USA > New Hampshire > Cheshire County > Chesterfield > History of Chesterfield, Cheshire county, N.H., from the incorporation of "township number one," by Massachusetts, in 1736, to the year 1881; together with family Histories and genealogies > Part 6
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
There is no record of another town-meeting, this year, till the
61
3d day of December, at which time one was held for the purpose of choosing a representative. Michael Cressey was again elected to represent the town in the General Assembly.
The annual town-meeting for 1779 was held on the 3d day of March. Capt. Hildreth, Lieut. Cobleigh and Warren Snow were elected selectmen. It was voted to raise 1500 pounds* to be laid out on the highways ; and to allow each man three pounds per day for his labor on the same. This comparatively enormous sum was raised, apparently, in order to make allowance for the great depre- ciation (or "under vallument," as it was called by Fairbanks and Rockwood in their address, in '77) of the paper currency.
May 31st, another town-meeting was held, at which Dr. Barnard was chosen to serve as justice of the peace, and the selectmen were directed to inform the General Court of the choice that had been made.
The convention that had assembled at Concord for the purpose of agreeing upon a plan of government for the State, drew up one and sent it to the people for rejection or approval. Accordingly, a town-meeting was held Aug. 16, at which this plan of government was taken into consideration. The record states that it was rejected "by the number of 52 which were all [that were] then present "
On the 18th of November there was another meeting. In the warrant were the two following articles : "To see if the inhabitants will come into a method of bearing an equal proportion in the present war, since it has begun, according to their polls and estates." "To see if the town for the future will raise the men by a tax, when called for." On this latter article, the vote was in the negative ; but no action relative to the former was recorded.
At a meeting held December 7th, another attempt was made to obtain definite action upon an article similar to the one upon which no action was recorded as having been taken at the preceding meet- ing. It was voted to omit the article. At this meeting, Nathaniel Bingham was chosen to represent Chesterfield and Hinsdale in the General Court.
The annual town-meeting for 1780, was held on the first day of March. After the town officers had been chosen, the meeting was adjourned to the 16th of the same month. The inhabitants having
#The pound, N. E. currency, equaled $3.33 1-3.
62
met again, agreeably to adjournment, all the former votes were re-considered, except that for moderator, and the town officers all chosen anew. Licut. Michael Cressey, Lieut. Elisha Rockwood and Ensign Andrew Hastings were elected selectmen. The meet- ing was again adjourned to the 23d ; but no business of much im- portance was transacted at the last adjourned meeting.
On the first day of May another meeting was held, at which it was voted to raise 8,000 pounds to be laid out on the highways. Each man was to be allowed 12 pounds per day for his own labor, and 7 pounds and 4 shillings for the use of a yoke of oxen ! By comparing this enormous sum with what was usually raised for the highways before the currency had depreciated, we can get a toler- ably clear notion of the comparative worthlessness of the paper currency at that time ; for there was nothing in the condition of the highways themselves, that called for the outlay of so large a sum. The bills of credit issued by the State Government, could not be redeemed except by taxation. They were, moreover, exten- sively counterfeited. In 1776, a law was passed in New Hampshire to make these bills legal tender, and if a creditor refused to take them, the debt was regarded as cancelled. At the meeting held May Ist, it was also voted to make the Rev. Mr. Wood's salary "adequate in value to their contract with him, for the present year."
September Ist, there was another town-meeting, at which it was voted "to proportion the beef cattle in and among the people, for the commissary of this State, and to give six continental dollars per pound for beef." It was also voted to allow horse-sheds to be built along the north side of the common, near the meeting-house.
On the 10th day of November, Michael Cressey and Elisha Rock- wood issued a call to the inhabitants of the town, to meet on the Monday following, at I o'clock in the afternoon, to choose a dele- gate or delegates to attend a convention at Walpole, on Wednesday, the 15th of the same month ; at which time the delegates fromn va- rious towns in the county were "to consult on political matters respecting the county in particular and the State in general." Lieut. Cressey and Ebenezer Harvey were elected delegates to rep- resent Chesterfield in the proposed convention.
The last town-meeting of the year 1780, was held December 8th. At this meeting it was voted not to choose a representative to the
63
General Court, and not to vote for councillors. A committee that had been chosen at the meeting held the first day of May, to con- sult with Rev. Mr. Wood respecting his salary for the year 1780, reported at this meeting. The following is an extract from their report : "He [Mr. Wood] made the following proposals : That he will throw in a penny upon every shilling to all who settle their rates between this day and the first of March next, whether it be in hard money or species, the species to bear the following prices : wheat at 4s. Sd. per bushel ; rye at 3s. 4d. per bushel ; corn at 2s. Sd. per bushel, and other things in the same proportion. But if any part remains not paid by the first of March next, for such a part the penny is not to be reducted." This report was accepted, and the constable was directed to collect the rates in accordance therewith.
