USA > Massachusetts > Franklin County > Greenfield > History of Greenfield : shire town of Franklin county, Massachusetts, Vol. I > Part 22
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).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49
The Revolutionary War period was one of rest for all minor questions, although there was some action on the part of Greenfield for redress in 1782, but after this the matter was allowed to rest until 1836, when, upon the petition of Philo Temple and others, the matter of the setting off of Cheapside to Greenfield again came before the Legislature, and after the appointment of a strong committee of which Linus Childs was chairman, to sit during the intermission, the matter was re- ferred to the next Legislature, with instructions to view and report. At the session of 1837 the committee reported " that they approached the subject with the unanimous feeling that the petitioners required strong and satisfactory reasons to war- rant the granting of their petition ; that the most obvious con- siderations of policy and expediency naturally suggest that the
262
263
EFFORTS TO ANNEX CHEAPSIDE
boundaries of towns which have long been established should not be disturbed for slight and trivial causes." They also-re- ported that the territory comprised 1,350 acres ; the whole number of inhabitants, men, women and children, upon this territory is 114; number of legal voters, 22 ; 14 petitioners and eight remonstrants ; whole value of real estate, $80,000; petitioners own $60,000, remonstrants, $20,000. Deerfield contains, including this territory, 19,801 acres ; Greenfield, 12,770 acres ; if this territory is annexed Deerfield would con- tain 18,450 acres and Greenfield 14, 120 acres. " The only connection between Deerfield and Greenfield is by a toll- bridge (since made free), which bridge is one mile, 117 rods from Greenfield court-house, and one mile, 293 rods, from the Deerfield (brick) meeting-house."
The committee in their very interesting report went into the history of the territory-the sentimental considerations- which they concluded were of equal merit, as the whole terri- tory was originally one town, and the fathers of each portion equally shared all the labors, toils and dangers attendant upon the settlement of this ancient town. They declared that the whole matter was resolved into a question of expediency, and that in their unanimous opinion the Deerfield river and Shel- don's brook was the natural boundary and should be estab- lished as such. At this period the House of Representatives consisted of about 600 members, Franklin county having 30. This report was referred to the committee upon towns, who made a unanimous report in favor of setting off Cheapside to Greenfield, but when the vote was taken it stood 192 for division and 234 opposed, and the bill was lost. Upon re- ceipt of the news at Deerfield the people were nearly crazy with joy. The old cannon was brought forth into the road near the Asa Stebbins place, and 42 guns (the majority against division) fired toward Greenfield, and a dinner ensued at which speeches and resolutions, both patriotic and pointed, were in order, while the ladies prepared a splendid banner nearly 100
264
DAVID R. WAIT'S PETITION
feet in length emblazoned with stars and the words, "The triumph of principle," which they caused to be hung from the church spire; the whole affair concluding with the ascension of a large fire balloon in the evening which floated in triumph over Greenfield and landed in Bernardston.
The next trial for separation was begun by the petition of David R. Wait and others to the Legislature of 1850, which was subsequently withdrawn at the request of the peti- tioners, for reasons and under circumstances set forth in an able " Address to the members of the Legislature of Massa- chusetts," prepared and published by the petitioners. "David R. Wait and others, who, as residents and owners of real estate in that part of Deerfield known as 'Cheapside,' pre- sented to you early in the present session, their petition pray- ing that said Cheapside may be set off from Deerfield and annexed to Greenfield, have asked the committee having their petition in charge, to report that the petitioners have leave to withdraw." The address continued as follows :
" The reasons which have induced us to adopt this course are as follows : Your Committee on towns, to whom our pe- tition was referred agreed several weeks since, after hearing the parties, to report a recommendation that a special com- mittee be appointed to sit during the recess, view the premises, hear the evidence, and report to the next Legislature. This determination of the committee was announced by them to the representatives from Greenfield (Griswold) and Deerfield (Abercrombie), and a conversation took place in the presence of the committee which induced the petitioners and their counsel to believe that the remonstrants acquiesced in the de- cision of the committee and would not oppose the adoption of their recommendation by the House. We by no means intend to accuse either the counsel of the remonstrants or the representative from Deerfield of any intentional unfairness. We merely state the fact that they were understood to assent to the report of the committee, and that they gave some rea-
