« ZurückWeiter »
very brief extract from the speech of Lord Dorchester, and the speech itself is not printed in the American State Papers. To Secretary Randolph's imperative call for explanations on the 20th of May, 1794, the British minister replied thus on the 22d :
George Hammond to Edmund Randolph, May 22 1794.- Extracts. From the context of this whole passage (of Lord Dorchester's speech] it is manifest that Lord Dorchester was persuaded, that the aggression which might eventually lead to a state of hostility, had proceeded from the United States : and so far as the state of Vermont, to which I presume his lordship principally alluded, was implicated, I am convinced that that persuasion was not ill-founded.
I assert with confidence that not only those encroachments have never been in any manner repressed, but that recent infringements in that quarter, and on the territory in its vicinity, have been since committed.
In regard to your declaration that “governor Simcoe has gone to the foot of the rapids of the Miami, followed by three companies of a British regiment, in order to build a fort there"--I have no intelligence that such an event has actually occurred.
Before I conclude this, I must be permitted to observe that I have confined to the unrepressed and continued aggressions of the State of Vermont alone, the persuasion of Lord Dorchester, that they were indicative of an existing hostile disposition in the United States against Great Britain, and might ultimately produce an actual state of war on their part.
Mr. Ilammond then goes on to name other sources of disquietude on the seaboard, but not a word about the vast Indian territory, in reference to which Lord Dorchester's speech was specially made, and in accordance with which speech his lieutenant had already committed an act of war in the northwestern territory.
For Randolph's letter, see American State Papers, octavo, second edition, Vol. 2, p. 60. For Lord Dorchester's belligerent speech to the Indians, see Spooner's Vermont Journal of March 31 1794, and a supplement to the Farmer's Library [Rutland,] of March 26 1794.
? American State Papers, second edition, Vol. 2, pp. 58-63. In the spring of 1793, commissioners met representatives of the northwestern tribes of Indians at the foot of the Maumee rapids, to make a treaty. The Indians refused to agree to anything but the first treaty of Fort Stanwix, which fixed the Ohio river as the boundary line, and insisted that the United States should immediately remove all their citizens from the upper side of that river.-See Ilowe's Historical Collections of the Great West, Vol. 1, p. 169. Lord Dorchester's speech in 1794 was addressed to some of the representatives of the Indians who had been present at this council of 1793, above referred to, and he had ordered Simcoe to build a fort at the place where that council had been held, and it was done. Of course, if all the Indian territory formerly held by Great Britain was to remain under the charge of that government, it is obvious that the United States would have been badly shorn. In view of Lord Dorchester's conduct at this period, the fact that the Indians claimed a considerable portion of Vermont may have some significance.
Mr. Hammond did not state what the then “recent infringements” in Vermont were, of which he seems to have written in March ; but Mr. Randolph called for the facts from Gov. Chittenden, whose reply is embraced substantially in the following extract from a letter of Randolph to Hammond, dated July 23 1794. It covers all the complaints of Mr. Hammond.
Gov. Chittenden to Secretary Randolph-July 1794.' After acknowledging my letter to him enclosing yours of the 10th of March, he [Gov. Chittenden) proceeds thus :
“ The letiers you refer me to, written by your predecessor (Jefferson] in consequence of complaints exhibited to him by the British minister, urging the prevention of all movements which might tend to disturb the harmony, subsisting between the United States and great Britain, I can with truth say, have been strictly adhered to by the government and the citizens of this state ; in every requisition."
His next is an observation of pointed regret at these complaints: and he then goes on thus:
“Before the reception of the abovementioned letters, written by your predecessor, I had forwarded a particular statement with atidavits, relative to the complaints in said letters exhibited, directed to the President of the United States, to which I beg leave to refer you; by which statement and affidavits is most manifestly made to appear that British subjects had less cause of complaint than those of the United States. No just cause of complaint hath come to my knowledge, of any abuses done or committed by any citizens of this or the United States, to British subjects as such: or of any infringements being made on garrisons, territories, or jurisdictions, which British subjects have ever made any serious pretensions to in this quarter.?
