USA > New Hampshire > Grafton County > Lebanon > History of Lebanon, N.H., 1761-1887 > Part 11
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
Before entering upon an examination of these extraordinary events, it may be well to mention the motives and principles governing the actors therein. They are these: 1. Grievances, real and fancied. 2. Neighborly sympathy. 3. Self-interest. 4. Patriotism. 5. Policy, American and British.
Many of the grants of land were made by the crown before much exploration had been made. There was profound ignor- ance of the interior regions-of their extent and boundaries. Under these circumstances it is not strange that grants of ex- tensive territories should interfere with each other; that in some
109
THE VERMONT CONTROVERSY.
parts they should overlay each other, with the result that upon exploration and survey, different parties should appear to have a title to the same lands.
The Masonian grant, having its western line sixty miles from the sea, would not reach the Connecticut River. This western line, if straight, would commence in Rindge and run through Jaffrey, Peterborough, Greenfield, Francestown, Weare, Hop- kinton, Concord, Canterbury, Gilmanton, across Lake Winne- pesaukee, Wolfeboro, Tuftonborough, to Ossipee. If a curve, as some contended that it should be, then it would commence in Fitzwilliam and pass through Marlborough, Roxbury, Sullivan, Marlow, Washington, Goshen, New London, Wilmot, Orange, Hebron, Plymouth, Campton, to or near the south line of Conway.
Massachusetts claimed all the territory lying west of three miles north and east of the Merrimack River to the junction of the Pemigewasset and Winnipesaukee Rivers, "thence due north as far as a tree known as Endicott's tree, three miles north of the junction of the above rivers; thence due west to the South Sea." The states both claimed the same territory, and after many years of disputes and evasive decisions, the matter was finally referred to the king in council for his consideration. The final decision was: "That the northerly bound of the Province of Massachusetts be a curve line pursuing the course of the Merrimack River at three miles distance, on the north side thereof, beginning 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 govern- ments." 1740.
This decision established the boundary between Massachusetts · and New Hampshire, greatly to the advantage of the latter, but at the same time it opened the way to another dispute of far greater consequences.
When in 1741 Richard Hazzen, surveyor, was instructed to run "the due west line till it meets his majesty's other govern- ments," the question arose as to the western termination of this line. Connecticut and Massachusetts had established their west- ern boundaries twenty miles east of Hudson's River, thus estab- lishing the eastern line of the Province of New York. It was
110
HISTORY OF LEBANON.
held that New Hampshire would meet "his majesty's other gov- ernments" on this line of the other provinces. Accordingly Sur- veyor Hazzen ran his due west line with an allowance of ten de- grees for the variation of the needle, to a point twenty miles east of the Hudson River, thus annexing to New Hampshire the terri- tory of Vermont. No serious attention was given to this claim of territory for awhile, because of the French and Indian wars, which rendered any occupation of them dangerous. During a short peace, Benning Wentworth, royal governor, relying upon a description of the bounds of New Hampshire and instructions contained in his commission, granted a charter for the township of Bennington, Vt., twenty-four miles east of the Hudson. 1750. He had written to Governor Clinton of New York, informing him of his intentions to make grants of the territory in Vermont, and requested of him a description of the bounds of New York, but made his grant before the receipt of any reply. When that reply came it claimed the Connecticut River as the eastern boundary of the Province of New York according to letters pat- ent from King Charles II to the Duke of York, and so set up a claim to the territory of Vermont. Correspondence ensued be- tween the governors of the respective provinces, when it was agreed between them that the matter should be submitted to the king for his determination.
Governor Wentworth continued to make grants, from time to time, in the disputed territory, till the close of the French and Indian wars, when in a single year, 1761, he granted fifty-nine townships, and a greater number in the two following years. New York was alarmed and "commanded the sheriff of Albany County to make a return of all persons who had taken possession of land under New Hampshire Grants and claimed jurisdiction to the Connecticut River." Governor Wentworth issued a coun- ter proclamation, designed to quiet the people in their grants.
