Talk:Vermont Republic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk From U.S. Page[edit]

This material was moved from Talk:Historic regions of the United States: Lou I 14:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is controversy over whether Vermont was ever officially recognized by the United States before its admission into the Union.

I submit that the United States maintained limited diplomatic relations, albeit with the aim of convincing Vermont to either reintegrate with its parent states, or itself join the United States, but a formal recognition nontheless.

Since Vermont was not retaken by force, its legislative institutions were preserved, and it was admitted as a new state, this ipso facto constitutes recognition that there was a legitimate independent political entity that had the right to join to begin with.

Some questions about the Republic of Vermont
  • Was there ever an exchange of ambassadors between the Republic of Vermont and another nation?
  • Was there ever an Act of U.S. Congress or U.S. Executive Order that mentions "The Republic of Vermont"?
  • Was the President of the Republic of Vermont ever received as a head of state by the U.S. President or Congress?
I certainly do not subscribe to your de facto theory of recognition, and I would submit most historians would not either. Another incident in U.S. history where the U.S. government had interacted with self-proclaimed government was in the self-proclaimed State of Deseret, the organs of which largely became the Utah Territory, although the government of Deseret was never recognized in any formal sense by the U.S. Likewise California and Oregon were somewhat self-organized (see Republic of California and Champoeg, Oregon) prior their their admission to the union (CA) or organization as territory (OR). Other instances certainly exist. There was necessarily a large tolerance for letting people create their own unrecongized govermental organs as a precursor to admission to the Union.

Vermont before 1791[edit]

There are currently two articles, this one and New Hampshire Grants. The Grants article certainly has more material, but I suggest we keep discussion here. I’d also suggest the following split between the articles:

  • GRANTS ARTICLE: The history of he grants and towns from the start to about 1775, including the dispute between New York and New Hampshire, royal resolution, etc.
  • THIS ARTICLE: Events in Vermont from about 1775 to 1791, and its history during that period.

Naturally, these articles should link to each other, to History of New Hampshire, etc. Lou I 14:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


The national Congress pretty well kept a hand's off policy to the situation. Their official view was that the Vermont area was Cumberland County and Gloucester County, New York. But, after 1775 these two counties were only present in New York's assembly for two months in 1779 during a brief period of attempted reconciliation. The representatives (Micah Townsend, et.al.) actually tried to negotiate a cash price for recognition, but failed.

Hostilities actually began around 1769, when locals began to ignore New York courts, sherrifs, etc. They peaked in 1775 when Allen siezed Fort Ticonderoga, as much to take it from New York as from the British. After the battle, as a compromise, the Vermonters withdrew but turned the fort over to Connecticut militia as a sort of neutral force. The need to address the Revolutinary War with Britain kept both sides from actively pusuing the matter further. During the war, some independent groups saw action, but most men involved simply joined either a New Hampshire or a New York regiment. Lou I 15:47, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you search the journals of the Continental Congress at LOC American Memory, the document "Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 17 March 1, 1781 - August 31, 1781--with the Vermont Agents," refers to the agents of the "State of Vermont." Whether that's a state-state or a U.S. state is, well, up to debate. It also says, "This series of questions and answers represents the proceedings of the only known meeting between the Vermont agents and this congressional committee." Also, I think that the U.S. holding negotiations with an extralegal entity is NOT the same as it being a legitimate nation-state. By that definition, David Koresh and the Branch Davidians could apply to have Waco, TX added to the list. jengod 22:47, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Kentucky?[edit]

in part as a counterweight to Kentucky

This is out of the blue. I would be interested in hearing what this is about. The sentence following this is also not particularly clear. Thanks. PerlKnitter 13:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I.E. the "North v. South" buissiness leading up to the civil war. Every time a Free/Slave State was admitted, one of the opposite type was usually arrainged to make it agreeable to both sides, as with 2 Senators of each type from the new states whould join, possibly at the same time, neither faction whould have an increased majority in the upper house. 68.39.174.238 01:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Vermont ratified the Constitution by convention as one of the "14 Colonies" The State of New York finally made an agreement over the land grants, and a constitutional ratifying convention was elected a few weeks later. Vermont ratified like the previous 13, and was automatically admitted like North Carolina and Rhode island. Kentucky had nothing to do with it. Ericl (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger with First_Vermont_Republic[edit]