The year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-one will ever be memorable in the annals of Chesterfield, on account of the ex- citement and strife that existed within its borders, arising from what is known in the history of New Hampshire, Vermont and New York as the "Controversy about the New Hampshire Grants." In order to understand properly the part which this town took in the great controversy, it will be necessary to consider briefly the circumstances that brought it about.
On the 18th of September, 1679, the King decreed that New Hampshire should be separated from 'Massachusetts and made a royal province by itself. There having been much controversy with regard to the line separating the two provinces, the royal gov- ernment decided "that the northern boundary of the Province of Massachusetts be a similar curve line pursuing the course of Mer- rimac river at three miles distance, on the north side thereof, be- ginning at the Atlantic ocean and ending at a point due north of Pawtucket Falls ; and a straight line drawn from thence due west, till it meets with his Majesty's other governments." This decision was made in 1740. The line was run by three surveyors, who had been appointed by the New Hampshire Assembly for that purpose, in the months of February and March, 1741. Ten degrees were allowed for the westerly variation of the needle. The line between the two Provinces having been thus established, the government of New Hampshire claimed that its territory extended as far westward
64
as that of Massachusetts, thus embracing the greater portion of what is now the State of Vermont. On the other hand, the gov- ernment of New York claimed jurisdiction as far eastward as the Connecticut river, by virtue of a grant from Charles the Second to the Duke of York. 1674. In spite of the claim set up by New York, Governor Benning Wentworth continued to grant townships west of the Connecticut, having made, up to 1764, inclusive, about 129 grants, including Brattleborough, Bennington and many other now important towns of Vermont. These were known as the New Hampshire Grants. The inhabitants of these grants having suffered much from the interference of New York with the claims of New Hampshire, at length declared themselves to be a free and independent State, January, 1777.
On the 11th of March, 1778, sixteen towns on the east side of the Connecticut, petitioned the Assembly of the new State, which had assumed the name of "Vermont," to be united with that State. They were admitted in June following, in accordance with their petition, and their representatives attended the next session of the Assembly at Windsor ; but, as the Assembly refused to constitute a new county of these sixteen towns, or to allow them to unite with Vermont counties already established, their representatives with- drew. The towns that made this attempt to unite with Vermont were Cornish, Lebanon, Enfield, Dresden, Canaan, Cardigan, Or- ford, Lyme, Piermont, Haverhill, Bath, Lyman, Gunthwaite, Apthorp, Landaff and Morristown. This attempt to form a union with Vermont having failed, another convention of delegates from twenty-two towns on both sides of the Connecticut, met at Cornish on the 9th of December. This convention resolved either to agree with New Hampshire on a dividing line, or to submit the dispute to Congress or arbitration ; in other words, the towns represented in this convention, resolved to unite "to pursue such legal and reg- ular measures," without regard to any former limits, as would tend to secure to the Grants a satisfactory form of government.
About the same time, Massachusetts laid claim to a portion of the disputed territory, a circumstance that rendered the controversy still more complicated. At last, New York and New Hampshire made application to Congress to take the whole controversy into
65
consideration. Vermont, adopting the same tactics as her oppo- nents, now laid claim to a part of New Hampshire, being encour- aged in so doing by the desire of so many towns on the east side of Connecticut river to unite with those on the west side.
It has already been stated that Michael Cressey and Ebenezer Harvey were chosen delegates, at a meeting of the inhabitants of Chesterfield, held on Monday, the 13th of November, 1780, to at- tend a convention at Walpole, on the 15th of the same month. This convention was in favor of maintaining the union of the Grants on both sides of the river, and recommended "as the only means to obtain an union, preserve peace, harmony and brotherly love, and the interest of the community in general, that a conven- tion be called from every town within the said grants, to be held at Charlestown on the third Tuesday of January next, at one of the clock in the afternoon, &c."
The first town-meeting of the year 1781 was held January II. At this meeting it was voted not to send a delegate to the conven- tion that was to meet at Charlestown, on the 16th of the same month. It was also voted that Rev. Mr. Wood's rates for the year 1779 should be assessed in the same manner as were those for the year 1780.