In 1764 the king determined the western boundary of New Hampshire and the eastern boundary of New York to be "the western banks of Connecticut River from where it enters the Province of Massachusetts, as far north as the forty-fifth degree of Latitude."
This decision, while it ended one controversy, opened the way for others. The words "to be" the boundary are capable of
111
THE VERMONT CONTROVERSY.
two quite different interpretations. New York took the words in this sense-that the Connecticut River had always been the boundary between the two provinces. Another party held that from the time of the decision onward the Connecticut was to be the boundary. It makes a great difference which interpretation of the words is adopted. If the first, then the government of New Hampshire had no right to make these grants west of the Connecticut, for the territory did not belong to her, and the people on those lands must seek a renewal of their charters at the hands of New York, with consequent expense and trouble. If the other interpretation is correct, then the people on the New Hampshire grants west of the Connecticut might remain undis- turbed in their possessions as having received them by due authority.
Another opening for controversy for our own days was left in the words "western banks of the Connecticut." What is the exact line pointed out by those words? The meeting of the soil and the water? If so, whether at high, medium, or low water? It is a singular fact that this point, so likely to produce contro- versy, has never received an authoritative determination.
New York took the first interpretation of the words "to be," and required those who had received grants under New Hamp- shire to renew their charters, with new fees and a higher rate of quit-rent. The people resisted these claims, peaceably at first, and finally with force of arms. This is one element in the great controversy.
New Hampshire abstained from further grants, but turned an inquiring eye now and then upon the New Hampshire grants west of Connecticut River.
Soon the Revolution came and with it a dissolution of royal . authorities and decisions, and involved new relations of the par- ties to the contest.
There had been a growing discontent in some of the towns on the east side of the Connecticut. The first public utterance of it took place in town meeting, February 1, 1776 :
Qust. Whither this meeting will Resolve to pursue the Present Plan Proposed in warning for the Redress of their grievances and choose a Comtee to Correspond with other towns on that subject
Resolved in the Affirmtive.
112
HISTORY OF LEBANON.
What are these grievances? The warning is lost-and there is no further reference to them in the records.
From other sources we learn what these grievances are. The following towns met in convention of delegates at College Hall, Hanover, July 31, 1776: Plainfield, Lebanon, Enfield (alias Relhan), Canaan, Cardigan, Hanover, Lyme, Orford, Haverhill, Bath, and Landaff. Nehemiah Estabrook of Lebanon was chair- man and Bezaleel Woodward, professor in Dartmouth College, was clerk. They issued an address, from which we learn the grievances of which they complained.
It should be remembered that New Hampshire had at this time declared her independence, and had assumed self-govern- ment.
After a reference to the subsisting struggle of the colonies with England, the address enumerates the causes of their com- plaints :
That a convention, elected, much as it chanced to happen, un- der our then broken and confused circumstances, assumed to determine how the present assembly should be elected, omitting some towns, uniting others, for the purpose of sending one only ; granting to some the liberty of sending one and to others two representatives, and others three, limiting the choice of repre- sentatives to persons of £200 estate, by this means depriving many towns of any representation, and others so in effect.
In reply to objections to this complaint they say: That every town has a right to a voice in the formation of a government, whether it be large or small; "that no person or body corporate can be deprived of any natural or acquired right without for- feiture or voluntary surrender, neither of which can be pre- tended in this case;" that to unite a number of towns for the purpose of choosing a representative is as absurd as "to take the souls of a number of different persons and say they make but one, while yet they remain separate and different." To consent to be governed by a body elected in this way is, they say, to accept in their towns the very thing against which they are con- tending abroad-taxation without representation.
They further complain of the acts of the assembly: That they, thus unequally elected, had chosen from among themselves a certain number to be called a council, thus dividing the repre-
113
THE VERMONT CONTROVERSY.
sentative body into two parts, which was an act for which they had no instruction from their constituents.
