WI: Vermont Republic remains independent?
- Thread starter Ellie
- Start date
Not going to happen. Vermont had no direct outlet to the rest of the world, had a tiny population and as a practical matter was unsustainable as an independent entity. No way the USA lets it join Canada (which it will not want to do), so only option is USA. IMO the latest Vermont joins the USA is War of 1812 - imagine Britain using an essentially unarmed Vermont as a corridor to attack the USA - at wars end the USA tells Vermont time to join, and they realize they have to hook up with a larger entity.
Now if you have a "balkanized" 13 colonies after independence that's another story.
Now if you have a "balkanized" 13 colonies after independence that's another story.
1) Vermont has great access to the StLaurence. Any independent Vermont would have to British protectorate if it wanted to survive. But it certainly wouldnt have to join 'Canada'.
2) how is the US going to STOP a British invasion down Lake Champlain assuming the Brits do a bit better than otl. Once the Brits have Plattsburg, theres little on the west shore until you get to Ticonderoga. If Britain has Plattsburg, and Vermont is independent and neutral, the US will be forced off the lake, almost certainly. Then a peace treaty thereafter is, imo, likely to result in Vermont choosing its future.
Pretty much. Despite what some malcontents like to think, the only reason it took us so long to join the union was over a naming and territorial dispute.
I'll reproduce an old soc.history.what-if post of mine here:
***
Was Vermont ever really an indepedent republic?
In an old post of mine, I quote Charles A. Jellison, *Ethan Allen:
Frontier Rebel* (Syracuse University Press 1969), pp. 248-9:
"In the story of the Haldimand Affair, there occasionally appears the
argument that whatever it was that Ethan and his friends were hatching
with the British, it could not, by definition, have been treason, for
since Vermont was not a part of the United States, it owed the United
States no allegiance, and, owing none, it could betray none. Of course the
only thing wrong with this argument is that Vermont's independence had
never been recognized by anybody but the Vermonters themselves, and
certainly not even all of them. As far as the rest of the world,
including the American Confederation, was concerned, Vermont was still
officially part of New York State, which meant that it was also part of
the United States of America. The continued presence in the field of Seth
Warner's regiment of Vermonters as a regular unit in the Continental Army
served as a conspicuous reminder that whatever it chose to call itself,
Vermont was actually part and parcel of the new America. And attesting to
Ethan's own personal involvement in the American cause was the somewhat
embarrassing fact that throughout his dealings with the British he
continued to hold his brevet commission in the Continental Service..."
What is more likely than a completely independent Vermont is a self-
governing Vermont associated with the British Empire. This is what the
Vermonters were aiming for in the Haldimand negotiations: "In the time of
General Haldimand's command,' Ethan remarked in a personal letter written
several years later, 'if Great Britain could have offered Vermont
protection, they would readily have yielded up their independency and
become a province of Great Britain.'" Jellison, p. 248.
And as I noted in another old post,
It seems that shortly before Ethan's death, the Allen brothers were again
up to their old trick of trying to get an alliance of some kind between
Vermont and Canada:
"With the coming of spring, Ethan's imagination blossomed in something
like the old way. With every intention of devoting the rest of his days
to the charm and solitude of Burlington Bay, he could not fail to see the
advantages its location offered for trade with Canada. In June, after the
spring planting, the three brothers--Ethan, Ira, and Levi--held a
conference and decided to go to Quebec to see what could be done.
"They had reached Quebec by the middle of July, 1788, when Ethan addressed
a long letter to Lord Dorchester, the new Governor-General, to inform him
that once the Federal Constitution was in operation the United States
would undoubtedly try to subjugate Vermont,
'For, say they, Vermont is locally situated to the waters of Lake
Champlain which communicate with those of Saint Lawrence, and contiguous
to the Province of Quebec, where they must be dependent for trade,
business, and intercourse which naturally incline them to the British
interest.'
