Perspective: Die-hard Confederates should be reconstructed

St. Augustine Record ^ | 09/27/2003 | Peter Guinta

[4CJ]

Dr. Farber wrote this, hoping that it might be overlooked:

We can therefore focus on the narrow question of whether the act of ratification by an individual state is revocable. The text of the constitution does not speak explicitly to this point.

Article IV § 1 - 'Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.'

"FULL" faith and credit - not partial faith and credit.
"Shall" be given - not "may" be given.
To "the" public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings - not "some" acts.
Of "every" other State - not selected states.

[capitan_refugio]

"...they are negotiating with some other body distinctly separate from their union..."

The Congress recognized Vermonters for what they were, American inhabitants in an area of confused jurisdiction. The texts in the Journal show the lengths the Congress went to avoid giving Vermonters any sort of diplomatic recognition. The Vermonters were resident in lands clearly belonging to the United States, within the states of New York and/or New Hampshire (from the 1781 reference). Further, the Congress had hoped to amicably settle the land dispute, and even consider admitting Vermont as a new state to the Union, but only with the consent of the state, or states, that had jurisdiction.

To that end, it is fair to call Ethan Allen and his Vermont cabal "separatists." That is the real point.

[capitan_refugio]

"(Of course, there is your Post #1,892 – what was it you were saying about lengthy posts? ;>)

The difference being, that was on one subject!

[4CJ]

The Vermonters were resident in lands clearly belonging to the United States, within the states of New York and/or New Hampshire (from the 1781 reference).

The "Republic of New Connecticut" began on 15 January 1777. The state/nation of "Vermont" drafted her first Constitution 8 Jul 1777. Just as the colonies had declared their independence from Britain - she declared hers from New York, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. If her declaration did not make her a state/nation, then neither would the Declaration have made the other colonies states/nations.

Massachusetts formally recognized Vermont's independence on 8 Mar 1781. The Continetal Congress has this note for 12 Dec 1781, "A letter, of November 20, from the Governor of Vermont, was read on this day, together with a report of proceedings of the Vermont legislature on the acts of Congress of 7th and 20th August, 1781." The same form of government as the other states.

A note on 16 Jul 1781 states that, 'copies of the intercepted letters forwarded to Congress by Colonel Laurens so far as they relate to the track of country commonly called Vermont be immediately transmitted to the Governors of New York and New Hampshire.'

[capitan_refugio]

"If her declaration did not make her a state/nation, then neither would the Declaration have made the other colonies states/nations."

Factually incorrect. There are several aspects beyond declaring independence that gives a would-be nation status. One of those is recognition by other nations. Try as you might, you will never find a record of a vote by the Congress from 1777 to Vermont statehood which recognizes Vermont as an independent country. Taking a few comments out of context does not substitute for formal recognition. Nor did Great Britain recognize them, though Ethan Allen attempted negotiations with the British. Nor did Canada recognize Vermont, though there were discussions with them as well.

The United States fought a successful war against its former rulers and was recognized in short order by France, Spain, the Netherlands, and other European countries. That gave them legitimacy.

Vermont was as legitimate a nation/state as was Franklin. Fun history to read (and in the case of Franklin I have, quite likely, an ancestor or two), but I hope you are not trying to suggest that a footnote in the Journals of Congress, using the term "... country commonly called Vermont ..." denotes recognition. If so, then we better dispatch ambassadors to Bear Country at Disneyland.

As for Massachusetts, I'd like to see their "formal recognition." By the time the Articles of Confederation became effective, later in the year, they would have had no power to make that sort of determination.

Please note that neither New York, nor New Hampshire, ever gave up claims, prior to 1781, to the "Hampshire Grants," which was the basis for Vermont. The Congress of the Confederation, after 1781, offered to mediate the dispute. Several times the real States were going to send troops to put down the Vermont rebellion. I am well aware that the Vermonters wrote a state constitution, coined money, elected a legislature, and were more-or-less autonomous for over a decade. So was Biafra.

