USA > Massachusetts > Hampshire County > Amherst > Historical address delivered at the centennial celebration, in Amherst, Mass., July 4, 1876 > Part 2
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
*The novelist incorrectly attributes this exploit to Gen. Whalley.
1
£
19
FIRST SETTLEMENT OF AMHERST.
first or second division, which were reckoned of equal value, and also in the third, which was of less value. In the former allotment, the head of a family drew 261 acres; a man (over sixteen) without a family, drew half as much. In the eastern division a householder drew 413 acres.
Mr. Judd, the accomplished historian of Hadley, a man whose abilities and attainments fitted him for the highest historical work, says there is no definite information show- ing when men first began to plant themselves in Amherst. first called East Hadley. A Hatfield man, Mr. Foote. is said to have put up a rude dwelling in East Amherst, just north of where the second parish meeting house stands. as early as 1703. He expected to get a living there by hunting and fishing, but failed and abandoned the place, which long after continued to be called " Foote-folly Swamp." While danger was apprehended from the In- dians, there was little disposition to occupy outlying lands of the towns; but after the close of ".Father Rolle's War."* in the fall of 1725, this impediment was removed. so that at the years 1727 or 1728 we may safely place the first permanent settlement of this town. After the origi- nal survey and allotment by Hadley in 1703, these lands were undoubtedly much improved, some portion of them was cleared and fenced, and the way prepared for the first permanent dwellers. In 1731 the number of actual set- tlers was eighteen. viz : John Ingram. Sr .. John Ingram, Jr., Ebenezer Kellogg, John Cowls, Jona. Cowls, Samuel Boltwood, Samnel Hawley, Nathaniel Church. John Wells. Aaron Smith, Nath'l Smith, Richard Chauncey, Stephen
*Said to have been instigated by the Jesuit, Father Rasles.
..
20
AMHERST PRECINCT.
Smith, John Nash. Jr., Joseph Wells, Ebenezer Scoville. Ebenezer Ingram and Ebenezer Dickinson. After this date the growth of the precinct must have been rapid. for in 1758 its population had become greater than that of the mother town, and in 1790 Amherst had about 1200 inhab- itants, while Hadley had only some 600. The first per- manent settler in the Eastern Division was John Morton. who built his house about the year 1745.
On the fifth of January. 1730. a committee was ap- pointed by Hadley to lay out a burying ground here. In June, 1734, John Ingram and others petitioned the Gen- eral Court to be made a separate precinct. Hadley sent Capt. Luke Smith to Boston to oppose it, and it appears that the opposition was then effectual. for in December fol- lowing we find the same application successfully repeated. The petition was that they might be constituted Hadley third precinct, with a territory seven miles long by two and three-fourths miles wide, bounded by Sunderland, the Bay Road. Equivalent. or Pelham, lands. and Hadley Commons, and it was granted on condition that the precinct should build a meeting house, and settle a learned Ortho- dox minister in three years. The first precinet meeting was held October Sth, 1735, when it was voted to hire a minister and build a meeting-house. David Parsons. Jr .. the first pastor, was a Harvard graduate, and began to preach here in 1735. His acceptance of the call was as follows: " Comply'd with the request of the inhabitants of the third precinet of Hadley, per me David Parsons. Jr." His ordination, however. did not occur until 1739.
21
THE FIRST MEETING HOUSE.
Ilis annual salary varied from sixty to eighty pounds sterling, besides one hundred good loads of wood. This was the highest salary paid in the neighborhood, except that of Mr. Hooker at Northampton. Mr. Parsons died here in 1781, and was succeeded the next year by his son David Parsons. D. D. This settlement was bitterly op- posed by Capt. Ebenezer Mattoon and others. and it was in consequence of this quarrel that the second parish was formed at the East Street in 1782 or 1783. The first meeting-house in the town was begim in 1738. but was not finished until 1753, though meetings were held in it prior to 1742. It stood within the present College grounds, on the Observatory site. In 1749 it was voted to hire a suitable person - to blow the Kunk." This was the signal for public worship and meetings. There seems to have been some disagreement among the settlers. as to where the meeting-house should be located. At first it was voted to set it " up the hill. east of John Nash's house;" a month later. November 25. they voted to set it " near the Hartling Stake," so called. In December they changed the place again, and finally in 1738, they restored the proposed building to the site originally chosen, where it was built. This " Hartling Stake" was a noted spot. often mentioned in the early history of the town, and was near the place where the Amherst Honse now stands.
