Was the territory just considered as part of New Hampshire? The state was admitted to the Union right after the last colony was accepted so it must have been looked upon as separate by some of the influential people.
Many Vermonters took part in the American Revolution on the side of the Revolution, but the Continental Congress did not recognize the independence of Vermont (then also known as the New Hampshire Grants) due to objections from New York, which had conflicting property claims.
This is only true in the sense that it was the first state to be admitted after the original thirteen, but it’s not true in the sense of being admitted immediately after the thirteenth state. It was admitted to the union in 1791. From today’s perspective that may sound like it happened very soon after the formation of the union, but a lot of things had happened in the meantime: The constitution entered into force, the first president was elected, the first two congresses were elected. From the perspective of contemporaries, Vermont was not among the firstcomers.
For more information on the dispute between New York and New Hampshire that led to Vermont being in limbo, the New Hampshire Grants article on Wikipedia is pretty good. Basically, the governors of both New Hampshire and New York starting granting land to colonists in the region that is now Vermont. Eventually the King had to step in and adjudicate things (largely in favor of New York), and the colonists who had been granted land weren’t all that happy about his decision.
The 13th colony, Rhode Island, wasn’t ratified until May 29, 1790 so the full Union was not formed until then? Vermont was admitted (not ratified) only 8 months later.
Like the other 13 original states, RI had been a state since 1776. Statehood and the United States predate the Constitution.
But if it hadn’t ratified, would it still be part of the US? The Constitution came into force on the ratification of 9, and Rhode Island and North Carolina were late, so never voted for the presidential elecgtion and only sent congressional delegations late in the term of the 1st Congress.
Were Rhode Island and North Carolina still part of the United States during that period?
Well, they sure as Hell weren’t “colonies”. And there was never a colony called Vermont (or Maine which was also part of the US in 1776).
True, not colonies. But had they become independent states? If they hadn’t ratified, the new federal government wouldn’t have had any authority over them.
RI was an “independent state” before there even was a United States. If anything, ratifying the Constitution made the original states less independent. Vermont was not an independent entity in any form before it was made a state.
I would say “yes”, because when those states did finally ratify, their representatives were admitted to Congress at once, as opposed to waiting for an act of admission, as was required for Vermont and every state since.
Obviously, a prolonged refusal to ratify by a particular state would eventually have forced Congress to put down some firmer guidelines. Even by 1790, members of Congress were threatening to impose tariffs on commerce between RI and the rest of the US, which would have effectively read RI out of the union. It didn’t happen, but had RI persisted in refusal much longer it could have happened.
Vermont was an independent entity, just not one that was recognized by anybody else. But Vermont (since 1777) had a governor and a legislature and passed its own laws and collected its own taxes, and the writ of no other state ran in Vermont.
Vermont begged the Continental Congress and the Confederation Congress for admission for 14 years, but both bodies refused==partly to avoid antagonizing New York and partly to maintain sectional balance. Congress under the Constitution finally admitted Vermont in 1791, after New York finally gave up its long-unenforced claim and Kentucky was admitted for sectional balance.
You’re forgetting the Articles of Confederation, the original arrangement for the rebel colonies.
I recently read an interesting book, The Hamilton Scheme. basically, Hamilton was the protegee of some fairly rich colonials (and son-in-law). he was convinced that the only way to create a strong central government was to give it independent taxing powers, more specifically tariffs. (deja vu).
The original arrangement required the central government to get its money from the states with no power to coerce, which of course was a failure because the states themselves were short of funds so helping the central government was a low priority. So the central government was paying in IOU’s. There was also a massive backlog of these from the war. The ability of the central government to even function was at risk, so the new constitution was creted in the late 1880’s.
With the new constitution came the authority to levy tariffs on incoming goods. This allowed the federal government its own source of revenue. Coincidentally many of Hamilton’s rich friends had been buying up these IOU’s for pennies on the dollar, from veterans who had never been paid, and those who supplied the Continental Army (or had their goods commandeered). Hamilton successfully lobbied for the IOU’s to eventually be paid in full with interest. (He also led the push for a tax on stills that eliminated the profitability of any but the larger industrial distilleries, precipiatting the Whiskey Rebellion…)
While the tariffs tended to be on goods arriving at the major ports, presumably it was a calculation too that if Vermont was not part of the union, it faced tariffs too eventually. Plus, until the new constitution, with an ineffective central government, there was not much difference it seems between being in the federation and not. I assume once the federal government was ratified, it also had an interest in ensuring as much of the old colonial territory was included.
Check out Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys, Green Mountain Boys - Wikipedia for more on this.