"That is a very sound statement of Vermont's position. Allied to Canada,
she would have a seaport and a market for her raw products. Allied to the
United States, she would have a share of the war debt and the prospect of
being partitioned by New York and Massachusetts. Furthermore, Ethan added
that the leading men in Vermont were not 'sentimentally attached to a
Republican form of government.' And this is the solution he offered:
"'Matters were so contrived betwen the General [Haldimand] and certain men
of influence in Vermont, the last three years of the late war, that it
answered all the purposes of an alliance of neutrality and at the same
time prevented the United States from taking advantage of it. So in the
present case a formal and public alliance, or that Vermont should at
present accept of a Government under the Crown might occasion a war
between France and the United States on the one part, and Great Britian
including Vermont on the other, while on the Haldimand system it may be
prevented, and a friendly intercourse and commerce, without any cost to
the Crown, be continued, and at any future time such alterations of the
policy may be made, as to suit future emergencies.'"
John Pell, *Ethan Allen* (1929), pp. 266-7. For the full text of Ethan's
letter, see
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC01762062&id=78MbAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA166
Note that he refers to Vermont's "constant immigration from the united
States" (implying that these are two separate countries).
In short, Ethan wanted to maintain *de facto* independence of Vermont,
with an informal economic alliance with Great Britain. He was convinced
that even if the Constitution were adopted ("possibly with amendments")
there would be so much oppositon to it that Vermont could successfully
resist the "subjugation" the US would doubtless attempt; Vermont would
have the help of friends in neighboring states (many of whom had relatives
in Vermont) and of the "antifoederalists throughout the united States."
Of course, the letter has to be taken with a grain of salt; all the
boasting about the strength of Vermont (especially aganst a United States
which had been weakened by "the licentious notions of liberty, taught and
imbibed in the late reolution") has to be seen in the context of an
appeal for British help that would benefit both the Allen brothers and
Vermont economically. In any event, once it became clear that there would
indeed be a lasting US federal government, and that the British were
unlikely to defend Vermont against it, Ethan might then reluctantly favor
joining the Union as the best way to prevent the "subjugation" (and
partition) of Vermont. An interesting question is, What if he lives to
see the War of 1812? I believe that--just as in the American Revolution--
he might first advocate the US conquest of Canada, and then, when it
became clear that this was not going to come about, support a separate
peace betwen Vermont and Great Britain. There is really no contradiction
here, for he wanted a self-governing Vermont to be united (at least
economically) with Canada in *some* way or other, whether as part of a US
conquest or through separate negotiations with the British.
To sum up: What the Allen brothers wanted was a self-governing Vermont--
their very mininum demand was that Vermont be independent *of New York*--
with ties to Canada, its natural trading partner. For Vermont to be one
state in the American confederation would be one way of accomplishing this
goal--but only if America succeeded in incorporating Canada. If America
could not conquer Canada, it would better for Vermont to be an autonomous
state associated with Canada. But this required either British assistance
or a failure of the US Constitution. Once the US Consitution was ratifed
and it became clear the British would not help the Vermonters, joining the
Union as a state was the only alternative to being swallowed up by New
York (the US would obviously side with New York against a Vermont which
insisted on complete independence or ties with the British Empire). After
all, the Vermonters, once they were a US state, could still hope for
future Vermont-Canada ties, either by a future US conquest of Canada or by
a revolution in Canada. Indeed, in 1796, Ira Allen was up to yet another
variation on his old tricks--while he still negotiated with the British
(for a canal connecting Lake Champlain with the St.Lawrence) this time he
also negotiated with the French Directory to support a revolution in Lower
Canada to establish a Republic of United Columbia:
"When the British showed no enthusiasm for the canal project, Ira left
London, crossed the English Channel, and somehow persuaded the French
Directory to sell him 20,000 muskets, plus several field guns and other
equipment. Documents retrieved from French archives show that these arms,
later seized by a British man-of-war from the ship Olive Branch, were
central to Ira's plot with the Directory to annex Canada by force to a
seceded Vermont and establish the democratic republic of United Columbia
out of a 'revolutionized British America.'" John J. Duffy, "Ethan Allen
and His Kin"
http://www.archives.gov/nhprc/annotation/pdf/2001-sep.pdf
"To the north, France supported Ira Allen's plans to revolutionize Lower
Canada and link it with Vermont in a new Republic of United Columbia which
would at once dismember Britain's North American empire and increase
French influence on the continent."
David A. Wilson, *Paine and Cobbett: The Transatlantic Connection*, p.