I must not omit to notice the bitter controversy which arose in connection with the building of the second meet- ing house just before the Revolution. It shook the eccles-
22
THE GREAT CONTROVERSY.
iastical and social foundations of the town. and engen- dered feuds which had not been forgotten seventy-five years later. Owing to the increase of population, the old house had become too small for the worshippers, and in 1771 the question of building a new one began to be agi- tated. The first permanent settlers had located near what is now the centre village, and there the meeting- house was naturally placed. The more eligible lots were thus taken up early, so that the principal accessions in later years were in the outskirts, around what are now the north and south villages. At length these outskirts came to contain a majority of the population and church- goers, and taking advantage of some family rivalries, and of the natural jealousy of the extremes against the centre, a plan was formed of dividing the District into two parts by an east and west line through the centre. each part to constitute a separate District, and eventually a new town. At a District meeting held January 13, 1772, a majority voted in favor of the proposed division. But as this move involved legal difficulties and necessary delays, another meeting was held April 14, 1773, when a considerable ma- jority voted "to build two new meeting-houses, at the joint expense of the whole District." Neither of these was to be located near the centre, a plan which would throw the heaviest share of the cost on the wealthy tax-payers liv- ing there, and at the same time leave them farthest removed from the new houses. The number of real estate owners in town, when the controversy began, was 120. of whom 70-a good majority-were opposed to any divi-
:
23
THE GREAT CONTROVERSY.
· sion, and in favor of placing the new meeting-lionse near the site of the old one. But in addition to the 120 land owners, there were about 25 legal voters. at the ends of the District,-mostly farmer's sons-to whom their fathers had conveyed small tracts of land. to enable them, as the law then was. to vote on the question at issue. These made a clear majority in favor of building two houses. In this dilemma. the seventy heads of families- living mostly in the centre village-applied to the Logis- lature for a stay of proceedings and a hearing. Their petition stated that the total ratable estate in Amherst, exclusive of what was held by non-residents, was €7,597.5, of which the petitionersowned £4,220.13; that they and their fathers were the original settlers of the District, who bore the principal part of the burden of begining and bringing forward the settlement at first; of building a meeting-house; of supporting the ministry, and all other charges; and had continued to bear the greater part of expenses of every kind from the original settlement of the Parish to that day. They represented the injustice of requiring them to pay the larger part of the cost of the two meeting-houses, when they were to be deprived of the advantages then enjoyed, as the dividing line between the new parishes, coming at the centre of the town, would leave them in the outskirts: they em- phasized the fact that the whole territory was not too large for one town and one congregation, and that to make the partition would be to create "two weak, and already ruined," sociefies; and they concluded with this
..
2.4
THE GREAT CONTROVERSY.
urgent appeal :. .. Your petitioners further represent that they have never used any undue method to multiply their voters, choosing rather to want a majority than to procure it by unfair means. And now, finding all attempts of accommodation to be in vain; and despairing of justice without the interposition of Legislative power, they pray the attention of your Excellency and Honors to their un- happy situation." On the 18th of June following. the Legislature passed an order, staying all proceedings rela- tive to the building of any new meeting-house or meeting- houses in the District, excepting upon or near the spot where the house then stood; and February 4, 1774, a committee, consisting of Artemas Ward of the Council, and Mr. Pickering and Col. Bacon of the House, was di- reeted to repair to Amherst, view the same, hear the par- ties, and make report; and it was ordered "that the Inhabitants in the mean time wholly surcease all proceed- ings relative to buildling any new meeting-house or meet- ing-houses in said District." This action of the Legisla- ture and the coming on of the war, seem to have put an end to the plan for dividing the town, though the social breach was not healed during that generation. The new meeting house in the centre was not built until 1788, some five or six years after the second parish had been formed at the East Street.
