Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1871-09-22
FsrE Press may not have committed a greater
error still
AUTHOR OF CHIrrESDEx County tHAfrSA'
Burlington, Sept. 18th ls1L-

Burlington, Sept. 18th ISL
The Far Press certainly claims no aoSo-
lutte immunity from error. and we presume
the Tribune claims none. 80 err Is human,
and we know of but one paper-the " /.
Ng,;on-wholly exalted above possibility OF
n;s.akc in statement or opinion. We
ALLUDED to the statement of the author
Of the Chittenden County Chapter, not tor
the sake Of calling attention to his error, but
si,,rlv as an Illustration of the extent to
which the mistake in question had gained
currency. If we have given any offence
thereby, we beg his pardon
or the correctness Of the main assertion oil
the TriJunc's correspondent, whom we sup
suppose to be Mr.. II. j. Ramsdell, there Is
no doubt One of the most careful and ac-
curate Of the historians of Vermont writes
Us, that since the appearance of the communi-
cation in the Tribune he has seen the original
census return for Bennington County Tor
the year l79l, and that it fully sustains the
statement of the Tri5lRe'S correspondent that
the sixteen persons reported in the published
summary as slaves were free blacks. There
was in fact no column for slaves in the re-
turn. The Washington correspondent was
in error in stating that the census OF l'9I
was certified to by Heman Allen, as marshal.
Heman Allen was not appointed l. =
marshal till 1878, and in point of fact as
our historical correspondent informs US, the
return of 1871 does not bear his name-but
in its main statement, as we have said, the
Trij,me's correspondent was correct.
We cannot accept the ingenious surmise
of our correspondent, above, that the - au-
thorities at Washington deliberately record
ed the sixteen free blacks OF Vermont as
slaves, because they denied the existence oil
Vermont as a state The suggestion seems
to US violently improbable in itself, and still
more 50 in view Of all the CIR cumstances. II
the authorities Of Washing Ton denied the
existence Of Vermont as 4 State, how came
they to allow it a place as a State IN the
summary Of the census? And bow could
they undertake to say that there were no
.. free blacks in Vermont, ever if they did
not recognize the right Of Vermont to prohi bit
slavery? But it certainly cannot be nec,'s-
sary TO argue this point.
For the rest we have only to say that We,
certainly. have ncye- undertaken to say that
there never was a slave on what is now the
soil of Vermont. The Indian tribes, who
roamed cur valleys before the white man
cane. may have held slaves here, perhaps
eaptiyes taken IN war, for aught that We
know. That slaves may ave been brought
here under New York la'ss. when this State
was part Of New York tate, we have never
thought Of denying; bu. in Iem0lt, as
STATE, slavery could nevt T have had existence
because from its FIRST organization as State
its organic law prohib ted slavery. by her
first Constitution, and by every suhse quent
Constitution, the slav, who touched the soil
Of Vermont became free. 1t seems 70 US
that this is too cearf for argument. That we
are not alone in our view appears from the re-
mark in the letter fro N the venerable and re-
speeted historian Of Vermont, alluded to
above lie says =. As You state in your
editorial, there never has been any real trou-
bic with the question, and it is a pity that a
false issue should De raised about it. Yer
mont never had any slaves, and none were
eyer retnrncl as nnch. -