That in future elections to the council, they direct that twelve persons shall be elected as follows: Five in the county of Rock- ingham, two in the county of Hillsborough, two in the county of Strafford, two in the county of Cheshire, and one in the county of Grafton, while they claim that the council should be chosen from the colony at large instead of apportioning them among the counties.
They complain that one portion of the state is seeking to aggrandize itself at the expense of the other; that their petitions and remonstrances have been treated with neglect and contempt.
These, then, were their grievances. Some of them were well founded, as to inequality of representation. It is to be noticed that up to this period, 1776, there never had been any repre- sentative to the assembly chosen from Lebanon. It appears, however, that Nehemiah Estabrook sat in the convention at Exeter, though I find no record of his choice by the town. Leba- non was classed, first, with Hanover, Enfield, Canaan, Cardigan [Orange], and Grafton. In 1776 it appearing that these towns had inhabitants enough for two representatives, Lebanon was classed with Enfield and Grafton. It does not appear that there was any inequality in the apportionment of the representatives according to numbers, but they contended that every town ought to have at least one representative.
In addition to these things there was little sympathy between the people in the eastern and western portions of the state. They were different in their origin, in their ways of thinking and acting. The eastern settlements were much older and somewhat aristocratic. The western towns, not without some show of rea- son, felt that they were despised, or at least not properly esti- mated.
This address and the action of many of the towns refusing to have any dealings with New Hampshire, produced some effect upon the assembly, and a committee was appointed to visit Graf- ton County and take under consideration their complaints and propose some measures to give them content. This committee reported conciliatory measures. But the attention of the peo- ple was suddenly diverted to other matters.
8
-
114
HISTORY OF LEBANON.
This state of mind of the people in the border towns should be kept in mind as a cause of their subsequent action. They were already disaffected towards New Hampshire for reasons alto- gether foreign to the Vermont controversy.
The people of Vermont would undoubtedly have submitted quietly to the rule of New York if they had been left undis- turbed in their possessions. But that colony was not wise enough to pursue a conciliatory policy. The temptation to gain was great, and the authorities fell before it. They began to re- grant land already held under grants from New Hampshire, demanding new fees and larger rents. This produced great ex- citement and distress. They remonstrated-the oppressions con- tinued. They began to resist the authorities by force. They organized bands who administered summary punishment with beech rods to all who renewed their charters from New York. Various conventions of the towns were called, when finally, Jan- uary 15, 1777, it was unanimously resolved that the district of land, commonly called and known as the New Hampshire grants, be a new and separate state. They immediately informed the Continental Congress of this action, gave their reasons for it, and asked for recognition as a sovereign state. New York re- monstrated against any such recognition. Congress received the papers from both parties and "ordered that they lie on the table."
The new state proceeded with its organization, with a stern determination to maintain its independence. Congress would not recognize the new state, but did recognize some of its citi- zens so far as to appoint them to military commands, among them Col. Seth Warner, who had raised soldiers for the defence of the country. This gave great offence to New York. But both Congress and the state were doing better than they knew, for when Ticonderoga "was given up" and the whole region left open to the enemy, these companies of Vermont proved inval- uable for the defence of that exposed territory.
The surrender of Ticonderoga and the invasion of Burgoyne's army, for the moment, arrested the action of the contending parties. All was alarm and confusion. The people of the new state saw their dearly bought and bravely defended homes desolated by a ruthless enemy. They must have immediate as-
115
THE VERMONT CONTROVERSY.
sistance or all must be lost. Detachments from Burgoyne's army were marching in all directions. Where should they seek assistance ? Not from New York, who had claimed authority over them, for they were rebels against that jurisdiction. Be- sides that colony was fully occupied with its own dangers. Not from the Continental Congress, who had ordered their papers to "lie on the table," who were too far away and too slow. They had received their lands from New Hampshire; they never had any reason to complain of her rule over them, and to New Hampshire they naturally applied.
