Motion Concerning Documents on Vermont, 3 April 1782
Motion Concerning Documents on Vermont
MS (NA: PCC, No. 36, I, 273). Written by JM. At the bottom of the document is Charles Thomson’s recording of the roll call on the motion. In his note on the document, Thomson incorrectly stated that Madison’s motion, seconded by Scott, had “passed April 4h 1782” (n. 8, below).
Editorial Note
The relation of Congress during January and February 1782 to the issue of the Vermont, or New Hampshire Grants, has already been summarized (JM to Pendleton, 22 January, and nn. 5 and 6; and 7 February 1782, n. 4). Except for a long discussion of the problem on 1 March, the matter is not mentioned in the printed journals of Congress for that month. This interlude in the debate on a subject which, in Samuel Livermore’s words, had “worn a little thread-bare,” signified that none of the competing solutions could be adopted until the delegations of at least nine states should agree.
By March the delegates from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland were ready to acknowledge the independence of the “state” of Vermont, provided that the de facto government should accept the boundaries stipulated by Congress on 7 and 20 August 1781 (, XXI, 836–39, 887–88). If this bloc of seven should be joined by two more states, it could work its will. On 12 March a rumor, soon confirmed, was current in Philadelphia that the “General Assembly” of Vermont had rescinded its earlier rejection of Congress’ offer and now accepted it (, VI, 312).
The members of Congress from New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, with varying degrees of firmness and for varying reasons, stood together in opposing a recognition of the sovereignty of Vermont. Livermore, for example, although doubting the constitutional competence of Congress to encourage a separatist movement at the expense of his state and New York and much preferring that those states on their own initiative amicably partition between them the land comprising Vermont, was willing for the sake of settling the divisive issue to vote for the independence of Vermont whenever the New Hampshire legislature should authorize him to do so (ibid., VI, 312, 317–18, 327 n. 3, 331–32).
The New York delegates in Congress, led by John Morin Scott, were in a difficult position. Their uncompromising stand against Vermont’s independence enlisted only a minority support, which, they feared, would decrease during the coming weeks. Under these circumstances they could do no more than try to prevent a vote on the issue as long as possible and urge Governor George Clinton to have the New York legislature back them speedily in such unqualified terms that the pro-Vermont bloc in Congress might hesitate to defy so important a state as theirs (ibid., VI, 310, 313–14, 321–22).
The New Yorkers and their allies, including Joseph Jones and probably JM, held that Vermont’s rejection of Congress’ offer of 7 and 20 August 1781 in October of that year had released Congress from its alleged guarantee. Hence, Vermont’s reconsideration and acceptance in February 1782 of the stipulated boundaries were of no effect unless Congress agreed to re-extend the same terms. This Congress should not do, since the attendant circumstances had drastically altered. In the summer of 1781, unlike the winter of 1782, the United States had been in dire peril from the enemy, not only in Virginia and the Carolinas—but even in Vermont itself, because of the machinations of the Allen brothers and other Green Mountain men. In short, the generous offer of August 1781 had been extended in considerable degree for reasons of expediency. Furthermore, during the ensuing six months, menacing separatist movements, which the recognition of Vermont’s independence would serve to encourage, had appeared in other parts of the Confederation. These movements, in Joseph Jones’s view, “so strongly mark a hostile disposition in some States to invade the rights of others, that, I believe, it will be very difficult to obtain the concurrence of nine to give them [Vermont] independence and privileges of the Union, at least before some great political questions are decided respecting the united States, their individual and general rights” (Jones to Pendleton, 19 March 1782, ibid., VI, 319).
Earlier in his letter Jones had expressed doubt whether the affirmative votes of nine states should be sufficient to bring Vermont into the Confederation. By a vote of nine, Congress might acknowledge Vermont’s independence, but the assent of all thirteen ought to be required to admit a sovereign state to their company (see n. 5, below). Yet Article XI of the Articles of Confederation explicitly provided that another “colony” might join if invited “by nine states.” Jones did not explain why unanimity should be a prerequisite, but apparently he considered Article XI irrelevant, because the Green Mountain area had never been a separate “colony.” In the unlikely event that Congress should accept this technical distinction, New York could bar Vermont indefinitely from membership in the Confederation.
In their letter of 31 March 1782 to President John Hanson of Congress, with an enclosed copy of their appointment and of the resolutions of the “General Assembly” of Vermont accepting the boundaries defined by Congress, the four Vermont commissioners confidently asserted, “We assure ourselves that not the least obstacle remains to our admission into a foederal union with the United States of America.” On the following day, although Scott seconded Abraham Clark’s motion to refer to a committee the letter of the commissioners and its enclosures, “together with the several papers on the files of Congress, relating to the same subject, and received since the 20th of August last,” Scott voted against Clark’s motion. JM’s affirmative vote was offset by the adverse votes of Jones and Lee. As previously noted, upon the adoption of Clark’s motion the papers were referred to a committee dominated by Vermont’s friends (NA: PCC, No. 40, II, 187–89, 269–75; , XXII, 158; JM to Pendleton, 2 April 1782, n. 2).
Although the journal of Congress of 1 April explicitly characterizes some of “the papers” turned over to this committee as favorable to Vermont’s request, the journal fails to specify that the other documents referred to the committee were of a contrary nature (, XXII, 157–58). Opposing a recognition of Vermont’s independence, JM and Scott sought by the present motion to have the printed journal make clear that “the several papers on the files of Congress” strongly argued against creating a new state by taking territory from New York and New Hampshire without the consent of those two states (see below, n. 5).