265
PETITION WITHDRAWN
1
son for this understanding is evidenced by the fact that the committee understood them precisely as we did. Under this impression, and supposing that the matter was ended for this session, except the formal and unopposed adoption of the rec- ommendation of the committee our counsel returned home. We made no preparation for a hearing upon the merits of the petition, supposing none to be necessary at this time. Subse- quently your committee on towns made its report. When that report was reached in the orders of the day its considera- tion was postponed on motion of the representative from Greenfield, in consequence of the absence of sickness of the representative from Deerfield. When it was finally taken up, to the great surprise of the petitioners, it was found that the remonstrants were prepared to make a vigorous opposition to it. The result of that opposition you know. The report was recommitted to the committee on towns with instructions to hear the parties and report the present session. In the mean time the session was drawing towards its proposed close. No preparation for a hearing had been made by the peti- tioners. The court of common pleas for the county of Frank- lin was just about to hold its March term in Greenfield, com- mencing on the 18th, and taking up the time of the counsel for a fortnight or more. During that time neither a view of the premises by the committee nor the preparation of the case could be attended to. Under these circumstances it seemed to us idle to attempt to prepare for a hearing at this session and we have therefore made a request for leave to withdraw our petition. We wish, however, to have it distinctly under- stood that we do not abandon our case. With the fullest confidence in the justice of our claim, knowing that our in- terests as inhabitants of Cheapside would be greatly promoted by the proposed change of our municipal relations, believing that any committee or Legislature fully acquainted with the facts and perfectly impartial, will grant our prayer, we propose to bring the matter anew before some future Legislature."
266
ANNEXATION DEFEATED
At this time Greenfield voted III in favor of annexation to 30 against it, and instructed its representative, Whiting Griswold, to urge the admission of Cheapside, but he was met by the astute practices of Deerfield's representative, Aber- crombie, and the opposition of Philo Temple, who was the leader of the struggle in 1837 for annexation and was defeated. In 1861 David R. Wait again appeared with a new petition, making the same old plea for annexation, with Mr. Davis of Greenfield and Mr. Abercrombie again in the House from Deerfield. Upon the day of the final vote Charles H. Munn appeared with a petition signed by 139 voters from Greenfield in remonstrance and the vote of the House stood 90 in favor of division and 124 against, and annexation was again refused. Once more the old cannon pealed forth in defiance to its re- bellious children of Cheapside and their abettors in Greenfield, and Deerfield was decorated with flags and in want thereof shawls and gaily colored materials. The fight of 1888 was based upon the petition of Joel De Wolf, who was the owner of property at a place known as South Wisdom, upon the northerly or northwesterly side of the Deerfield river. Mr. De Wolf was for annexing all the land on the northerly side of the Deerfield or none, and after a hard fight the measure, although advocated by Freeman C. Griswold, member of the House for Greenfield, was successfully opposed by Henry C. Haskell, member for Deerfield, the final vote standing 51 yeas to 103 nays.
The long continued struggle having now reached its cul- mination, the events leading up to its close will be stated : The venerable issue made its last ascent of Beacon Hill at the commencement of the session of 1896.
A meeting of the citizens of Cheapside was held at the Green river schoolhouse, November 29, 1895, and they decided that an effort should be made to have that part of Deerfield lying north of the Deerfield river and east of the Sheldon brook detached from Deerfield and annexed to Greenfield. A peti-
267
FIGHT OF 1896
tion was drawn up which every legal voter in the district signed.
Upon the authority of the chairman of the Deerfield as- sesors, it was stated that the valuation of the town of Deerfield was $1,585,519 ; that of the district of Cheapside within the proposed lines, owned by residents, was $161,162; owned by non-residents, $190,925, making a total valuation of $352,087, within the territory in question. (Population of Deerfield, in 1895, was 3,007 ; in 1900, it was 1,969, showing a loss of 1,038.) Polls in the whole town, 843 ; in Cheapside, 273 : Taxes (1895) whole town, $21,951.79 ; in Cheapside, $5,052,71. This computation makes it apparent that the territory in question held twenty-two per cent of Deerfield's valuation and paid twenty-three per cent of the town's taxes.