The convention that met at Charlestown, on the 16th of Jan- uary, passed resolutions maintaining the right of union for the Grants, on both sides of the Connecticut, and adjourned to meet at Cornish, on the first Wednesday in the following February. A minority of delegates protested, however, against the proceed- ings of the convention. Another perplexing question in connec- tion with this great controversy was: How far to the east of Connecticut river did the Grants extend? It is necessary, in order to understand this question, to keep in mind the fact that, when New Hampshire was originally granted to Capt. John Mason, in 1629, it did not extend as far westward as the Connecticut. The exact determination of the western boundary of the "Masonian Grant" was a very difficult matter ; in fact, it was a disputed point whether the line should be straight or curved. The Legislature of New Hampshire finally determined, in 1787, that the western boundary of the original Masonian Grant should be a straight line,
9
66
and ordered a survey of the same to be made. This line, accord- ing to Dr. Belknap, begins at Lot No. 18, in the town of Rindge, and runs north-easterly to the town of Ossipee. All grants, then, to the west of this line, that were made by New Hampshire, would properly be called the New Hampshire Grants, whether they lay on the east or west side of the Connecticut.
On the 5th of February, another town-meeting was held, to see if the town would choose one or more delegates to attend the con- vention at Cornish. It was voted in the negative.
At a meeting held the 16th of the same month, to see what method the town would adopt to raise its quota of men for the army, according to an act of the General Court, it was voted to take no measures for furnishing its quota.
The annual town-meeting for 1781 was held March 7. After a part of the business had been transacted, the meeting was adjourned to the 14th of the same month, when Moses Smith, Jr., Abner Johnson and Capt. Samuel King were elected selectmen. The sub- ject of raising men for the Continental army was again taken into consideration, but it was voted to make no provisions for raising the town's quota.
The convention of delegates from the towns on the east side of Connecticut river, that were determined to maintain the union of the Grants, met at Cornish, agreeably to adjournment, on the 8th of February. The Assembly of Vermont, which was then sitting at Windsor, was immediately notified that the convention were desirous of being united with that State "in one separate, inde- pendent government. upon such principles as shall be mutually thought the most equitable and beneficial for the whole." Terms of union were then agreed upon by the Assembly and convention, which were, in substance, as follows: The constitution of Ver- mont was to remain unchanged, till altered in a manner provided in the same ; as soon as circumstances should permit, the Legisla- ture of Vermont should make application for admission into the Confederation, and the question of disputed boundaries was to be settled by Congress, if the State was admitted ; the losses and ex- penses of the towns on both sides of the river, that had been caused by the war, were to be adjusted as equitably as possible ; an act of
67
amnesty was to be passed by the Legislature, for all who had tres- passed against the State, under the pretense of being subjects of New York ; and finally, it was provided that the terms of union should be ratified by two-thirds of the towns in Vermont, and by two-thirds of the towns on the east side of Connecticut river, lying between the same and a line about twenty miles east of it. The terms of union having been mutually ratified by the Assembly and convention, both bodies adjourned, to meet again at Windsor and Cornish, respectively, on the 5th day of the next April.
Two, at least, of the board of selectmen of Chesterfield chosen at the annual meeting, namely, Samuel King and Moses Smith, Jr., belonged to what may be called the "Vermont party." By them a town-meeting was called to be held on Thursday, March 29th, in the name of the "Government and Good People of the New Hampshire Grants." The second article in the warrant was, "To see if the town will agree to establish or accept of the Union agreed upon between the Legislature of the State of Vermont and the Committee of the New Hampshire Grants, held at Windsor, in Feb- ruary, 1781." The third article was, "To choose one or more members to sit in the Assembly of Vermont, on the first Wednes- day of April next, in case the Union takes place, or in the Conven- tion at Cornish, on the aforesaid day, as the circumstances may require." At the meeting which was held at the time above stated, Samuel King was chosen moderator. It was voted to accept the terms of union, and Dea. Silas Thompson and Samuel King were chosen members of the Assembly, according to the article in the warrant, quoted above. The number of votes for the union was 90 ; against, 32 When the returns from the towns east of the river had been examined by the convention at Cornish, on the 5th of April, it was found that the following towns had accepted the terms of union with Vermont :
Hinsdale,
Surry,
Gilsum,
Charlestown,
Acworth,
Lempster,
Claremont,
Newport,
Cornish,
Grantham,
Marlow,
Plainfield, Grafton,
Dresden,
Hanover,
Dorchester,
Haverhill,
Lyme, Gunthwait,
Lancaster,
Piermont,
68
Chesterfield,
Westmoreland, Bath,
Alstead, Lebanon, Richmond,
Saville,
Croydon,
Cardigan,
Landaff,
Lyman, Lincoln,
Morristown (now Franconia.)
