of the mortal
blow towards capturing. General Burgoyne, which produced
the alliance yah France, and in the chain of causes
brought the French fleet to Chefapeak, and brought about a
second memorable ^ra in America. But notwithstanding
What has been said on this subj. d, We will premise, for iris
probable, that New-York and New-Hampshire will urge the
confederacy atlarge to mppreis Vermont, and fubjed it to
their juriidi&ion ; but it is obfervabie, that both ofthofe
claiming States claim this territory ngairdt each other ; so
that it will be pre-rcquifctly Beceifuy for Congress to as
certain and establish the boundary line between those States,
prior to any supposed Subjugation of Vermont to those jurif~
di&ions, or to either ofthem ; for otherwise there could be
no objc& in view in a iuppofed conquest of Vermont: But:
after all, it would Still remain a dilute who should share
the conqueit, whether New-York or New-Hampshire, or
whether either of them should extend jurifdiaion : # So that
the States of New- York and Nev, -Hampshire, previous to
the conquest of Vermont, .by the confederacy^ f the United
States, muff go through a try alatl^w, agreeable Co the ar
ticles cf confederation, or otherwise, in order to ' fettle their
boundary line, or clfe pull effthenWk and publicly cwn the
fad, with which they Stand indicted by Vermont, viz. That
they have tome time pah clandestinely agreed upon the line
of the division ofchat State, and so produce it to Congress
as a line mutually agreed on between thcmfelvcs; but! ad-
vise them to pretend co Congress, and to the world, that it
was but very recently agreed upon between them.
But why does not Vermont call on the eleven United and
difiitorched SGtesto cfpcuUthcir canto against the oppres
sions of the ether two; because she does not belong co the
confederacy of the United States. But how came those claim
ing States to have a right to challenge affiftar.ee from the
United States, as predicated on the guarantee of their con
federation, to efpuufe their quarrel with the State of Ver
mont, which had unremitediy cxiftd many years with
New-York, at d some considerable time with New-Haipp
shire, before the confederacy of the United Strtes took
place, which wason rhe firit day of March, 1781, and in
the fourth year of the governmental independerce of Ver
mont, and fourteen days after Vernor t had formed tl e be
fore mentioned unions, which was on the fourteenth day
of Febiuary, 1781.
Will any advocates for the confederacy of the United
States be fe hardy as to pretend that it could be in force b + -
fore it existed, of that it could plfh.dy have a retrofpeftrve
obligatory nature, any more than a law before it is enaft
ed ? Every one will determine in the negative ; and confe
quentl, the State of Vermore, including its unions, cannot:
come within rhe react of the guarantee of the toifedca
tion of the eleven United States, to those other claiming
United gratis; nor isthere any manner of propriety in an,
iuppof,.de demand of any one, or both of the States of New-
York or New-Harrpshire, on the guarantee of their confe
deracy, to interfere with or espouse their controversy with
Vermont, previous tn the fi. St day of March last ? wh<n their
confederacy took place.
Furthermore, those claiming States, previous to Vermont's
extending their jmifdiaional claims upon them, were the
aggressors, in that they urit-dly and fpi itedly perfiffed in
prokentirg their respective claims to the territory of Ver
more, and made rfe ofary and every indirect measure in
their power, to accomplish their defers and Lufuate thg
(N% 890.)