4CJ: "But it was recognized by the Congress of the several United States:..."
You then quote from two passages from the Journals of Congress, namely August 7, 1781 and October 17, 1782. I believe, from what you posted, you cut and paste from the text version of the document and did not check it against the image. I have run into that problem before. The text version is flawed, in that it fails to properly show the "strikeouts." It shows "strikeouts" as if they were text. Case in point:
"And it is hereby recommended to the legislature of the said State of Vermont people of the territory aforesaid, or their representative body..." (bold emphasis as in your post to make your point)
In the Journal, the phrase "legislature of the said State of Vermont" is striken and replaced by "people." Your "proof" was not approved by the Congress.
If you had considered the context of the entire passage (pages 836-839 of Volume XXI), and especially the two resolutions on pg 839, you would realize that Congress in no way gave recognition to the "State of Vermont." Let's read what Congress really said:
"Resolved, That it be recommended to the Legislatures of the States of New Hampshire and New York respectively to declare the Inhabitants of the district called Vermont, bounded as aforesaid unamesable to any jurisdiction erected, under their authority and to renounce all territorial {pretensions} claims thereto, but to refer to Congress to determine on what terms this concession shall take effect." (I added two commas for reading clarification which in no way affect the sense of the text. The word in brackets {pretensions} was striken)
The second resolution beginning:
"Resolved, That in case Congress shall recognize the independence of the said people of Vermont ..."
The second resolution addressed an eventuality, not something that was then an actuality.
The August 7th passage consistantly denies recognition of Vermont statehood. It is refered to as a "district" and the phrase "state of Vermont" is striken everywhere it occurred in the draft. In the short history provided in the passage, the rights of New York and New Hampshire are clearly established.
So too, are there problems with your October 17, 1782 quotation. The full text of the resolution reads:
"Resolved, That congress recommend to the Inhabitants of the District call the State of Vermont to desist from all measures which may tend to the disturbance of the peace and tranquillity of the Union, which if not strictly adhered to must inevitably produce the most serious consequences as well to the Union in general as to the good people of the said State.
And in order that an effectual stop may be put to further animosities and disturbances among the State of New York, New Hampshire and Vermont and the people claiming to be Citizens of those States, your Committee recommend the following resolve, viz.
Resolved, That tomorrow week be appointed to take into consideration and finally determine on the report of the Committee of 17th April last relateing to the dispute concerning the Jurisdiction of the said District call the New Hampshire Grants."
Earlier in the Aug 7 passage, you get the sense of what Congress meant by "State of Vermont."
"That it appears to them [Gov. Clinton of New York and Joel Bigelow] from the said letter and deposition, that disturbance have arisen in a certain District called the New Hampshire Grants claiming to be an Independent Sovereign State {under the denomination} by the stile of the State of Vermont which {State} District, together with the States of New Hampshire and New York, have voluntarily submitted their claims to the decision of Congress ..." (Sticken words in brackets {}).
Twice Vermont is termed a "District," (once by striking the word "State"), and the term "State" only in reference to what the people of Vermont claim to call themselves.
It is abundantly clear from the context of your own citations that the United States did NOT recognize Vermont as an independent State or Republic. They termed the area to be a "District" with conflicting claims of jurisdiction in need of resolution.
Even though the people living in the Vermont area maintained a largely autonomous existance (the same could be said for many inhabitants of the frontier), to call the Vermont experience as "secession" is a stretch. The root causes of the Vermont disturbances suggest other answers.
No, you miss the entire point - regardless of what they call the area, they are negotiating with some other body distinctly separate from their union, and willing to formally recognize it.
All parties agreed that were were formerly part of another state or states. The state of Vermont declared her independence. Massachusetts recognized such in 1781.
In the Journal, the phrase "legislature of the said State of Vermont" is striken and replaced by "people." Your "proof" was not approved by the Congress.
The point is that regardless of the text they Congress is still negotiating with a government. The Committe of Style made the following change to the Constitution:
We the People of the [United] StatesStriking out the states did not negate the fact that they were states.of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, [in order to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,] do ordain, declare and establish the following Constitution for theGovernment of Ourselves and our Posterity[United States of America.].