Talk:Vermont Republic

Talk From U.S. Page
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
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)

End material copied from U.S. page Ken Gallager (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Recognition discussion, continued
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)

Bill of Rights
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

Removal of the flag from the infobox
I'm wondering if the infobox should actually show flag of the Green Mountain Boys. According to what I was able to find so far, Vermont Republic never had any official flag that we know of. This green flag, was a flag used by a local military group during the Revolutionary War, and is now well regarded as historical/local patriotic symbol. But, I personally so far, wasn't even able to find anything that would state that flag was actually flown by the state. Best I had found so far, is website stating something like "some think that the flag was flown by the Vermont Republic".

So, as of now, with my current understanding of the topic, it seems to me more like modern re-imagination of history, due to modern association of that historical symbol with that historical period overall, depicte them not actually being connected.

I would love if there is somebody more knowledge in this topic (Vermont history etc).

As of now, I think that the flag should be removed from there

Thank you for your attention :)

Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * , I think this is definitely another example of one Wikipedia edit from 2006 sticking around to the point it is now disseminated mainstream. Due to how long the flag has stood, it may be worth discussing in a more prevalent place like WP:NORN. Curbon7 (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is widely used source for a lot of copy&paste websites, many of which do not acknowledge where they got (stole) the info from. That said, it is beyond wrong to claim that since an error occurred and has persisted "for so long" it shouldn't be corrected. It is the very antithesis of what Wikepedia is all about. I don't have a dog in this fight, but really? If the incorrect material is widespread, it is probably noteworthy, but it is STILL WRONG. So, a section specifically about flags (containing both correct information and noting the incorrect) is suggested. And, why not?, maybe even admitting that Wikipedia had been the source of the blunder. It is, imho, important enough to be a significant source of information and so needs a better set of editors who actually care enough about being accurate to not allow false or misleading content to persist.98.21.68.176 (talk) 10:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)