Vermont joined the Union only after paying the State of New York reparations for the land they illegally occupied.

[4CJ]

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.

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] 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 the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity [United States of America.].

Striking out the states did not negate the fact that they were states.

[capitan_refugio]

The State of New York maintained legal claims on the lands west of the Connecticut River and north of Massachusetts, which for all purposes is all of Vermont, until they were paid to relinquish those claims.

Comparing the stylistic changes in a draft Constitution to the voted-upon changes to resolutions and records in the Journals of Congress is a classic apples-and-oranges analogy. Since your so-called citations of U.S. recognition of an independent "Republic of Vermont" turned out to be either taken out of context, or taken out of the document althogether(!), I still wonder about the nature of Massachusetts recognition. Can you tell me who Massachusett's ambassador to the Republic of Vermont was? Or New York's? Or Britain's? Or Canada's?

[4CJ]

Comparing the stylistic changes in a draft Constitution to the voted-upon changes to resolutions and records in the Journals of Congress is a classic apples-and-oranges analogy.

No. The changes were VOTED on.

But I am curious about something, where in international law is it enumerated that a country does not exist until formally recognized by another country? If that were the case, then NO country would ever exist, because there would be none existing to recognize them.

With all due respect, you seem to be a very intelligent person, and quite capable of rational discourse. I do want to recognize you talents. We are both conservatives, but seem to have some minor differences on a few issues.

[capitan_refugio]

There are several internationally accepted aspects of nationhood. There is no particular law, but rather, a set of common factors which point to nationhood. These include a common language, a sense of a unique national identity, established boundaries and the ability to protect them, recognition from family of nations, establishment of a functioning government, among others.

Compare the experience of Vermont with that of, for instance, the Republic of Texas. I think you will see that Vermont, though it lasted several years, belongs in the category with the the lost state of Franklin, the Republic of West Florida, the Bear flag Republic of California, and other historical oddities.

On these CW threads, people have lots of disagreements! My friend of over 20 years (WiJG?) are in complete agreement when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, and couldn't be farther apart when it comes to the intent of the 10th Amendment! As long as the discussion remains civil, there's no reason it shouldn't carry on. You've made several good points about the Vermont situation which made me re-research and re-think the issue. Vermont met several of the factors I mentioned (and which can be found in poli-sci texts and on the web); so did the CSA, but not enough to really be called a nation-state.

[4CJ]

There is no particular law, but rather, a set of common factors which point to nationhood. These include a common language, a sense of a unique national identity, established boundaries and the ability to protect them, recognition from family of nations, establishment of a functioning government, among others.

Vermont had all of these. The ambassador of Vermont was Ira Allen. He negotiated with the British, Massachusetts, New York and the Continental Congress. Allen was joined by Jonas Fay and Bezaleel Woodward in 1781:

Congress took into consideration the report of the committee appointed by the resolution of the 7th, to confer with agents to be appointed by the people of the New Hampshire Grants, on the west side of Connecticut river; and to whom was referred a letter from Jonas Fay, Ira Allen and Bezaleel Woodward, wherein they represent, that the said J. Fay, I. Allen and B. Woodward, have produced to them a commission, under the hand of Thomas Chittenden, esq. empowering them, among other things, "to repair to the American Congress, and to propose to and receive from them terms of an union with the United States".
Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, 17 Aug 1781, Vol. XXI, p. 882.

Re their recognition as ambassadors of the State of Vermont:

Congress took into consideration the report of the committee appointed to confer with J. Fay, I. Allen and B. Woodward, and thereupon came to the following resolution:

The Committee appointed to confer with Jonas Fay Ira Allen and Bezaleel Woodard Esqrs. Agents from the State of Vermont Report, [emphasis mine]

That your Committee on the 18th. Inst met the Agents from the State of Vermont and having informed them of the purpose of their present conference and that the Committee were ready to hear any proposition or to receive any Information the sd. Agents should think proper to communicate they delivered to your Committee the paper writing numbered 1 That thereupon Your Committee stated a number of Questions in writing and requested written answers thereto from the sd. Agents which we accordingly returned to your Committee and both Questions and Answers are contained in the Paper writing numbered (2)

That your Committee having thus obtained all the Information on the subject referred to them, that the sd. Agents could communicate beg leave to submit the same to Congress, together with sundry papers delivered to your Committee by the sd. Agents for the Information of Congress relative to the past proceedings of the State of Vermont.