After a remark, relating to those who "pretend personal grievances." and a suspicion that the situation of the British garrisons is not generally understood at a distance, the remaining passages of his letter are the following:
“Therefore in order to understand the force of the complaints it is necessary to premise that the only British garrison now established within the limits of Vermont is a place called Dutchman's point, composed only of about twelve men, situated on the north end of the North Hero, twelve miles south of the latitude line. This garrison does not pretend to hold or keep jurisdiction over any land within this state other than a few acres on which their garrison is situated.---And indeed citizens of this state are settled quite in the neighborhood of said garrison, on every direction, and they are intimate with each other without any difficulty to my knowledge.
“That part of the tract called Caldwell's manor, which lies within the bounds of this state, hath long since been chartered as a town by the name of Alburgh-And the inhabitants thereof are incorporated as citizens, with all the privileges of other towns within this state and have long since been in the peaceable possession of the same.
With regard to the recent instance of misdemeanor committed on the officer of the crown by the capture of a small party (said to be made) on [of] British subjects, in pursuit of a deserter before Dutchman's point as complained by Mr. IIammond--The circumstances which probably gave rise to the
Randolph's letter is not in the printed State Papers. It is in the Vermont Gazette of Aug. 15, 22, and 29, 1794.
assertion are as follows, to wit: four armed men & in the common dress of the citizens of this state, appeared some time last winter in the town of Sheldon, alias Hungerford, within this state (a place about twenty miles distant from any place ever known or pretended to be claimed by British subjects) in disturbance of the peace--there made a violent assault upon the body of one John M'All, an inhabitant of that town, and then being in the peace of God and the state, in consequence whereof, in defence of the public peace, the said four men were taken into custody by a constable, and agreeable to the civil laws of this state convicted of breaking the peace, and accordingly fined.-It is said they were British subjects, which I am willing to admit-But that they had any authority as such from the British nation, to break the peace of this state within the known and acknowledged bounds of the same, did not appear from any credentials which they produced, nor does it yet appear – But the contrary I believe to be true, therefore as persons under the common protection of this government, they have been holden to respond for their breach of that protection, according to the civil law.
"From the above statement it is conceived that Mr. Hammond's complaint of the capture before Dutchman's Point, is illfounded and unjust. Of this you may be assured, that every attention has been paid by me to prevent all the movements which may tend to thwart the friendly negociations now taking place between the two powers; and I have pleasure to say, that nothing hath hitherto transpired, wherein I can think myself or any of the citizens of this state culpable.
“And of this you may be further assured, that every precaution and means within my power will still be used to ensure the continuation of all good harmony, between citizens of the two governments.'
This communication from the governor of Vermont (continued Mr. Randolph,) leaves no room for a comment on my part; although to contrast it, sentence by sentence, with the representations which have occasioned it, would afford grounds more and more striking, to apprehend, that the governor general of Quebec has been mistaken.
On the appointment of John Jay as minister to England, the negotiation on this subject was transferred to London, and an agreement was speedily reached, indicated by the following documents: Secretary of War to Gov. Chittenden."
WAR DEPARTMENT Octs 7 1794 Sir I have the honour to transmit your Excellency the extract of a letter from Mr Jay dated London 12 of July 1794, with a request in behalf of the President of the United States that the agreement which it specifies should be duly observed as it respects the frontiers of Vermont.
The statu quo as it existed immediately after the peace of 1783 is to be inviolably observed. All encroachments since that period are to be abandoned.
I have the honor to be with great respect Your Excellency's Obedient Servant
H. Knox Secy. of War. His Excellency the Governor of the State of Vermont. Extract of a letter from John Jay Esq. Envoy of the U. S. dated London
12th July 1794. We had an informal Conversation relative to Simcoe's hostile measure We concurred in Opinion that during the present negotiation & untill the conclusion of it all things ought to remain & be preserved in Statu
From the original in Ms. Vt. State Papers, Vol. 24, pp. 72, 73.
quo—that therefore both parties should continue to hold their Possessions, & that all Encroachments on either side should be done awaythat all hostile measures (If any such should have taken place) shall cease & that in case it should unfortunately have happened that prisoners or Property should have been taken the Prisoners shall be released & the Property restored. And we have agreed, That both Governments shall immediately give orders & instructions accordingly
DEPARTMENT OF STATE 19th Sept. 1794. I hereby certify that the above is a true extract from the original letter from M". Jay to the Secretary of State.