Although Amherst was incorporated a District in 1759, it did not enjoy the right of representation in the Legis- lature until the opening of the Revolution. Its first sep- arate representative was Nathaniel Dickinson, Jr., who
1
25
DISTRICTS AND TOWNS.
was sent to the first Provincial Congress, which met at Sa- lem, adjourned to Concord, and then to Cambridge. in Octo- ber, 1774. Up to that time the District had united with Hadley, South Hadley and Granby in the exercise of this privilege. The reason was this: About the year 1753 the goverment of Great Britain became jealous of the increasing power of the representative feature of the Mas- sachusetts Colony. The Colonial Governor was therefore instructed to give his assent to the incorporation of no new towns, unless a restraint should be placed, in each case, upon the power of sending representatives. Hence the system of districts, which conferred all the functions of towns, except this one of electing representatives. By a general law of 1786, all districts incorporated prior to January 1st, 1777, were declared towns, and Amherst was included in that number. Still, from the opening of the Revolutionary contest in 1774, this vicinage exercised, unchallenged, the privileges and influence of a town, and assumed the title in 1776, all in violation, probably, of this restriction by the Crown.
This incident of ministerial jealousy illustrates the im- portant place which the town occupied in the New Eng- land polity. It has been styled " the nucleus of our polit- ical power." Hildreth says: "Each town constituted, in fact, a little republic, almost complete in itself." But in the West and South the primal unit has generally been the county. There every town is a village with its mayor or president, and its aldermen, who administer its govern- ment. The origin of the distinction was ecclesiastical. New England, which was purely Congregational in relig-
20
TOWN MEETINGS.
ious polity, was also, by necessary analogy, purely demo- cratie in her civil government; while in other parts of the . country, prevailing Episcopal or Presbyterian ideas im- pressed themselves upon civil affairs, and appeared in the political structure of the colonies. Hence in New Eng- land, when the Revolution came on, the towns exercised almost exclusive influence in determining the policy of the Colonial governments. The Legislatures were constantly appealing to the towns for instructions, for supplies, and for men. It was a town meeting held in the Old South meeting-house at Boston, on the 16th of December, 1774, which adjourned to Griffin's wharf, destroyed the tea, and precipitated the conflict with England. In those days it used to be said that Massachusetts was governed in town meetings. These at length became so frequent in Boston, and so important in their influence, that the Colonial Gov- ernor prohibited the calling of any more. But this official soon found that his prohibition was useless. The meet- ings still continued, and upon inquiry it turned out that each was simply a new adjourment of an original town meeting, which had been duly called some time prior to his order. Thus Boston maintained a perpetual town meeting for many months. Our fathers understood and valued, as their truest safeguard, this fundamental feature of their free system. We, also, must ever cherish it. We must not forget nor neglect these assemblies of freemen, where the interests of every man, however humble, find full and fair hearing, and where free discussion furnishes the surest shield for liberty and law.
27
FRENCH AND INDIAN WARS.
The part taken by our town in the French and Indian wars was so connected with that of Hadley, that a fair division of credit is not easy. The following Amherst men were out in the campaign of 1747-8: Ens. Solomon Boltwood, Sergt. Solomon Keyes, Corp. William Monta- gue, Corp. Joseph Hawley, Timothy Nash, Joseph Clary, Anson Smith, Pelatiah Smith, Hezekiah Belding, Samuel Ingram, David Nash, William Boltwood, Jona. Dickinson, Eleazar Mattoon, Gideon Parsons, Reuben Smith, Joseph Kellogg, Eleazar Nash, Josiah Chauncey, Joseph Alexan- der, Ebenezer Dickinson, Ebenezer Kellogg, John Ingram, Stephen Smith.
The records of the last Indian war, 1754-1763. are more complete of enlisted and drafted men. Amherst sent sixty-four to the different campaigns. Of these, five died in the service or of disease contracted in camp, viz: Samuel Hawley and his son, Elijah, Isaac Ward, Jr., Ben- jamin Harwood and Micah Guilford. Lieut. Jonathan Dickinson and his company, comprising sixteen Amherst men, were ordered out "to defend the Western Frontiers when Fort William Henry was beseiged in 1757." Sergt. Reuben Dickinson, (who became the noted Captain in the Revolution) with five Amherst men, was in Capt. Moses Porter's company, in the Crown Point expedition of 1755, and was out in the "Bloody Morning Scout" of September Sth of that year, under Col. Ephraim Williams, who fell that day, and from whom the sister College in Berkshire derives its name. Samuel Hawley, his son, and three others enlisted in Capt. Nathaniel Dwight's company,
..
28
TORIES.
and were engaged in the same expedition. At the end of the campaign in December, Sergt. Dickinson and a squad of men returned home through the woods, rather than wait for transportation by the traveled way. Thus these young men were training, in hardships and battles, for the more important duties they were soon to assume in the war of the Revolution.