It seems that First_Vermont_Republic exists only to provide a link to Second_Vermont_Republic, and that's already here.DLaub 06:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Vermont Republic vs. Republic of Vermont - which is it???[edit]

An anon just changed it from the former to the latter. I cannot find a definitive ruling either way in a few minutes of online research; both are present, although Vermont Republic seems to get the nod. I have rolled it back so the first reference matches the article title, parrtly because an unexplained anonymous edit should always be regarded with suspicion. But somebody with access to serious Vermont history material should explain it here. (by the way, Republic of Vermont redirects to this article) - DavidWBrooks 01:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • If its any help Google returns many more results for "Vermont Republic" than "Republic of Vermont" the former seems to have many more historical references too. My guess is it should be the former. - Mickmaguire 14:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A Myth![edit]

See Vermont Life Summer 2006 for the article "What Second Vermont Republic" by Hand and Muller III. This article destroys all notions that a Vermont Republic ever existed and for me proves that those setting forth this idea are fabricating their facts. Someone from their organization is supposed to address the article in the next issue of Vermont Life but I doubt they will have anything very interesting to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enhan (talkcontribs)

@Enhan: See Robert Mello's book Moses Robinson and the Founding of Vermont, Benjamin Hall's History of Eastern Vermont, and Ira Allen's Natural and Political History of Vermont. You're writing nonsense. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Possibly a republic of necessity, but a republic nonetheless[edit]

The recognition by the U.S. government of Vermont as a separate state, republic, or nation has little bearing on Vermont's existence as a republic. Like any group, Vermont's founders were varied and ranged from seeking full statehood, a looser association as under the Articles of Confederation, and permanent separation. While it is unrealistic to suggest that most Vermonters in the period 1777–1791 favored independence from the U.S., a functioning state (here used to mean government) with independent links to foreign governments, and a representative form of government took root in Vermont. Partly out of necessity that government gave Vermont elements commonly associated with a nation: a constitution and declaration or rights; a flag–the Council of Censors and Governor's Council adopted the Green Mountain Boys' infantry flag as the flag of Vermont; paper and coin currency was issued, and there Vermont was titled in Latin "VERMONTENSIUM RESPUBLICA"; ambassadors of some sort were sent to Paris, New York, The Hague and later Philadelphia when the U.S. capital temporarily moved there, and a postal service was operated. Several printed broadsides bear the inscription "S.P.Q.V." (Senatus Populus Que Vermontensium). Before statehood, the United States did not claim jurisdiction over Vermont. The notion of a once free and independent Vermont has contemporary appeal. That should be balanced with the pragmatic observation that during the Revolutionary War, and under the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. government had received direct appeals from Vermont for closer association, and later admission. Surrogate representatives also took up Vermont's desire for admission. Connecticut's representative William Samuel Johnson several times spoke before the Continental Congress for Vermont's joining the original thirteen states. Frederic DeWater, author of "The Reluctant Republic: Vermont 1724–1792" suggests the U.S. just had its hands too full to deal with this. During the Revolution, with few exceptions, Vermont's interests were parallel with the U.S. eliminating any need for the Continental Congress to focus on Vermont. Later, while the U.S. was attempting to form a stronger central government, immediate incorporation of Vermont, a new state that was blatantly antislavery would have been one more problem to address while attempting ratification. Yet very shortly after the federal republic was surely established Vermont was admitted.

While the government of Vermont did cloak itself in several forms of a nation, it also frequently referred to itself as a state. The 1777 constitution's parchment copy is titled "Constitution of Vermont" but, the 1777 constitution in its printed edition says "State of Vermont" on its title page and in text refers to a "Commonwealth of Vermont," fourteen years ahead of statehood. Thomas Chittenden was titled "Governor" not president. His pre-statehood Thanksgiving Proclamations are addressed to the "Freemen of the State of Vermont." Even Vermont's coinage reveals hope of future statehood. The reverse side of the 1786 "coppers" featured a thirteen point star (likely representing the U.S.) surrounded by fourteen stars, and a Latin passage: Quarta Decima Stella," which can be translated to mean we are the fourteenth star. The fourteenth star in the U.S. federal union is not a leap.