No returns were received from any towns on the east side of the river, refusing to accept the union.
The following towns in Vermont, however, disapproved of the union : Bennington, Manchester, Clarendon, Dummerston, Lon- donderry, Woodstock and Hertford. Thirty-six Vermont towns having voted in favor of union, the convention was notified to that effect, and informed that the Assembly would receive the members returned from towns on the east side of the river, at 9 o'clock A. M., the next day. Accordingly the new members presented their credentials, and took the oath necessary to qualify them for holding seats in the House of Representatives of Vermont.
On the 2nd day of May another town-meeting was held, which, as the record states, was called "agreeable to the order of the State of Vermont." Capt. King was moderator of this meeting, and Ephraim Baldwin was chosen town-clerk. Sixty-nine men then took the oath prescribed by the law of Vermont, and proceeded to vote for chief-judge, assistant judges, high-sheriff, judge of probate and justices of the peace, all for the "County of Washington in the State of Vermont." "Washington county" was regarded as em- bracing Cheshire county, the name having been changed after the
union had been effected. Among the sixty-nine persons who took the oath above mentioned, were Ebenezer Harvey, Ebenezer Fletcher, Amos Davis, Silas Thompson, Jonathan Farr, 4th, Oliver Cobleigh, Abel Ray, Jonathan Davis, Ebenezer Streeter, Caleb Johnson, Warren Snow, Daniel Colburn, Zerubbabel Snow, Jonas Davis, Samuel Hildreth, Benjamin Streeter, Nathaniel Walton, Samuel Davis, Eleazer Randall, Benjamin Smith, Aaron Fisk, James Wheeler, Jr., and Phinehas Fullam.
Another meeting was held the 14th of the same month, which had been called "in the name of the freemen of Vermont." Sam- uel King was also moderator of this meeting. Five "listers" and twelve petit-jurors were chosen, and some other business done. Several more "freemen" were sworn in, among them, Joshua Tyler,
69
Moses Smith, (Jr.), Esq., William Farr, Ephraim Baldwin and Samuel Stearns.
The town was now completely in the possession of the Vermont party, and remained so during the rest of the year. All records made in the town-books, were made in the name of Vermont. In one instance, in the record of a deed, Chesterfield is located in two counties, Cheshire and Washington !
It must not be supposed, however, that the adherents of New Hampshire were doing nothing to check the proceedings of the Vermont party. On the contrary, the latter were meeting with a strong opposition. Party spirit ran very high, and from all that can be learned about this period of the town's history, it appears that society was in a very disturbed condition.
There is no record of what took place in the town between the 14th of May and the 25th of August ; but, under the latter date, there is a memorial to the Council and House of Representatives of New Hampshire, drawn up by Nathaniel Bingham, Michael Cressey, William Lee and James Robertson.
THE MEMORIAL.
"The Memorial of Nathaniel Bingham, Michael Cressey, William Lee and James Robertson :
Gentlemen-It is with the utmost Regret that we make mention of the De- plorable Situation into which we are fallen by the madness and folly of many of our People in these parts, in thinking to Revolt from the State of New Hampshire, in such an unjust and unrighteous a manner as has been attempt- cd. Your honors are sensible that our Confusion is great, and that it is very Difficult to know what to Do at a time of such Disorder. We know it has been commonly Reported that this Town has Refused all orders from the State of New Hampshire, and that they are unanimous in the Revolt from you; Altho' there is a considerable Number of faithful friends to you among us who have used their utmost Endeavours to Pacify the People, and to make them sensible of their folly in such Proceedings; but being so unhappy as to have the most of our town and Military officers on that side of the Ques- tion, were not able to stop their Proceedings as a town. Nevertheless, we have the happiness to inform your Honors that on a motion made to know how many of the Inhabitants Disapprove of the measures taken, Eighty of the Inhabitants, namely --
Nath'l Bingham, Mich'l Cressey, William Lee, James Robertson,
Phineas Brown, Elisha Rockwood, Theodorus Bingham, Will'm Symonds,
70
Sam'l Nichols, Henry Cressey, Tho's Harris, Tho's Chamberlain, John Darling, Eben'r Safford,
Moses Gary,