The filing of the petition for the setting off of Cheapside wakened the energies of the anti-annexationists, and three town meetings were held before February 15, 1896, for the purpose of raising money to oppose the measure ; but the an- nexationists rallied enough votes at each to prevent such action by the necessary two-thirds majority vote.
At the hearing before the legislative committee several prom- inent citizens of South Deerfield and some from the old street, advocated letting Cheapside be annexed to Greenfield. Feb- ruary 7th the legislative committee visited the territory com- prehended in the bill in company with representative men of both towns. March 12th, the committee of the legislature unanimously passed the bill in favor of the petitioners, and agreed to report it to the legislature, with an amendment de- fining the western boundary, where it was difficult to determine which little stream was " Sheldon's brook." Friday April 3d, the bill for annexation passed the third reading in the house, but by some mistake its final passage was delayed until April 23d, when it was ordered to be engrossed, without a count.
During the passage of the bill by the house it was ably fought with motions of delay, by assertions that a more per-
.
268
STRATEGY IN THE LEGISLATURE
manent line than the Deerfield river should be found ; that there was a sewer tax due to Deerfield ; that the sequestered land should not be included ; that a referendum to the voters of Deerfield should be attached ; and many other possible ob- jections were urged by Colonel C. L. Young of Springfield, who seemed to be the leader of the opposition. P. D. Mar- tin was the attorney of Deerfield, and was ably assisted by Colonel B. S. Parker of Boston, Major P. D. Bridges, Horatio Hoyt, Honorable George Sheldon, and other influential citi- zens of Deerfield. Herbert C. Parsons was the representative from Greenfield, and managed the interests of the petitioners with great adroitness and sagacity. Urging the merits of an- nexation simply as a matter of justice to the people resident upon the territory in dispute, rather than any desire of his town to obtain Cheapside, he gave consent to the adoption of all meri- torious amendments and successfully combated all others. He was ably sustained by D. C. G. Field, Richard and James H. O'Hara, James M. Burke, and other residents of the disputed territory.
The bill came up in the senate Monday, April 27th, and its friends were in great haste to secure its passage before May Ist, in order that the complication of the tax accruing that day might be avoided. Senator Irwin of Northampton took up the championship of the opposition and endeavored to have the matter postponed until Thursday in order that he might have time to prepare amendments to the bill. Mr. Dana Ma- lone, the senator from Franklin, supported by Senator Bradford, opposed delay and Irwin began making motions to amend the bill. But Mr. Malone had the Senate with him about three to one, and one after another the motions for delay and to amend were disposed of and the bill was passed. Mr. Malone made a motion to suspend the rule and send the bill immediately to the House, but Mr. Irwin gave notice that he would make a motion to reconsider the next day, and Mr. Malone withdrew his motion. The next day Mr. Irwin made his motion to
269
CHEAPSIDE ANNEXED TO GREENFIELD
reconsider, but it was voted down. Mr. Malone stated that the matter before the Senate had been under discussion for one hundred and fifty years and it was time that it was settled. The bill was sent back to the House and Mr. Young tried in vain to defeat its final passage, while Mr. Malone was talking against time in the Senate to hold that body until the bill should be returned for enactment. The oppositionists renewed their objections, but fate was against them, and the bill passed into the hands of the Lieutenant Governor then acting as chief executive. His Honor had promised to give the remonstrants a hearing, which took place May Ist. Here, Honorable George Sheldon, Lawyer Martin, Theodore Childs, Major Bridges and several others appeared for Deerfield, and Senator Malone, Representative Parsons, Lawyer Bailey and several of the petitioners appeared in the interests of the people of the territory in dispute. Assurances were given the Lieutenant Governor that Deerfield should be remunerated for the sewer built in that district, and he signed the bill. Thus, on the 2d day of May, 1896, that portion of Deerfield, known as Cheap- side, became a part of Greenfield, and the contention made by our fathers one hundred and fifty years before, that no other disposition of this territory could be rightly made, was fully justified. Deerfield had made a strenuous fight, sometimes on lines which might be considered a little dubious in fairness, put the old precept had one more illustration, that " nothing is fully settled until it is justly settled."
CHAPTER XXIV
THE SHAYS REBELLION
"In th' olden days of Daniel Shays's, The people called it treason, For any cause to subvert the laws, That rogues might choose to seize on."