Yes, there is a need not to mistake the Vermont Republic with a desire for permanent political independence. But it is equally important not to under estimate the importance of Vermont's fourteen years of independence on the state's self image and continuing distinct culture of independence. Many of the differences found when comparing Vermont with neighboring New Hampshire might be explained by their difference in political history. Like Texas, Vermont's birth was tumultuous and unique. Vermont was a self invention of will, with adversaries on several fronts. The epitaph on the grave marker for Thomas Chittenden, Vermont's first governor, suggests why this period left an indelible mark on Vermont's character; "Out of storm and manifold perils rose an enduring state, the home of freedom and unity." Interpretation of the use of "state" will remain open. CApitol3 16:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • To address your last point, most other US States called themselves States before the US Constitution or even Articles of Confederation were written. To me, it seems likely that the name "State of..." was simply the alternative to "Republic of..." used at the time of the American Revolution when republics were much less common, and therefore there was no precedent for what to call a country without a King. I therefore think that "State of..." did not at that period suggest a subnational entity as it does now. However, I'm not a Vermonter/Vermontian, or even an American, so not an expert on the issue. Paj.meister 15:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Many independent countries refer to themselves as states as it is a synonym for a nation as much as it is for a semi-autonomous division in a federation/confederation Hence the use of the word state doen't prove any aspiration however apparent this was. However, I rather think the second comment here seriously underestimates the length of time the word republic has been used for a country without a monarch! Dainamo (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Boundaries/map of Vermont Republic[edit]

(I assume the Republic did not have the same borders as present-day Vermont.) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Map request removed, the borders were the same as today, at least according to [1]. Period maps showed the entire area as part of New York [2].Kmusser 04:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


The Vermont republic was slightly larger than the present state of Vermont in that several towns presnetly in New Hampshire were within the Vermont Republic. This included Hanover, site of Dartmuth College. Congress established the boundary at the middle of the Connecticut River when it admitted Vermont to statehood. The Vermont-New Hampshiire border issue has been visited several times, asrecent as the 20th century. CApitol3 16:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I found confirmation of that at http://www.hanovernh.org/about but I couldn't find a list of what towns were involved anywhere - that's not enough info to base a map on. If anyone finds more details I'll gladly make a map reflecting them. Kmusser 16:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The flag[edit]

Isn't that the flag of the Second Republic?

They probably appropraited it for their own use. 68.39.174.238 23:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, what's with the seemingly random arrangement of a seemingly random number of stars? 68.39.174.238 23:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The number of stars is 13 in both flags, but it does look fairly random. Is one or the other image correct, or is the "randomness" part of the heraldic specification for the flag? :P

hte number of stars are likely 'intentionally thirteen. Vermont's coinage (they had a mint at Rupert) was struck with the motto Quarta Decima Stella, in English "the fourteenth star." This seems to indicate a strong desire for joining the union. And, makes the use of the Vermont Republic's flag a curious choice for Mr. Naylor's Second Republic. My opinion, it would make an excellent state flag. The randomness is, I think, the result of an inexperienced seamstress or maybe a heraldically challenged designer. CApitol3 (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Les Verts Monts??[edit]

It is claimed that the name Vermont is from the French. This appears likely, but current French usage places almost all adjectives after the noun, rather than before. Thus, the Green Mountains, in current French would be rendered les monts verts. Any explanation of this anomaly? Perhaps a reversal to reflect English noun-adjective construction, or an earlier (antiquated) French usage. I rather doubt the latter, given the older naming of Montréal (Royal or Regal Mountain). Any suggestions? Esseh 03:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The adjective-noun construct is hardly inexistant in french geographic naming, particularly for regions. Such names are generally hyphenated, however. (Consider the Québec region of Bas-Saint-Laurent (Lower Saint-Lawrence), for example; though virtually every upper/lower denomination works (Haute-Normandie, Haute-Mauricie, etc). There are also virtually every "New something" (Nouvelle-France as a case in point, though there's also "Nouveau Québec", etc). "Les Verts-Monts" or "Les Verts Monts", if slightly poetic, is hardly impossible (whereas "Le Royal Mont" might not pass even as poetic license). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.94.39.177 (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Bill of Rights[edit]

I have heard somewhere that the first 10 Ammendments to the US Constitution (the bill of rights) were adaptations from the Constitution of the Vermont Republic when it was the first state to join the union, i.e., the 14th state. Can anyone verify this? Teetotaler 2 April 2007

Independent State of Vermont v Vermont Republic[edit]

