| PREVIOUS | NEXT | ITEM LIST | NEW SEARCH | BEST MATCH |
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875
Dear Sir. Philadelpa. Novr. 14th. 1782
Is it not the Duty of every sincere Friend to the State of Massachusetts, to examine with more Accuracy & Attention her territorial Interests, than has hitherto been done since the Commencement of the War? I apprehend we have a much fairer Opportunity now, to obtain a Just Decision of the Extent of our Country, than it was possible for us to have, whilst under the irresistable Controul of a Power that could say, thus far shall ye extend & no farther. Power & Policy dictated to Masstts. the most humiliating Submissions to unrighteous & arbitrary Decisions upon her Limits, Decisions destitute of every Principle of Justice, & if once admitted, would destroy every Idea of civil Society: for Compacts & Covenants the most solemnly entered into, would be vain & chimerical. Tho' it may not admit of positive Proof, I think no rational Person can doubt, that for many years previous to the War, the Policy of Great Britain was, to curtail & lessen the Influence of Masstts. as much as possible: Two of the neighbouring Provinces were much better calculated to answer the Views of arbitrary Power, than chartred Governments. Masstts., Rhode Island & Connecticut, could alone, in the thirteen United States, be properly so called. The first, from her Extent of Territory must one Day become formidable of herself, unless she could be reduced to a Tenth Part of her indisputable Boundaries: for it is evident that we do not exercise Jurisdiction over more than a Tenth of the Territory contained in the Indenture made by the Plymouth Company to Sir Henry
Page 384
NOVEMBER 14, 1782
Link to date-related documents.
Roswell & others, which never was pretended to be annull'd or vacated.
I am influenced to write respecting Territory, because since my Attendance in Congress, very tedious & disagreeable have been the Debates respecting the Newhampshire Grants.(1) Very much Time has been lost to very little Purpose. We cannot make them independent in Congress. We cannot obtain a Vote to receive them into the Union. What, in this Case, must be done? Shall we suffer that Tract of Country to be an Asylum to all those, who choose to avoid the Burthen of supporting our Independence? Who, in this point of View, will Experience so great a Diminution of its Citizens as Masstts.? It is in my Opinion greatly for our Interest that she should be independent or not immediately. Perhaps upon every Consideration, the last is most for our real Interest. For I cannot suppose Masstts. can wish for an Addition of a Number of small States in the Union. Upon the Principles of the present Confederation, they have a Share of Power much beyond what their Interest entitles them to: And I am perswaded that it was not possible to bring them to consent to proportion their Power by their Interest & Ability. The small States even now, watch the larger with a very Jealous Eye. And all of them unite in Favor of receiving more States into the Union. But I am more seriously impressd with the ill Policy of it on our Part, for many Reasons, than I have heretofore been. It is true that Nine States on the 20th of Augst. 1781 seemed to vote in Favor of the Independence of Vermont.(2) Whoever reads the Journals of Congress, will think that they were seriously in earnest about receiving them into the Union But Congress are much altered, & there must be a great Change, before Nine States can be obtain'd in their Favor. I begin to think there never will be, unless Vermont can make herself so formidable, as to become an Object of much higher Consideration than she seems to be at present. New York is using every conceivable Way to gain Ground in that Country. She protests solemnly as a State, against the Independence of Vermont; & denies the Power of Congress to make her so. Will Masstts. tamely suffer New York to establish civil & military government there, whilst Congress are in vain attempting to decide on a Question, which New York say is not submitted to them. Whilst the last are making as many Friends there as they can, you are rejecting them. This is in every View bad Policy, if the State mean to prosecute their Claim (in Case Vermont is not made independent) which I cannot doubt but they will do.
You are not unacquainted with Charles Phelps or his Character at least:(3) he has been here several Weeks; & is one, among a Number of others, whose Property is confiscated & whom Vermont have banished from their State. Charles with two others formerly Inhabitants of Masstts. in a Petition to Congress, declared themselves to be Citizens of the State of New York. I was very well prepared to meet Charles from the Papers you had put into my Hands. I remonstrated to him, against his calling himself a Citizen of the State of New York; & told
Page 385
NOVEMBER 14, 1782
Link to date-related documents.