It being the fixed purpose of Congress to adhere to the guarantee to the states of New Hampshire and New York, contained in the resolutions of the 7th instant:

Resolved, That it be an indispensible preliminary to the recognition of the independence of the people inhabiting the territory called the state of Vermont, to independence and an their admission into the federal union, that they [emphasis mine - ie. the inhabitants of Vermont] explicitly relinquish all demands of lands or jurisdiction on the east side of the west bank of Connecticut river, and on the west side of a line, beginning at the north-west corner of the State of Massachusetts, thence running twenty miles east of Hudson's river, so far as the said river runs north-easterly in its general course; then by the west bounds of the townships of Wells, Poultney, Castleton Hughbarton and Dunbar to Weedereek thence all along the same granted by the late government of New Hampshire to the river running from South Bay to Lake Champlain, thence along the said river to Lake Champlain, thence along the waters of Lake Champlain to the latitude 45 degrees north, excepting a neck of land between Missiskoy Bay and the waters of Lake Champlain.

On the question to agree to this, the yeas and nays being required by Mr. [William] Sharpe,

So it was resolved in the affirmative [9 to 1 in favor, 3 states lacking the requisite number of delegates].
Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, 20 Aug 1781, Vol. XXI, pp. 886-888.

The Continental Congress met with the ambassadors, appointed a commitee to meet with them, then passed a resolution requiring Vermont to drop HER claims.

My friend of over 20 years (WiJG?) are in complete agreement when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, and couldn't be farther apart when it comes to the intent of the 10th Amendment! As long as the discussion remains civil, there's no reason it shouldn't carry on.

Then we would also agree on the 2^nd as well. If you have been friends for over 20 years depsite your differences, you have/are a good friend indeed!

[4CJ]

Just a little bump.

[4CJ]

From the Political Graveyard:

U.S. Diplomatic chiefs of mission to Vatican City

Jacob L. Martin (Charge d'Affaires to the Papal States 1848)
Lewis Cass, Jr. (Charge d'Affaires to the Papal States 1849-54)
Lewis Cass, Jr. (Minister to the Papal States 1854-58)
John P. Stockton (Minister to the Papal States 1858-61)
Alexander W. Randall (Minister to the Papal States 1861-63)
Richard Milford Blatchford (Minister to the Papal States 1862)
Rufus King (Minister to the Papal States 1863)
none, 1864-68
D. Maitland Armstrong (Charge d'Affaires to the Papal States 1869)
none, 1870-1940
Harold H. Tittmann, Jr. (Charge d'Affaires to the Vatican 1941-44)
none, 1945-83
William A. Wilson (Ambassador to the Vatican 1984-86)
Frank Shakespeare (Ambassador to the Vatican 1986-89)
Thomas Patrick Melady (Ambassador to the Vatican 1989-93)
Raymond L. Flynn (Ambassador to the Vatican 1993-97)
Corinne C. Boggs (Ambassador to the Vatican 1997-2001)
James Nicholson (Ambassador to the Vatican 2001)

[4CJ]

Just another bump.

[capitan_refugio]

Interesting list. A Charge d'Affaires represents the lowest level of diplomatic recognition. Minister is roughly comparable to Ambassador, but as I recall, there is a difference in diplomatic circles.

[4CJ]

Interesting list. A Charge d'Affaires represents the lowest level of diplomatic recognition. Minister is roughly comparable to Ambassador, but as I recall, there is a difference in diplomatic circles.

I'm not sure about the differences between the two, but I thought it interesting as well.