CApitol3: I'm reading a copy of deWater's Reluctant Republic and will be able to summarize in a few days. DeWater used orginal documents but seems to stray into bad territory when he theorizes that if such and such didn't happen, such and such must have occured. He does provided a great outline for further research into source material and that'll be very helpful in this. Beyond deWater's book, I haven't found any earlier documentation for the name Vermont Republic being used. PeterInVT (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, got my William Doyle (and a couple other) books back this morning. Doyle also uses the term Republic, and has a section called "The Republic Grows in Strength." (page 51) describing an interlude of peace and relative prosperity (mid 1780s). No question in my mind that they did not call it that in their time, and that from almost day one petitioned for admission to the United States under articles of confederation. Of course, the Roman Republic was not the official name of Rome in the republican period, but is how it is referred to, or Germany's period called the Weimar Republic, or Frances Second Republic, all describe a period not an official name of a nation. Weimar took its name from the small city where the constitution was written and ratified. Perhaps if Vermont's government had stayed put in Windsor it might have been called the Windsor Republic. CApitol3 (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Vermont Celebration[edit]

An event held annually in Windsor, VT from 1999-2007. The event was organized by a group of citizens that organized themselves under the name the 1777 Republic of Vermont Committee. In 2008, they announced the end of the event. The 1777 RoVC was established in 1999 by the Town of Windsor Selectboard to establish a town-wide event in Windsor, VT focused on the unique history of that town and its importance in the State of Vermont's history. Originally known as “Windsor Heritage Days,” the event transformed from a small local event to one of state-wide importance during the first 9 years. The event was named a Top Ten Summer Event by the Vermont Chamber of Commerce four times (2002, 2003, 2005 & 2006), and was named the official celebration of Vermont’s historic independence by the Vermont State Legislature in 20062 and 20071. The event was best known for its celebration of the adoption of the Vermont Constitution on July 8, 1777, and included several popular events during the two-day street festival atmosphere including; the Vermont Independence Parade, the Cavalcade of Horses equestrian parade and encampments of living historians representing the French and Indian War through World War II.

The “Republic of Vermont Celebration” was the only state wide event that celebrated the “Birth of the Republic of Vermont”. On July 8, 1777, Vermont became an Independent Republic like Texas and California. A fact that was not widely known before the ‘1777 Republic of Vermont Celebration” began its efforts. The publicity of Vermont’s historic independence still has not reached the same level, as that of the Bear Flag Republic (California-1846-1848) and the Lone Star Republic (Texas – 1836-1845), even though the Republic of Vermont not only preexisted, but lasted longer than both of these well known Republics combined. The Republic of Vermont (1777-1791) existed for fourteen years before becoming the fourteenth U.S. State in 1791. The fledgling Republic of Vermont was only one year and four days younger than the newly established United States (July 4, 1776) and actually established its Constitution before the United States, in part to truly establish Independence. The existence of the Republic of Vermont was just the beginning; the most notable aspect of the Republic of Vermont was the establishment of the “Windsor Principles.” These principles were the true birth of civil rights in North America. Vermont, through its constitution established three basic civil rights that are taken for granted today. First, the Constitution abolished slavery (almost 100 years BEFORE the Civil War), second it established common voting rights for men (meaning you did not have to have money in the bank or own property to vote), and finally it developed the first system of Public Education requiring all citizens to be educated. Education, freedom and voting rights were established for people that otherwise would never had the opportunity for such. “The Republic of Vermont Celebration” highlighted these advancements, by highlighting Vermont’s Independence. Vermont needs to continue the effort to promote its history and rightful place as the true birthplace of Civil Rights and what it means to be an American Freedom-Education-Democracy.

also known as Windsor Heritage Days, Vermont Heritage Days, 1777-1791 Republic of Vermont Celebration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvwindsorvt (talkcontribs) 21:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that this be mentioned as a single short paragraph under Windsor, Vermont history? There is no history as yet. Student7 (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Claims of France[edit]

A reputable editor has removed France as a claimant of Vermont. Wasn't this done in the very early days? Surely both sides of Lake Champlain, an important waterway, were claimed. That would include Vermont. Student7 (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That was before the time period being discussed here and is covered in History of Vermont.Kmusser (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Lack of context[edit]

I think an effort harder than is justified is being made to argue for a Vermont Republic. For example: "While an independent state, Vermont assumed many of the functions of a nation, including issuing currency called Vermont coppers from a mint operated by Reuben Harmon in East Rupert (1785-1788), and operating a postal system." I'll pass on a postal system, since I know nothing about it, yet how is issuing currency a function of a nation when Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts were issuing copper coinage at the same time? Massachusetts, in fact, had (in English) the same legend as Vermont: Vermontis Res Publica, Commonwealth Massachusetts. In spite of what is said here, Res Publica was just as well rendered Commonwealth in that period and it was not an assertion of an independent republic in the sense employed here. To the point, the flip side of that Vermont coin had the legend Stella Quarta Decima, expressing Vermont's position that it should be recognized as the fourteenth state. The article mentions it, but buries it at the bottom of the article after already using the coin to buttress the notion that Vermont was an independent republic.