139. http://books.google.com/books?id=FQy1E17_Y3wC&pg=PA139
Unfortunately, only the first page of what looks like a very interesting
article--Jeanne A. Ojala, "Ira Allen and the French Directory, 1796: Plans
for the Creation of the Republic of United Columbia," William and Mary
Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 38, No. 3 (July 1979), pp. 436-448--is
avaialble to non-sbubscribers online. http://www.jstor.org/pss/1943385
***
Someone replied, "In any case, for the time period you first discuss (during the
Revolution), would the British really feel obligated (or even able to)
protect Vermont during the Paris negotiations? Seems to me that the
discussions with Haldimand, if they "succeed," merely result in the
Allens joining Loyalists in exile, their name synonymous in Vermont
with that of Benedict Arnold, and New York's claim to Vermont
enormously strengthened."
I answered,
Also, the sentiments of the people of Vermont have to be taken into
account. They were willing to consider independence from the US, but I
don't think most of them wanted resubmission to the British crown under
any terms.
That the British did think for a while, even after Yorktown, that they
might regain Vermont, is indicated in this letter by Lord George Germain
to General Haldimand:
"Whitehall, [London,] 2nd January, 1782.
Sir:--I was well pleased to find by a copy of your letter of the first of
October to Sir Henry Clinton, and of the papers enclosed in it, which he
transmitted to me with his last dispatches, that your negociation with the
Vermont Leaders was in so fair a train as to afford good ground to expect
that country would speedily be restored to the King's obedience. I have
since learned, by private accounts, that a detachment of your army had
arrived at Crown Point and that a considerable force was assembled at
Sorel, under General Reidesel, in readiness to protect them from the
resentment of the Congress should they declare for His Majesty.
Lord Cornwallis' misfortune will, I fear, deter them from taking that step
at present, but I trust they will not be intimidated into a submission to
the Congress, but that you will find measures to encourage them to
persevere in their former purpose, and to restore their confidence in our
ability to support them, for as you have now put Quebec into a state of
security and established at Sorel, I should hope you will be able to carry
with you early in the spring a much larger body of troops than Mr.
Washington can spare from his army to go against them. I therefore must
repeat to you my recommendations to make the recovery of Vermont to the
King's obedience the primary object of your attention, and I can assure
you that whatever expense you may incur in.effecting it will not be
grudged.
I am, Sir, your most obedient, humble servant,
(Signed) George Germaine." http://books.google.com/books?id=nlgSAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA230
***
Was Vermont ever really an indepedent republic?
In an old post of mine, I quote Charles A. Jellison, *Ethan Allen:
Frontier Rebel* (Syracuse University Press 1969), pp. 248-9:
"In the story of the Haldimand Affair, there occasionally appears the
argument that whatever it was that Ethan and his friends were hatching
with the British, it could not, by definition, have been treason, for
since Vermont was not a part of the United States, it owed the United
States no allegiance, and, owing none, it could betray none. Of course the
only thing wrong with this argument is that Vermont's independence had
never been recognized by anybody but the Vermonters themselves, and
certainly not even all of them. As far as the rest of the world,
including the American Confederation, was concerned, Vermont was still
officially part of New York State, which meant that it was also part of
the United States of America. The continued presence in the field of Seth
Warner's regiment of Vermonters as a regular unit in the Continental Army
served as a conspicuous reminder that whatever it chose to call itself,
Vermont was actually part and parcel of the new America. And attesting to
Ethan's own personal involvement in the American cause was the somewhat
embarrassing fact that throughout his dealings with the British he
continued to hold his brevet commission in the Continental Service..."
What is more likely than a completely independent Vermont is a self-
governing Vermont associated with the British Empire. This is what the
Vermonters were aiming for in the Haldimand negotiations: "In the time of
General Haldimand's command,' Ethan remarked in a personal letter written
several years later, 'if Great Britain could have offered Vermont
protection, they would readily have yielded up their independency and
become a province of Great Britain.'" Jellison, p. 248.
And as I noted in another old post,
It seems that shortly before Ethan's death, the Allen brothers were again
up to their old trick of trying to get an alliance of some kind between
Vermont and Canada:
"With the coming of spring, Ethan's imagination blossomed in something
like the old way. With every intention of devoting the rest of his days
to the charm and solitude of Burlington Bay, he could not fail to see the
advantages its location offered for trade with Canada. In June, after the
spring planting, the three brothers--Ethan, Ira, and Levi--held a
conference and decided to go to Quebec to see what could be done.