I T would require more space than can be afforded to enter into any discussion or dissertation upon the reasons for the unhappy state of affairs which led up to the rebellion against the government of Massachusetts, which gave promi- nence to the name of Daniel Shays. Suffice it to say, that at the close of the Revolutionary War, the public debt of the state amounted to more than { 1,300,000, without reckoning the { 250,000 due from the new commonwealth to her officers and soldiers for their services in the army. Beside this great public debt, each town owed large sums of money borrowed for the purpose of furnishing supplies to its troops in the field, in response to the frequent requisitions made by the govern- ment. The private debts of individuals were proportional to those of the state, and the condition of the currency was such that in a large measure effort to liquidate was largely abandoned. It was an era of conventions. The central power, called the Provincial Congress, was until 1780 but a convention of del- egates from the several towns. In the years 1782 and 1783, no less than nine conventions were held in Hampshire county, the members at first vainly striving to devise some method which might bring relief from the troubles which so dis- couraged the people. · But these popular bodies soon fell into the control of voluble demagogues, who soon led their followers into direct conflict with law.
270
271
SAMUEL ELY'S REBELLION
One of the most despicable of these leaders was Samuel Ely,* of Conway. He was a leading member of a convention held in Hadley, February 11, 1782. For his utterances at that time he was arrested and brought before Major Joseph Hawley, February 14th, charged with " treasonable practices." He escaped with little, if any, punishment, but when in April the Court of the Sessions of the Peace undertook to hold their session, Ely and a crowd of sympathizers endeavored to stop its proceedings. t He spent much of his time travelling over the county, stirring up sedition. He asserted that " he had been to all the Towns in the Lower part of the county, and that they were all for breaking the Courts up." Also that " the courts of law should be broken up and that he could raise 2,000 men for that purpose, if he could get anybody to lead them." His followers, although exhorted, urged and commanded by him so to do, could not be driven to disperse the court, but they greatly interfered with its deliberations. Ely was arrested and bound over for his appearence at the Supreme Judicial Court to be held at Northampton, April 30th. His bondsmen surrendered him to the sheriff, and being in- dicted by the grand jury, his case came up May 6th, at which time he plead not guilty, but he afterward retracted this plea, and was sentenced to pay a fine of £ 50, and suffer imprison- ment for six months, and was ordered to give bonds for good behavior for three years, and pay the costs of prosecution. The sheriff took him to the jail in Springfield. On the 12th of June, a mob of about one hundred fifty men, mostly from
* " Ely was an unlicensed and disorderly preacher and could not obtain an ordination. 'He possessed the spirit, and so far as his slender abilities would permit, the arts of a demagogue in an unsual degree. He was voluble, vehement in address, bold, persevering, active, brazen faced in wickedness. . The Association of New London County some years before, when his character was very imperfectly known or suspected licensed him to preach, and he was employed by the people of Somers, Ct. Afterwards he was brought before a council and pronounced to be wholly unqualified to be a preacher. He left Somers and drifted into Hampshire county, taking up his residence in Conway." Dwight's Travels, vol. 2, pp. 275, 276. t Trumbull's History of Northampton,
272
THE MOB AT NORTHAMPTON
the hill towns of northwestern Hampshire, marched into Springfield, and breaking into the jail rescued Ely, and fled up the east side of the river. Colonel Porter of Hadley, high sheriff, soon pursued, and several lively skirmishes resulted, with no loss of life. After a parley, during which time Ely escaped, five men from each side agreed that the whole multitude should march to Northampton and there continue the negotiations. It was finally agreed that both parties should sign a petition to the General Court praying for relief, and that Ely should be given up. As Ely was not to be had, Captain Abel Dins- more, of Conway, Leiutenant Perez Bardwell, of Deerfield and Paul King, of Northampton, were selected as hostages for the production of Ely. Ely not appearing, the hostages were committed to jail. A rumor took possession of the mob that the hostages were held for punishment as principals. The jail was strongly guarded and no attack was made. The next day the crowd was largely increased, but the sheriff was equal to the occasion, and twelve hundred militia were at his com- mand. Captain Reuben Dickinson of Amherst seemed to be the commander of the mob, and he had captured a posse of men from Deerfield marching to support the sheriff. He de- manded a conference to be held within two and a half hours after delivery of the message, one mile outside Northampton. The sheriff declined the proposed meeting. The mob de- manded that the hostages be released, declaring that on refusal they would burn the town. This condition of things continued until Sunday, the 16th, when Dickinson, just ready to com- mence an attack, was pursuaded to enter the prison with some of his men. There they met the hostages who advised Cap- tain Dickinson not to make any attack, and an agreement to surrender Ely was renewed, which was carried out, and the hostages were released. Ely was sent to Boston for safe-keep- ing .*