Ira Allen, secretary of the council for Vermont, wrote, July 15, 1777, from Manchester, Vt., to the Committee of Safety for New Hampshire, a most urgent request for assistance, vividly representing the condition of the people in the new state; that some of the towns were disposed to accept the protection of the British authorities, very freely offered, while the others must remain as captives to see their possessions destroyed or must forsake all and flee to other states.
This request was laid before the New Hampshire assembly, July 19, 1777, then convened at Exeter. What should be done ? This people were in danger. It was best to help them. They had been formerly under the authority of New Hampshire; they were living in a territory which she had claimed, and so sym- pathy enforced their patriotism. If no assistance was granted, the people of Vermont would be driven away from their lands and New Hampshire would become a frontier and sustain all the resulting disadvantages of that position. New Hampshire had been deprived of this portion of her possessions by royal decree; that authority was now put in question, practically annulled ; by this assistance a foundation might be laid to reassert her jurisdiction over this lost province.
Under the impulse of these mixed and powerful motives, the assembly took immediate and energetic action. The militia was called out and directed to rendezvous at Charlestown. They were placed under the command of General Stark, and marched to meet the invading forces. August 16, 1777, the battle of Bennington was fought, many of the invading forces captured, the rest driven away, and the threatened people of Vermont were left in possession of their homes, and had leisure to perfect
116
HISTORY OF LEBANON.
their organization as a state and press their claims for recog- nition.
The managers of the infant state were very able and shrewd men, fully the equals, if not the superiors, of their contem- poraries. Among them may be named Governor Chittenden, Ethan and Ira Allen. Disappointed in their hope of recogni- tion from Congress, they began to take means to strengthen their own position. It was known that some of the towns east of the Connecticut were dissatisfied with their relations to New Hampshire. Communications were secretly held with them, and they were solicited and encouraged to cast in their lot with the new state.
The towns of New Hampshire, receiving no redress of what they called their grievances, soured towards New Hampshire, rejecting her jurisdiction, were just in the frame of mind to listen to these advances on the part of Vermont. That state took care that the people on this side the river should be sup- plied with information. Various conventions were held and the matter discussed thoroughly. We learn the attitude of this town in relation to the matter from the following action taken in town meeting, March 31, 1778 :
A Pamphet Containing the constitution of the State of Vermont being Read in said meeting-Voted, unanimously, to accept thereof, with the several articles of alteration proposed to be made therein by the Con- vention of Comtees from a Considerable Number of Towns on the Grants east of Connecticut river & to concur with such Towns as are Disposed, on said Easterly Grants, in the proposed union with the aforesaid state of Vermont.
That Deacon Estabrook & John Wheatley be a committee to Rep- resent the town of Lebanon in the proposed Convention of Comtees of a Number of towns on the Grants east of Connecticut River to be held in Lebanon in May next.
No records of the doings of this convention at Lebanon are now known, but events show that the sixteen towns of New Hampshire determined to connect themselves with Vermont, and appointed a committee to represent their wishes before the General Assembly of that state.
The General Assembly of Vermont, sitting at Bennington, June 11, 1778, having heard the representation of the committee from the New Hampshire towns
117
THE VERMONT CONTROVERSY.
that they are not connected with any State with respect to their internal police, and that sixteen Towns in the northwestern part of said Grants have assented to a union with this state agreeable to ar- ticles mutually agreed upon by this Assembly and a committee from the grants east of said river as by said Articles on file may more fully appear:
Therefore Voted and Resolved that the sixteen Towns above referred to-viz. Cornish, Lebanon, Enfield, Dresden [Hanover], Canaan, Cardi- gan [Orange], Lime, Apthorp [Littleton and Dalton], Orford, Piermont, Haverhill, Bath, Lyman, Gauthwaite [Lisbon], Morristown [Franconia], and Landaff, be and hereby are entitled to all the privileges and immuni- ties vested in any Town within this state
They also voted to receive any other contiguous to these towns where a majority of the town should consent to the union.