"They had reached Quebec by the middle of July, 1788, when Ethan addressed
a long letter to Lord Dorchester, the new Governor-General, to inform him
that once the Federal Constitution was in operation the United States
would undoubtedly try to subjugate Vermont,
'For, say they, Vermont is locally situated to the waters of Lake
Champlain which communicate with those of Saint Lawrence, and contiguous
to the Province of Quebec, where they must be dependent for trade,
business, and intercourse which naturally incline them to the British
interest.'
"That is a very sound statement of Vermont's position. Allied to Canada,
she would have a seaport and a market for her raw products. Allied to the
United States, she would have a share of the war debt and the prospect of
being partitioned by New York and Massachusetts. Furthermore, Ethan added
that the leading men in Vermont were not 'sentimentally attached to a
Republican form of government.' And this is the solution he offered:
"'Matters were so contrived betwen the General [Haldimand] and certain men
of influence in Vermont, the last three years of the late war, that it
answered all the purposes of an alliance of neutrality and at the same
time prevented the United States from taking advantage of it. So in the
present case a formal and public alliance, or that Vermont should at
present accept of a Government under the Crown might occasion a war
between France and the United States on the one part, and Great Britian
including Vermont on the other, while on the Haldimand system it may be
prevented, and a friendly intercourse and commerce, without any cost to
the Crown, be continued, and at any future time such alterations of the
policy may be made, as to suit future emergencies.'"
John Pell, *Ethan Allen* (1929), pp. 266-7. For the full text of Ethan's
letter, see
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC01762062&id=78MbAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA166
Note that he refers to Vermont's "constant immigration from the united
States" (implying that these are two separate countries).
In short, Ethan wanted to maintain *de facto* independence of Vermont,
with an informal economic alliance with Great Britain. He was convinced
that even if the Constitution were adopted ("possibly with amendments")
there would be so much oppositon to it that Vermont could successfully
resist the "subjugation" the US would doubtless attempt; Vermont would
have the help of friends in neighboring states (many of whom had relatives
in Vermont) and of the "antifoederalists throughout the united States."
Of course, the letter has to be taken with a grain of salt; all the
boasting about the strength of Vermont (especially aganst a United States
which had been weakened by "the licentious notions of liberty, taught and
imbibed in the late reolution") has to be seen in the context of an
appeal for British help that would benefit both the Allen brothers and
Vermont economically. In any event, once it became clear that there would
indeed be a lasting US federal government, and that the British were
unlikely to defend Vermont against it, Ethan might then reluctantly favor
joining the Union as the best way to prevent the "subjugation" (and
partition) of Vermont. An interesting question is, What if he lives to
see the War of 1812? I believe that--just as in the American Revolution--
he might first advocate the US conquest of Canada, and then, when it
became clear that this was not going to come about, support a separate
peace betwen Vermont and Great Britain. There is really no contradiction
here, for he wanted a self-governing Vermont to be united (at least
economically) with Canada in *some* way or other, whether as part of a US
conquest or through separate negotiations with the British.
To sum up: What the Allen brothers wanted was a self-governing Vermont--
their very mininum demand was that Vermont be independent *of New York*--
with ties to Canada, its natural trading partner. For Vermont to be one
state in the American confederation would be one way of accomplishing this
goal--but only if America succeeded in incorporating Canada. If America
could not conquer Canada, it would better for Vermont to be an autonomous
state associated with Canada. But this required either British assistance
or a failure of the US Constitution. Once the US Consitution was ratifed
and it became clear the British would not help the Vermonters, joining the
Union as a state was the only alternative to being swallowed up by New
York (the US would obviously side with New York against a Vermont which
insisted on complete independence or ties with the British Empire). After
all, the Vermonters, once they were a US state, could still hope for
future Vermont-Canada ties, either by a future US conquest of Canada or by
a revolution in Canada. Indeed, in 1796, Ira Allen was up to yet another
variation on his old tricks--while he still negotiated with the British
(for a canal connecting Lake Champlain with the St.Lawrence) this time he
also negotiated with the French Directory to support a revolution in Lower
Canada to establish a Republic of United Columbia:
"When the British showed no enthusiasm for the canal project, Ira left
London, crossed the English Channel, and somehow persuaded the French
Directory to sell him 20,000 muskets, plus several field guns and other
equipment. Documents retrieved from French archives show that these arms,
later seized by a British man-of-war from the ship Olive Branch, were
central to Ira's plot with the Directory to annex Canada by force to a
seceded Vermont and establish the democratic republic of United Columbia
out of a 'revolutionized British America.'" John J. Duffy, "Ethan Allen
and His Kin"
http://www.archives.gov/nhprc/annotation/pdf/2001-sep.pdf
"To the north, France supported Ira Allen's plans to revolutionize Lower
Canada and link it with Vermont in a new Republic of United Columbia which
would at once dismember Britain's North American empire and increase
French influence on the continent."