A number of the leading men of Amherst were un- friendly to the Revolution, notable among whom were Mr. Parsons, the minister, and Esquire Chauncey. Judd names about a dozen of the leading men who were tories. Mr. Parsons' influence was probably the most efficient cause in producing this result. His intimate friend, Rev. Aaron Hill of Shutesbury, was also a zealous loyalist, and used to give such offense to the people here, by the ex- pression of unpatriotic views when he exchanged with Mr. Parsons, that they finally voted in town meeting that he should be prohibited the Amherst pulpit. The tradi- tion is that sometimes, during the interval of divine wor- ship on Sunday, whigs and tories waged such a war of . words that they quite broke up the afternoon meeting.
It is quite possible that the publie sentiment of New England was too severe upon the tories of the Revolution. Most of them were men of mature years, of couservative views, of substantial property, and of considerable stand- ing and influence in the communities where they lived. They were generally men who had most at stake in the contest. who had most to close in a disturbed state of pub- lic affairs, little to gain by any change, and upon whom,
-
20
NATHANIEL DICKINSON. JR.
in case of failure, the vengeance of the crown was likely first to fall. It is not strange that such men hesitated too long before committing themselves and their possessions to the cause of independence. Still. the great majority of the people of Amherst were earnest in the cause of liberty. The patriot leaders were mostly young men. Foremost among them in the ardor with which he devoted himself to the popular cause, was Nath- aniel Dickinson, Jr., who, with the minister's son, David Parsons, Jr., afterwards second minister of the town, was graduated at Harvard College in 1771. These were the first natives of Amherst who went to college, and, so far as I can learn, the only natives of the town who were grad- uated at Harvard, except Ebenezer Boltwood, who was two years their junior at that institution. Mr. Dickinson was a noted character in his day, and many traditions of his eccentric character and carnest temper are preserved among his numerous descendants. Upon his graduation from College he was indentured to Maj. Hawley of North- ampton, for three years, according to the wholesome ro- quirement of that period, to study the law; and in 1774. when the time of that service expired, the young lawyer. then twenty-four years old, burned to exert every energy of youth and high talent in behalf of the liber- ties of his country. He was at once chosen delegate of this town to the first provincial Congress; again, to the second which met at Cambridge in February, 1775; and still again to the third, which met at Watertown in May of the same year. He was likewise Representa-
THE NEWBERRY LIBRARY CHICAGO
30
GENERAL MATTOON.
tive to the General Court in 1778, 1780 and 1783. Once when the tory minister, Mr. Parsons, was compelled to read from the pulpit a proclamation issued by author- ity of the new government, he added to the usual formal conclusion "God save the Commonwealth of Massachu- setts," the following expression of his own views, " But I say, God save the King." The impulsive and patriotic young whig lawyer could not endure such an insult from the tory parson. He sprang to his feet in his pew, and in excited tones cried out, " I say you are "- rascal," prefacing the epithet with an expletive which was thought by those who heard it to be far more emphatic than pious. Mr. Dickinson was most active upon the several town committees of corres- pondence, was the author of a large part of the Revolu- tionary papers of the town, some of which are still pre- served, was moderator at town meetings, town clerk and treasurer, selectman, assessor, and he gave a large part of his time to public business. In 1781 he was appointed Justice of the Peace by Governor Hancock,* after which he was commonly known as "Squire Nat." He was much occupied in the trial of inferior causes, and with the performance of other magisterial duties, which in those days attached to the office which he held. He died in 1802, at the age of 52 years.
Ebenezer Mattoon, Jr.,-better known as Gen. Mat- toon-many here will remember; for he died at an advanced age in 1843. Ale was another of the ardent
*This original commission is in the author's possession.
31
COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE.
young Whigs of Amherst. He was graduated at Dart- mouth in 1776, and was for many years Representative and Senator in the Legislature; afterwards member of Congress, Sheriff of Hampshire county and Adjutant General of the State. Hle was, on the whole, the most distinguished public man-native of the town-who has resided in Amherst. He, also, was only twenty-four years of age when he became a representative, in 1781, and his great influence contributed in a marked degree towards keeping Amherst on the right side in the Revolutionary struggle.
