Could Vermont Have Maintained Independence Playing U.S.+ Canada vs. Each Other?

It's not entirely impossible a scenario as San Marino managed to stay an independent republic via playing its larger neighbors against each other (and would emerge the ONLY player not absorbed by Italian Unification). Also Luxembourg and Andorra more or less did the same . So could Vermont have done the same here?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Why? The Vermonters wanted statehood because of the obvious economic and strategic benefits, and unlike San Marino, they don't amount to a mesa in the middle of nowhere. Lake Champlain and the Richeliu and Hudson valleys amount to the 1783 equivalent of the interstate highway system.

Best,
 
You might be interested in my post at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/0PrDbt8foEc/ttAFhqxVElsJ


***

Was Vermont ever really an independent 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 between 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 opposition 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 against a United States
which had been weakened by "the licentious notions of liberty, taught and
imbibed in the late revolution") 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 between 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 minimum 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 Constitution was ratified
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...
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The issue, of course, is that Allen et al were not the end all and be all of political or military power in Vermont.

Best,
 
It's not entirely impossible a scenario as San Marino managed to stay an independent republic via playing its larger neighbors against each other (and would emerge the ONLY player not absorbed by Italian Unification). Also Luxembourg and Andorra more or less did the same . So could Vermont have done the same here?

Those states are legacies of feudalism, with a history of independence going back a millennium. Vermont on the other hand was a very recently-settled region. Other than their small size, I don't think they are a great comparison.
 
maybe if negotiate low tariffs with both Great Britain(Canada) and the new U.S.

maybe the political selling point within Vermont would be, we don't want to drive a wedge between Patriots and Loyalists, plent of good people on both sides.

We don't want to lose (?)25% of our population who goes to Canada.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Okay, so Vermont was independent for about fourteen years. How much did New York accept this, or was Vermont such a backwater that it hardly mattered either way?

Independence generally requires recognition...

Vermont was a frontier that was politically, economically, and militarily dependent upon and part of the US.

Best,
 
Top