* This account of the Ely disturbances is compiled from Trumbull's History of Northampton, and Sheldon's History of Deerfield,
273
AMNESTY GRANTED
November 4, 1782, the General Court with extreme moder- ation, considering the great crime committed, passed an act " that all Riots, Routs and unlawful Assemblies, Disorders and Disturbances, committed, commanded, acted, done, or made within the said County of Hampshire, since the first day of January last, and before the Tenth Day of August last, and all rescues, and Breaches of the Peace, Assaults, Batteries, and Imprisonments whatsoever, be and are hereby pardoned, released, indemnified, discharged, and put into utter oblivion ; and that all and every Person or Persons, excepting Samuel Ely, acting, advising, or assisting, abetting and coun- selling the same, be and are hereby pardoned, released, acquit- ted, indemnified and discharged from the same, and of and from all Judgments, Indictments, Convictions, Penalties and Forfeitures therefor, are hereby declared null and void."
The leaders of the insurgent element in the western. counties took every occasion to create jealousy against members of the legal profession ; lawyers were in a sense officers of the court, and a feeling against the members of the bar was easily diverted into a clamor against the courts. A convention of delegates from fifty towns met in Hatfield in August, 1786, and after spending several days in discussion, passed a long series of resolutions against the government, and the execution of the laws. Under the influence engendered by this formidable con- vention, nearly fifteen hundred insurgents assembled in North- ampton on the last Tuesday of August and prevented the sitting of the court prescribed by law.
Immediately, His Excellency, James Bowdoin, Governor, issued a most feeling and spirited proclamation, calling upon all good citizens and officers to assist in stamping out such treasonable actions.
The insurgents determined to prevent the sitting of the Su- preme Court at Springfield, in order that no indictments could be found against any insurgent in arms. But they were outgeneralled by the governor, who ordered the courthouse to
18
274
THE SHAYS REBELLION
be taken into possession of the militia under General William Shepard then commanding six hundred men. When the day for the sitting of the court came, the insurgents appeared in superior numbers under the command of Captain Daniel Shays, * but they were sadly lacking in arms and equipment. The court remained in session four days, but such was the confusion incident to the occupation of the courthouse by the army, and the large concourse of insurgents in its vicinity, that the court resolved to omit the session in Berkshire, and adjourned.
The insurgents were very angry at the occupation of the courthouse by the militia, and behaved in the most tantalizing and provoking manner, but General Shepard adroitly, by timely concessions, prevented any fatal collision.
Large numbers of the insurgents assembled in Worcester at the sitting of the courts early in December, 1786, but the courts met and adjourned agreeably to the Governor's request to January 23, 1787. 1 As the Judicial Courts were to sit at Springfield, December 26th, Shays marched with his men to that town. They took possession of the courthouse, and when
* Daniel Shays was a sergeant in a company of minute men formed and drilled by Rufus Putnam in 1774. Responding to the Lexington alarm, Putnam marched with his company and was made major. Shays being active and brave soon became an officer and was a lieutenant in 1780. He was in the battle of Bunker Hill, and also in the engagements previous to the surrender of Burgoyne. Lafayette presented him with a sword, and Shays, having a good one already, sold the one presented to him. This act gave his associate officers and the men of his command mortal offence. An effort was made to have him tried by a court-martial. Disgusted, he resigned his commission in 1780, enraged against Washington and all his fellows. After his fail- ure to wreck the state government, and his flight to New York state, he became very poor, and depended in a great measure for his support upon a pension granted to him by the national government for his valuable services during the Revolution. He died at Sparta, N. Y., September 29, 1825.
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.