I'll also point out that Vermont's 1777 Constitution was conditional and not assertive of any independent nation. "Therefore, it is absolutely necessary, for the welfare and safety of the inhabitants of this State, that it should be, henceforth, a free and independent State; and that a just, permanent and proper form of government, should exist in it, derived from, and founded on, the authority of the people only, agreeable to the direction of the honorable American Congress." (emphasis added). The same document had directions for choosing delegates to represent the state in Congress (sect. 10). 69.106.75.244 (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Dates[edit]

This article says:

Though Vermont declared its independence in 1777, it took 15[citation needed] years to negotiate an indemnity with New York, which required several million[citation needed] dollars to be paid to New York for the relinquishment of their claim on the land, thereby gaining support for Vermont's admittance to the Union.

15 years after 1777 was 1792, but Vermont was admitted into the USA as the 14th state in 1791. I have read that the financial settlement was in 1788.

Is "several million" adjusted for inflation? If so, it should say so. I had thought it was 30,000 Spanish milled dollars. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ambassadors[edit]

At the beginning of this article it says that "Vermont did not send or receive diplomats," while later on it says that "...appointed ambassadors to France, the Netherlands, and the American government seated in Philadelphia." Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hartbc (talkcontribs) 03:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Use proper places Names for the period[edit]

use proper name places for the period...or else it gets confusing

"Overtures by Ethan Allen to join Canada failed". Canada was not a country. Areas were just Like the rest of the British colonies (NY, NJ etc,) on the N American continent..they were that just separate colonies. So this mean colony of Upper Canada????. Most of "canada" did not start coming together until after the declaration of independence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.154.230 (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect "Lower Canada" or Quebec. Upper Canada was a bit further off and maybe unpopulated at the time. The problem even about this word is that the use of "lower" presumes the presence of the other, "Upper." I'm not sure our general references are sophisticated enough to distinguish. May have more specific ones describing who someone talked to which would pin it down. Student7 (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. The correct government was the Province of Quebec. Canada didn't exist, neither upper nor lower, until after Vt. joined the union in 1791. The talks were long concluded by then. Thanks for pointing this out. Student7 (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The name[edit]

This article says that the name "Vermont Republic" was invented in the 20th century, but also that while Vermont was independent its coins referred to "Vermontis Res Publica". Obviously those who knew Latin also knew that the Latin phrase "res publica" was normally rendered in English as "republic". Even if they more frequently used the term "State of Vermont", it seems reasonable to say that its coins referred to the Vermont Republic; hence the term was used in the 18th century. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The article says:

While the government of Vermont did cloak itself in several forms of a nation, it also frequently referred to itself as a state.

So what?? France is a nation, and France is a state. There can be states within a nation that is itself also a state (as in the USA) or nations within a state (as in the case of England, Scotland, and Wales within the United Kingdom) or states that are also nations (France, Switzerland), or states within a nation that is not itself a state (East Germany and West Germany before 1990). One must not assume that 18th-century Americans understood the word "state" in the same way that Americans came to use the term later. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Act of the legislature[edit]

I rm the entire corpus of the legislative act binding the state to the union. It seemed pretty mundane, nothing unusual. A bit space consuming and uninteresting of itself. A bit WP:UNDUE IMO. Student7 (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I know. I gave it some thought and due to continuing confusion over what was the actual desire of Vermonters of that time, thought it best to, as a NPOV matter, let the doc speak for itself. I've been sorting through this, Second Vermont Republic, Green Mountain Boys and a host of others trying to figure out how they've all drifted astray from refs, docs and, frankly, what is common knowledge in Vermont. My thought was that a turning point such as this could bear the actual doc in addition w/ref. The section about the Haldimand Affair essentially misleads a reader as to the true nature of the negotiations. Perhaps that could be improved first. Vttor (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Anachronistic map[edit]