Jewet Darling, Will'm Dodge,
Ephr'm Russell, Benja. Colburn, Joseph Prentice, Abner Harris, Jr.,
Nathan Thomas,
Josiah Hastings,
Israel Johnson,
Noah Emmons,
Andrew Hastings,
Jon'a Farr, 2nd,
Lemuel Stoddard,
John Cobleigh,
Moses Cressey,
Oliver Brigham,
Zadock Barrett,
Jon'a Cressey,
Joseplı Wheeler,
Jon'a Cressey, Jr.,
Amos Streeter,
William Colburn,
Benj'a Wheeler,
Joseph Titus,
Claron Smith,
Eleazer Stoddard,
Isaac Barrett,
Peter Wheeler,
Tho's Holmes,
Jon'a Farwell,
Moses Smitlı,
Benj'a Farwell,
Archibald Robertson,
Will'm Read, Amos Blodget,
Joel Streeter,
Levi Farwell,
Joseph Hartwell,
Oliver Farwell,
Abraham Stearns,
Will'm Farwell,
Abner Albee,
Elisha Walton,
Increase Daniels,
Sam'l Walker,
John Daniels,
Silas Richardson,
John Grandy,
Josiah Gates,
Will'm Kimball,
Philip Loek,
Benj'a Parker,
Eliphalet Wood,
Adam Bartlet,
Ezekiel Davis,
Zadock Bartlet,
John Pierce,
John Grandy, Jr.,
Jon'a Hutchins,
Parker Grandy,
Arthur Latham,
Eli Partridge,
Jacob Winslow,
Eleazer Jackson,
voluntarily signed the following declaration, declaring it to be their real Sen- timents, viz. :
That, Whereas it has been Reported that the People in Chesterfield are Unanimously agreed in the Union taking place Between the State of Vermont and the Grants on this side of the River, this is to acquaint the world that we, whose Names are under written are of opinion that the measures already taken are Illegal and unjust as they are conducted, and we are altogether against those measures, unless they are carried on with more general Satisfac- tion to the United States and to the State of Newhampshire in Particular,
Will'm Robertson,
71
whose subjects we profess to be till we are Legally set of by the United States. Chesterfield, August 23d, 1781.
And whereas there are many Illegal and unjust measures carrying on against the friends of Newhampshire and Safety to the State as we judge, -we are therefore at loss to know what to Do; our Eyes are therefore unto you as our Patrons, Confiding Entirely in your wisdom to Direct us in our Duty. We therefore beg your advice and Protection, and Conclude by subscribing our- selves your Loyal and affectionate subjects,
NATH'L BINGHAM, MICHAEL CRESEY, WILLIAM LEE, JAMES ROBERTSON.
Chesterfield, August 25th, 1781."
What action the General Court took with regard to the above memorial, is not apparent. The State authorities seem not to have taken any very decisive measures respecting the towns that had seceded, but to have been awaiting the action of Congress, to which body, as has already been stated, application had been made to set- tle the controversy. On the 7th of August, Congress passed a res- olution to the effect that a committee of five should be appointed "to confer with such person or persons as may be appointed by the people residing on the New Hampshire Grants, on the West side of Connecticut River, or by their representative body, respecting their claim to be an independent State, etc." It was recommend- ed, in this resolution, to the people occupying the territory above- named, to appoint an agent or agents, to go immediately to Phila- delphia, with full powers to confer with the committee appointed by Congress.
The following extract from the proceedings of a meeting of per- sons from ten towns in Cheshire county, one of them being Ches- terfield, will serve to show how the resolution of Congress relating to the dispute, was received by the adherents of Vermont on the east side of the river: "It was very unanimously agreed by the persons convened as aforesaid, that some person be appointed to wait on the Hon'ble Committee of Safety at Exeter, as soon as pos- sible, and to lay before them the State of this County respecting the aforesaid dispute, and in particular that those persons who ad- here to the late unhappy union of the New Hampshire Grants, are either Ignorantly or Willfully blinded in regard to the construction
1
72
they put upon the Resolves of the Hon'ble Congress of the 7th and Sth of August last, which serves in some towns to. confirm some Persons, who are for the Union, in their former opinion, and some who were not fully Established have (by some means or other, since the said Resolve became Publick) consented to the union ; and some who are attached to New Hampshire, say the Congress have not determined whether we shall belong to Vermont or not. The meeting, from the proceed- ings of which the above extract is made, was held at Keene, Sept. 21, 1781.
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.