David A. Wilson, *Paine and Cobbett: The Transatlantic Connection*, p.
139. http://books.google.com/books?id=FQy1E17_Y3wC&pg=PA139
Unfortunately, only the first page of what looks like a very interesting
article--Jeanne A. Ojala, "Ira Allen and the French Directory, 1796: Plans
for the Creation of the Republic of United Columbia," William and Mary
Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 38, No. 3 (July 1979), pp. 436-448--is
avaialble to non-sbubscribers online. http://www.jstor.org/pss/1943385
***
Someone replied, "In any case, for the time period you first discuss (during the
Revolution), would the British really feel obligated (or even able to)
protect Vermont during the Paris negotiations? Seems to me that the
discussions with Haldimand, if they "succeed," merely result in the
Allens joining Loyalists in exile, their name synonymous in Vermont
with that of Benedict Arnold, and New York's claim to Vermont
enormously strengthened."
I answered,
Also, the sentiments of the people of Vermont have to be taken into
account. They were willing to consider independence from the US, but I
don't think most of them wanted resubmission to the British crown under
any terms.
That the British did think for a while, even after Yorktown, that they
might regain Vermont, is indicated in this letter by Lord George Germain
to General Haldimand:
"Whitehall, [London,] 2nd January, 1782.
Sir:--I was well pleased to find by a copy of your letter of the first of
October to Sir Henry Clinton, and of the papers enclosed in it, which he
transmitted to me with his last dispatches, that your negociation with the
Vermont Leaders was in so fair a train as to afford good ground to expect
that country would speedily be restored to the King's obedience. I have
since learned, by private accounts, that a detachment of your army had
arrived at Crown Point and that a considerable force was assembled at
Sorel, under General Reidesel, in readiness to protect them from the
resentment of the Congress should they declare for His Majesty.
Lord Cornwallis' misfortune will, I fear, deter them from taking that step
at present, but I trust they will not be intimidated into a submission to
the Congress, but that you will find measures to encourage them to
persevere in their former purpose, and to restore their confidence in our
ability to support them, for as you have now put Quebec into a state of
security and established at Sorel, I should hope you will be able to carry
with you early in the spring a much larger body of troops than Mr.
Washington can spare from his army to go against them. I therefore must
repeat to you my recommendations to make the recovery of Vermont to the
King's obedience the primary object of your attention, and I can assure
you that whatever expense you may incur in.effecting it will not be
grudged.
I am, Sir, your most obedient, humble servant,
(Signed) George Germaine." http://books.google.com/books?id=nlgSAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA230
Uhura's Mazda
Banned
How likely is that? Not being American, I always assumed that the rebels were vaguely united, at least to the level of having a Federal Government and Army.
Jasen777
Donor
It could happen. The government under the Articles of Confederation was very inadequate, not having an executive branch or the ability to raise money (other than begging the states). The army was small and state militias were seen as the ideal.
As I understand it their main quarrel was not with the US but specifically with NY, which still laid claim to them. So in the short term Redcoats, who would in any case go away when peace was signed, were a lesser evil to New Yorkers who might not.
And concern that VT might really exercise the Canadian option gave the US an added motive to accept it as a state rather than take up the claims of NY.
And concern that VT might really exercise the Canadian option gave the US an added motive to accept it as a state rather than take up the claims of NY.
By which argument the "continued presence in the field " of the various Loyalist rregiments proved that all of the colonies from within which they were recruited "served as a conspicuous reminder" that whatever they chose to call themselves those colonies were "actually part and parcel of" the British Empire...