The map used in the article only shows Vermont in its present situation. A map of Vermont in the 1780s is needed to accurately illustrate the article. 58.7.94.82 (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

strange assertion[edit]

"Overtures by Ethan Allen to the organizers to join the Province of Quebec failed. "

This seems to be a rather odd claim, since Quebec was then an English colony and Allen was an American patriot. How does it make sense ?Eregli bob (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

allen was a VERMONT patriot. it was not part of the USA at the time Rjensen (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
National identity was rather patchy and confused in parts of the emerging US. See Haldimand Affair for more info on the Quebec negotiations. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

direct quoting of source[edit]

The phrase ". . . the only state admitted without conditions of any kind, either those prescribed by the congress or the state from which it was carved." is verbatim from the cited source, and hence amounts to a copyright violation. 50.37.103.181 (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Read this. Writing an encyclopedia is a scholarly use. Quoting less than a sentence isn't a copyright violation it's fair use. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

status = Unrecognized state[edit]

I reverted an edit that put "Unrecognized state" in the status parameter of the infobox. There are two reasons for this reversion.

First, the documentation of Template:Infobox former country specifies several possible values for the status parameter, and "Unrecognized state" isn't one of the.

Also, calling it an unrecognized state is simplistic. True, it wasn't recognized during most of its existence, but once Vermont was admitted to the union, Vermont's constitution was accepted by Congress unchanged, and all the actions of the Vermont Republic were recognized as valid. For example, all the towns chartered by the Vermont Republic and all the land granted are valid and to this very day a person being thorough about a title search can trace the ownership of a piece of land back to the Vermont Republic land grant. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Vermont discussed at the federal convention of 1787[edit]

Here are all of the mentions of Vermont in the constitutional convention of 1787 that were cited in the passage I just deleted from the article. To say that New York had already acquiesced at that time is not at all supported by these passages:

Mr. L. MARTIN opposed the latter part. Nothing he said would so alarm the limited States as to make the consent of the large States claiming the Western lands, necessary to the establishment of new States within their limits. It is proposed to guarantee the States. Shall Vermont be reduced by force in favor of the States claiming it? Frankland & the Western country of Virginia were in a like situation.

On Mr. Govr. Morris's motion to substitute &c it was agreed to.

N. H. no. Mas. ay. Ct. no. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. no. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN15]

Art: XVII- [FN16] before the House, as amended.

Mr. SHERMAN was against it. He thought it unnecessary. The Union can not dismember a State without its consent.

Mr. LANGDON thought there was great weight in the argument of Mr. Luther Martin, and that the proposition substituted by Mr. Govr. Morris would excite a dangerous opposition to the plan.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS thought on the contrary that the small States would be pleased with the regulation, as it holds up the idea of dismembering the large States.

Mr. BUTLER. If new States were to be erected without the consent of the dismembered States, nothing but confusion would ensue. Whenever taxes should press on the people, demagogues would set up their schemes of new States.

Docr. JOHNSON agreed in general with the ideas of Mr. Sherman, but was afraid that as the clause stood, Vermont would be subjected to N. York, contrary to the faith pledged by Congress. He was of opinion that Vermont ought to be compelled to come into the Union.

Mr. LANGDON said his objections were connected with the case of Vermont. If they are not taken in, & remain exempt from taxes, it would prove of great injury to N. Hampshire and the other neighbouring States

Michael Hardy (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Sea-toSea Grants[edit]

Article states that smaller states supported Vermont statehood in part due to impact of "sea-to-sea" grants. The link for "sea-to-sea" leads to short article on "English Colonial grants" and definetly does not describe what "sea-to-sea" might mean. Furthermore this section does not have any sources/references to back this assertion. I would propose at the very least removing the link for "sea-to-sea" as it adds nothing to the current article. Spaceman13 (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

California a sovereign state...[edit]

It is a bit disingenuous to say that California was ever a sovereign state... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.95.179.50 (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Counties?[edit]

Did the Republic, under any name, ever have county governments? 2602:304:CDA6:4260:7175:E1E6:8CA0:413B (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Color changes needed to the map[edit]

The map that is used (File:Non-Native Nations Claim over NAFTA countries 1790.png) should have the Louisiana Area as French (brown color) and not Spanish (pink) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.59.155 (talk) 09:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Revolutionary War Timeline Reference Broken[edit]

Reference 18, the Revolution War Timeline by the Vermont Historical Society, has a link that leads to a 404 error page. 13thehappykid. 21:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)