(Signed) GEO. TAYLOR Jun Chief Clerk. Compared with the official Extract
JNO. FLAGG Jun Chf Clk W. D. If the organization of Alburgh in 1792 was really in violation of the treaty of 1783, then the continuance of that organization, by representation in the Vermont legislature, and the appointment of magistrates for the town by that body, in 1794 and 5, was in violation both of the treaty of 1783 and Mr. Jay's agreement of July 1794 ; but as no further complaint or difficulty is discoverable in the American State Papers, or elsewhere, it is fairly presumable that the point was not insisted on, and thus Gov. Chittenden was sustained. The clouds of internal and foreign wars-with Indians, insurrectionists, and foreign countries-induced President Washington to send John Jay as envoy to London in the spring of 1794. The agreement in July arrested for the most pait the dangers growing out of the British posts, though as late as the 20th of August Gen. Anthony Wayne fought a fierce baitle on the very Council ground of 1793, to which Lord Dorchester had referred in his speech to the Indians, and almost within gun-shot of Fort Miami which Simcoe had built. It was a battle with "Indians and Canadian malitia and volunteers," "the latter armed with British muskets and bayonets," and three British officers, one of them Col. McKee the British Indian Agent, were on the battle field, “but at a respectable distance, and near the river.” On the 22d, Gen. Wayne totally destroyed houses and cornfields above and below the fort and within pistol-shot of it, including “the houses, stores and property of Col. M'Kee, the British Indian agent and principal stimulator of the war” then “ existing between the United States and the savages.' In Wayne's victory the Vermont company bore their share. The north western Indians were so far discouraged by their defeat that on the 3d of August 1795 they concluded a treaty of peace. Jay's “Treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation” was concluded Nov. 19 1794, and proclaimed Feb. 29 1796, by the second article of which the British posts in the United States were evacuated “on or before the first day of June, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-six."
| From Gen. Wayne's reports, in The Great West, Vol. 1, pp. 170-173 and Vermont Gazette of Oct. 17, 24, and 31, 1794.
REQUISITIONS UPON VERMONT FOR THE MILITARY
SERVICE OF TIIE UNITED STATES_1792 to 1800.
TIE VERMONT COMPANY IN GEN. WAYNE'S WAR AGAINST THE
NORTHWESTERN INDIANS–1792 to 1795. Under the act of Congress of March 5, 1791, for the protection of the frontiers, which added three regiments to the army, President Washington assigned the first company of the third of these regiments to Vermont, and appointed as its officers Captain William Eaton, Lieutenant James Underbill, and Ensign Charles Hyde.' Eaton, who owed his appointment to Stephen R. Bradley, then resided at Windsor ; Underhill is supposed to have been from Dorset ; and Hyde from Puultney. The enlistments were for three years, the bounty for each recruit eight dollars, and the monthly pay of privates three dollars. A recruiting office was opened by Ensign Hyde at Bennington about the first of May, and under the spurs of glittering promises of glory, and fervid appeals in prose and verse,' the ranks were filled, and the Vermont Guzette of Aug. 31 announced the departure of the company for the seat of war as follows:
This morning the company of recruits raised at the rendezvous in this town, under the command of captain William Eaton, consisting of near 70 of the hardy and brave sons of Vermont, set out on their march for the western country. It has been observed by the muster master and othier gentlemen who have seen a number of the other companies of levies, that capt. Eatons company is by far the best that have marched from any rendezvous whatever. They left the ground in good spirits and with that military ambition that becomes a soldier.
Other items in the Gazette show that Eaton's discipline was severe. He was president of a court martial at Albany on the 26th of May, when
· The regiment consisted of one company each from the states of Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and North Carolina, and three companies each from Maryland and Virginia.
· Eaton raised a part of the company at Windsor, before he joined Hyde at Bennington.
3 See Vermont Gazette of May 11, 1792.