In January, 1774, Amherst appointed as its committee of correspondence Moses Dickinson, Reuben Dickinson, Jacob MeDaniels, Nathaniel Dickinson, Jr., and Joseph Williams, and in March the committee reported to the town their draft of a reply to the Boston committee, which was accepted by vote and ordered to be recorded. The document is vigorous and animated in style, and highly patriotic in its tone. The original is still carefully preserved by your esteemed town clerk, Mr. Carter. It is a graphic expression of the excitement and alarm which pervaded the public mind at the period of which I speak, and illustrates how thoroughly the town of Amherst com- mitted herself to the popular cause.
In 1775 it was voted that when the constables for 1774 have collected the province tax for that year, they shall pay the same to a committee of five persons, consisting of Joseph Eastman, Nathaniel Dickinson, Jr., Ebenezer Bolt- wood, Simeon Clark and Moses Dickinson, who shall pay
..
:
32
AMHERST VOTES FOR INDEPENDENCE.
1
the same to Henry Gardner of Stow, instead of Harrison Gray of Boston. In this manner the colonial tax was diverted from the royal to the provincial treasurer.
In 1776, two tories were sent to Northampton jail,- one as " notoriously inimical to American liberty;" the other because he was "an enemy to, and acted in opposi- tion to, the just rights and privileges of America." Their names I do not know.
In 1773, Gov. Hutchinson had commissioned Josiah Chauncey Captain, John Field Lieutenant, and John Nash Ensign, of the Amherst militia. At a meeting of officers in Northampton, in November, 1774, these three men renounced in writing all authority under the Hutch- inson commissions, and subsequently repeated the dis- claimer at Amherst. But the Whigs were suspicious of Chauncey, and required him to " burn all the commissions he had ever received from the king." Tradition says this ceremony took place, with some display, under a tree.
On the 13th of June, 1776, in response to a request sent by the General Assembly of Massachusetts to all the towns, for an expression upon the expediency of a Declara- tion of Independence, Amherst voted as follows : " That should the Honorable Congress, for the safety of the Uni- ted Colonies in America, declare them independent of the Kingdom of Great Britain, we, the inhabitants of the town of Amherst, solemnly engage, with our lives and fortunes, to support them in the measure; and that this Resolve be transmitted to our Representative in General Assem- bly, as instructions to him." Thus spoke the good town.
·
33
WATCHING TORIES.
We may well take pride, to-day, that our sires were brave enough to say that, and to stand by it too, through the discouragements and disasters with which the history of the Revolutionary war was crowded.
It was customary in this town in Revolutionary times. to confine the tories to the limits of their own farms, to keep a striet watch upon their movements, and to allow them to leave their homes only to attend meeting on Sun- day. Two of those who were under this espionage were Isaac Chauncey and Lient. Robert Boltwood. Both had gone to Connecticut, the former in defiance of his parole, the latter on the plea of ill health, and both were wanted back. The Amherst Committee of Safety therefore took the matter in hand, as appears by the following circular :
" IN COMMITTEE OF SAFETY,
AMHERST, MASS., August 26, 1776.
Whereas Isaac Chauncey of said Amherst, convicted of being notoriously inimical to the American states, and confined within certain limits, hath in defiance of anthor- ity, disregarded the injunetions laid on him, and clandes- timely departed ( 'tis supposed ) to some part of Connecti- eut, on no good design; this is therefore to desire the good people of that state or of other states where he may be found, to secure him in such manner that he may not have it in his power to injure America.
Also, whereas Lient. Robert Boltwood of said Amherst. convicted and confined as aforesaid, having obtained lib- erty to journey to New Haven on account of his health. hath absented himself much longer than was expected ; it is therefore desired that he may be carefully inspected where he is. or be sent to his own home.
Per order. NATHANIEL DICKINSON. JR."
.1
34
AMHERST MINUTE MEN.
Whether the refugees were brought back, or came back voluntarily, we are not told. Perhaps these were the "two Amherst tories" who went to Northampton jail.
In 1777 it was voted that the conduct of Rev. David Parsons "is not friendly in regard to the common cause, and that a committee notify him of this vote." Two of his deacons were named for the service, but what was the effect of their call upon him history has not recorded. It is to be presumed, however, from the temper of the times. that both sides had something to say, and that the par- ties had a pretty frank and plain interchange of views. for the sturdy old parson was no craven.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.