him that 1 had his own Arguments in his Hand writing, to prove that, that Part of Vermont, where he lived, was within the indisputable Boundaries of Masstts.--that I was very sorry to find that he persisted in acting inconsistently. It must weaken all his Applications--But as to hurting his Reputation or Credit, I did not suppose it would, for it was too notorious that for a long Course of years, he had been playing himself off upon Newhampshire, Masstts. & New York: that every Body acquainted with his Negociations, must consider him as destitute of every Principle of Consistency. He said he did not know what Papers of his Writing, I might have--But he had not altered his Sentiments as to Masstts. having a clear Right to about fifty Townships in the Country of Vermont. He said he could not submit to the arbitrary Government of Vermont. Masstts. has refused to afford any Protection, she has rejected the People. But New York have not; They have a Claim, & are determined to defend it, & to succour all the People who will acknowledge themselves to be their Citizens. Where else, therefore, can I go but to New York. It is in vain for me to apply to Masstts. However inconsistent Charles may otherwise be, there is Weight in these Observations. They suggest to me that Masstts. ought to have adopted another Mode of Conduct with Respect to those People. If her Delegates in Congress had favoured their Independence, the State should not have rejected the People: for their Disaffection & consequently different Attachment may be a weighty Argument against you, whilst it gives an Ascendancy to the New York Interest. The local Position of the Country favors Masstts. much more than New York. We can either protect or subdue them, which, in her present Situation, the other cannot do.
New York make a great Noise about the Resolutions of Congress of the 24th of Sepr. 1779 & the 2d of June 1780.(4) The first of these Resolutions, appears to me to be inconsistent with the Nature of civil Government: It contains a Recommendation both to the State of New York, & the People of Vermont to be peaceable: That neither exercise Jurisdiction over any, but such as chearfully submit to it. The Governor of New York has, within the six Months past, issued Commissions civil & military, without any Restrictions in those Commns. so that he has attempted to establish Government at large. The Legislative Power of Vermont knowing this, make a severe Law to imprison, conficate, & finally banish all such as deny their sovereign Authority. That Law has been executed with Rigor upon many Individuals. Charles was a Judge of an inferior Court under New York, the other two had military Commissions dated the 5th of last June. Whilst the East & West Wings, as they were call'd, continued united with Vermont, the very People now here supported it & would not have taken Commissions from any other State. But as soon as those Wings were cast off, these People cast off Vermont also; and knowing that New York, & no other State, would receive them, they resorted thither. But I believe there is no Doubt but they would have resorted to Masstts. as their Relations &
Page 386
NOVEMBER 14, 1782
Link to date-related documents.
Acquaintances are all there, if the State would have countenanced them in Vermont. Upon the Principles of the aforesd. Resolution, the People may, as often as they please, change from New York to Vermont, & from Vermont to New York. If New York have not exceeded us in Policy, it is not for Want of any Care & Vigilance of theirs. They possess not only a great Fund of Intrigue, but it is accompanied with unremitted Zeal. New York whilst a royal Government, was moduled upon the Principles of Arbitrary, despotic Power. The Predominancy of british Interest in her Favor on this Account, was very apparent--& New York knew the Advantages of it well; which is a very plain Reason to me, why they appeared at first very cold, not to say opposed to seeking a Redress of Grievances, by the last Appeal. The sensible Men were nearly all, deeply interested in unreasonably large Grants of Land; & tho Truth & Justice were against them, must have considered, that with Britain they could have obtained their Point, & an immense Territory--But with America confederated, her uncertain vague & encroaching Pretensions must be examined with an Eye of Reason, which they will not bear. They could therefore but conclude, that their Interest was closely connected with Britain, & the Moment they relaxed from that hold, the Principles of Tyranny & Injustice would favor them no longer. New York had set their Eye & nearly their Foot, upon a Territory which would have one Day of itself bid Defiance to powerful Nations--very little exposed by Sea, she is by Nature caculated for the best Defence in the World. The Extent of Country which New York Claims, is vastly beyond what I had conceived--well might Doctr. Douglass in his Map published in the Year 1757 (5) Color about one third of the Continent for New York. The Territory claimed contains about one & Twenty Times as much Land, as the old Colonies of Masstts. & Plimouth in their present State. But New York have ceded to the united States all the Land westward of a Meridian Line to be drawn Twenty Miles Westward of Niagara Falls; confining themselves to a State that contains about Nine Times as much Land as the above mentioned Colonies.
I am sorry to take up your Time by adding more to an unreasonably long Letter--But I have Just read several Passages in it to Genl. Lincoln. He charges me with being more of the Politician than he suspected. I dont know what he meant to convey by the Word Politician. I am sensible, some Things I have wrote should be perfectly confidential--those I confide to you not as maturely digested Sentiments. I did not doubt but you would consider them as such. I think notwithstanding the General's Charge, his Sentiments do not differ greatly from mine--to your Candor I submit the whole to be Judged & dispos'd of as you may think proper.