1782 April 31
Congress having by a resolution of the first instant referred to a Committee sundry papers recd. from Jonas Fay &c, together with the other papers on the files of Congress relating to the same subject, recd. since the 20th. of Augst. last,2 the yeas & nays having been required on the question And of the papers so committed, Such part only having been entered on the journal of the said day, as purports on the part of the New Hampshire grants3 a compliance with a preliminary requisition contained in the resolution of Congress of the 20th. of Augst. last;4 The proceedings of Vermont from the 16th. to the 19th. of October last rejecting the same and sundry resolutions of the State of N. York of the 15th. & 19th. day of November last,5 both included among the papers referred, being omitted: And an entry on the journal thus partially stating the case, having a tendency to misinform & mislead the public judgment, as well as to defeat the purpose of calling for the yeas & nays as authorised by the 9th. Article of the Confederation;6 And Congress having adjourned on the 2nd. instant whilst the Journal of the preceding day was under consideration, whereby the opportunity of then supplying the omission was lost,7 Resolved that the Secy. be authorized & directed to enter on the Journal of the first instant as of the proceedings of that day the sd. proceedings and the sd. resolutions of the State of N. York which are in the words following—to wit8
1. Charles Thomson entered this date at the head of the motion. He then wrote, “A motion was made by Mr Madison second by Mr Scott, in the following words.” See , XXII, 161–63.
2. See JM to Pendleton, 2 April 1782, and n. 2. Jonas Fay (1737–1818), leader of the Vermont commission whose other members were Moses Robinson, Paul Spooner, and Isaac Tichenor, had prominently shared in the efforts to achieve separate statehood for the Green Mountain region. Fay had attended the convention of January 1777, which declared the independence of Vermont, and had served as secretary of its constitutional convention in July of that year. From 1778 to 1785 he was a member of the executive council of his “state” and in 1782 became one of the judges of its supreme court.
3. After the comma JM at first wrote, “as states on the part of Vermont.”
4. See editorial note, and , XXI, 887–88. The “preliminary requisition” defined the boundaries which must be accepted before Congress would (or might) recognize “the independence of the people inhabiting the territory called Vermont” and admit them into “the federal union,” but whether by the resolution of 20 August 1781 recognition and admission had been guaranteed, once the “indispensible preliminary” was fulfilled by Vermont, is debatable.
5. Before JM amended his draft, the wording after the semicolon read, “A previous act of Vermont of the 20th of Nov last, rejecting the same and sundry resolutions of the State of N. York of the 20th day of October [inserted over a deleted ‘Aug’], last.” Copies of these documents appear in , XXII, 164–73. A letter of 20 November from Governor Thomas Chittenden of Vermont, enclosing a report of the proceedings of the General Assembly rejecting the offer of Congress of 7 and 20 August, had been read in Congress on 12 December 1781 (, XXI, 1166 n.). A letter of 24 November from Governor Clinton of New York, transmitting resolutions of its legislature concerning Vermont, had been laid before Congress on 5 December 1781 (, XXI, 1159–60). One of these resolutions declared that the unanimous consent of the thirteen states would be required “to create a new state by dismembering” any of the thirteen and that “Congress have not any authority by the Articles of Confederation, in any Wise, to intermeddle with the former territorial Extent of Jurisdiction or Property of either of these United States, except in Cases of Dispute concerning the same, between two or more States in the Union” (Hugh Hastings and J. A. Holden, eds., Public Papers of George Clinton, VII, 518).
6. That is, the reason for the “yea” or “nay” vote of a delegate on Clark’s motion would not be clear as long as the printed journal left the impression that all the documents referred to the Clymer committee were favorable to Vermont (see last two paragraphs of editorial note). The final paragraph of the long ninth article of the Articles of Confederation makes no mention of “the purpose” which JM here ascribes to it. According to the article, Congress should “publish the Journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances or military operations, as in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the delegates of each state on any question shall be entered on the Journal, when it is desired by any delegate” (, XIX, 220). Probably “their proceedings” was meant to include “all questions agitated and determined,” as Congress had stipulated on 2 August 1777 (, VIII, 599).
7. Here JM explains why he had been unable to observe the rule of Congress requiring “That the journals of a preceding day be open to correction during the whole of the next day” (, XIV, 638). In other words, if this regulation were strictly adhered to, JM’s motion to amend the journal could only be rejected.
8. JM intended the two documents, mentioned in n. 5, above, to follow “to wit” and to be made a part of Clark’s motion of 1 April. Although Congress refused to accede to this motion, by a vote of six state delegations to four (New York, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia), Congress on 4 April, upon Livermore’s motion and without a recorded division, consented to print the two documents as a part of JM’s own motion of 3 April. Hence, by getting the texts of these documents spread upon the printed journal (, XXII, 164–73), JM won his main point. Moreover, by yielding to JM’s insistence in this regard, and by not printing in the journal the letter from the four Vermont commissioners of 31 March 1782, with its enclosures, Congress even showed partiality to the opponents of Vermont independence. For more on the Vermont issue, see Motion on Letter of Vermont Agents, 20 April; and Observations Relating to the Influence of Vermont and the Territorial Claims on the Politics of Congress, 1 May 1782.