Since writing the above, I happened to take up a Paper which contained Minutes, in a Hand writing well known.(6) They claim a Place
Page 387
NOVEMBER 14, 1782
Link to date-related documents.
here, as they seem to confirm some of the Sentiments in this Letter. The Subject of those Minutes was the Report of a Commee. respecting Vermont. Mr. Rutledge, Mr. Howell & myself made the Report.(7) It was like a two edgd Sword. It grieved where Grief would answer a good Purpose, it vexed where Anger would answer a better. The Purport of the Report was this--That the Difficulties lately arisen in Vermont were probably occasioned by the Commissions issued by New York--that it be recommended to the State of New York to recall them--That Vermont make Restitution for Property confiscated, & permit the banished to return; & that, both Parties abide by the Resolution of the 24th of Sepr. 1779.(8) Mr. Duane told Mr. R____ he was very sorry to see his Name to such a Report. Mr. R. answered him with an independent Mind. The Minutes are as follows.
1. The Business has been before Congress near two Months.
2. The final Result is, throwing the whole Blame of the Disturbances on the State of New York.
3. When it is evident that N.Y. have in no Instance violated the Resolves of Congress, & the Vermonteers have not.
4. There is a Contradiction in the Report, first in recalling & then to adhere to the Resolve of the 24th Sepr.
5. The Evil complained of, did not arise from the Commissions how often before have they imposed &ca.
6. It is recommended to Vermont to suffer the banished to return--make Satisfaction to them--intimated Predicament. Quere--Will they Regard the advice? will they not triumph? will they not proceed to greater Excesses when they find Support in all their Measures?
7. It is needless to inform N. Y. of her Insignificancy in the Eyes of the United States as she has been sensible of it for a long Time. Nor to aggravate her by obliging her to call to Remembrance what the Tories told her in the Beginning (viz.) that the State would be over run by her Neighbours they now see the Truth of it. Had they known it before they never would have entered into the Controversy.
8. What Interest at present People can have to support Vermont I cannot tell. The Lands are secure. It must either be to pay no Taxes or procure another Vote to the Eastward.
9. The poor People who have been waiting so long are not only neglected but reprimanded as they have taken Commissions under N.Y. How could N.Y. exercise the Government allowed by the Resolve of the 24th of Sepr. without Officers. These poor People are not the Objects of Compassions. Two Indians the other day who had not suffered, were allowed two hundred Dollrs. to defray their Expences.
N. any Violences committed against those Resolves a Breach of the Confederacy.
June 2d. 1780 strictly enjoined to obey the above Resolves now after violating them, ' tis recommended to make Restitution: to suffer the
Page 388
NOVEMBER 14, 1782
Link to date-related documents.
Banished to return.(9) New York will look upon this as an Insult; and Vermont will exult.
I am, dear Sir, your most obedient Servant, Samuel Osgood
RC (DLC: Osgood Papers).
1 Osgood was also a member of the committee that reported November 12 on the question of legal authority in Vermont, which arose from a September 16 letter of New York governor George Clinton and petitions of Charles Phelps, William Shattuck, and Henry Evans. See JCC, 23:723-26; Ezra L' Hommedieu to George Clinton, November 13, note 1; and James Madison's Notes of Debates, this date.
2 For this resolution, declaring that the recognition of Vermont independence would be conditional on her acceptance of boundaries set by Congress, see JCC, 21:887-88.
3 For Phelps' "character," see these Letters, 14:40n.1 and 333n.2.
4 See ibid., 13:546-54, 15:239-40, 255-57, 267.
5 Osgood may be referring to one of the maps that was add-
ed as an appendix to the 1757 printing of William Douglass, A Summary, Historical and Political, of the First Planting, Progressive Improvements, and Present State of the British Settlements in North America. 2 vols. (Boston: Rogers and Fowle, 1749-51); Evans, Am. Bibliography, no. 7,885.
6 The author of the "minutes" is not identified; but Osgood inserted the minutes at the end of this paragraph.
7 See note 1 above.
8 JCC, 15:1095-99.
9 JCC, 17:482-84.
PREVIOUS SECTION .. NEXT SECTION .. NAVIGATOR
| PREVIOUS | NEXT | ITEM LIST | NEW SEARCH | BEST MATCH |