After this vote of the Vermont assembly, a convention was held in Orford, June 25, 1778, to take final steps to dissolve their connection with New Hampshire, as appears from the fol- lowing letter with its well-known signature :
Orford, June 25th 1778
Honble Sir-
The Convention of Committees from the several Towns mentioned in the inclosed Copies take this opportunity to transmit to you as Presi- · dent of the State of New Hampshire a Resolve of the Assembly of the State of Vermont relative to a union of the said Towns with them, by which you will be avail'd of the political situation of these United Towns and others on the grants who may comply with said Resolve. We hope that not withstanding an entire seperation has now taken place between your State and those Towns, an amicable settlement may be come into at a proper time between the State of New Hampshire and those towns on the Grants that unite with the state of Vermont relative to all civil and military affairs transacted in connection with the State of New Hampshire since the commencement of the present war to the time of union, so that Amity and Friendship may subsist and continue between the two States.
I am, Sir, in behalf of said Convention with respect,
Your most obedient Humble Servant Nehemiah Estabrook Chairman
To the Honble Mesheck Weare Esq.
President of the Council of New Hampshire
At this point it is necessary to take notice of the reasoning by which these towns and others justified their bold step in severing their connection with New Hampshire.
118
HISTORY OF LEBANON.
From the time the colonies cast off the royal authority there had been much speculation and discussion as to the resulting state of the people in their political relations. How far were these relations affected by the severance of the tie which bound them to the mother country? They rejected all authority over their affairs. But were all former royal acts and decrees and grants made void? These are serious questions, deeply affect- ing the interest of the people, and difficult to determine. Upon the different opinions held in regard to these matters much of the action of the times was based.
Early in 1778 appeared a pamphlet, printed at Danvers, and signed a "True Republican," which discussed these questions in a very earnest way, and exerted a powerful influence over the minds of the people. The author is unknown and the pamphlet is a very rare one-only a single copy is known, found in the library of the Massachusetts historical rooms. Very likely other. copies might be found by search among old papers in garrets.
The reasoning of this address is here given: That the grants and jurisdiction over them were created by royal authority, expressed through commissions; that they were maintained with- out the consent of the people, and that when the power which gave vitality to these grants is overthrown they no longer have any force; that lines and boundaries established by royal decrees were of no effect when the royal will could no longer enforce them; that jurisdiction over a people who had not been con- sulted, nor had consented thereto, must cease so soon as the force which maintained it was overthrown. He argues that the Revolution overthrew all royal authority and decrees; that power reverted to the people; that they went back into "a state of Nature." This last phrase had great influence over the minds of the people. It became a favorite phrase and seemed to them weighted with unanswerable argument. By this phrase they seemed to indicate the condition of a community who have no political relations to any sovereign power, but who are at liberty to choose under what government they will live; that . until such a choice is made and guarded by mutual compacts they were entirely their own masters.
Others held essentially the same views with some important modifications : That while the Revolution overthrew most of
119
THE VERMONT CONTROVERSY.
the royal decrees, the town organizations were left intact, "which they received from the King as little grants or charters of privi- leges by which they were united in little incorporated bodies with certain powers and privileges, which were not held at the pleas- ure of the King (as those commissions were), but were perpet- ual." These primary organizations were to be considered as indestructible, unless voluntarily abandoned by the people them- selves. It was contended that through these they might main- tain order; that by a majority vote of the inhabitants they might connect themselves with any larger government which they might approve, or remain independent.
It was further asserted by those on the east side of the Connec- ticut that the towns which received grants of townships from royal governments were differently situated from those who were within the bounds of the Masonian grant. It was argued that authority over territory outside of the Masonian grant was wholly claimed by royal commissions; that the bounds of that authority were changed from time to time at the royal pleasure, as when he limited the Province of New Hampshire to the west- ern banks of the Connecticut River, so that when the power which gave force and vitality to that authority was overthrown, the people became independent; that the people of the Masonian grant had erected themselves voluntarily into a distinct govern- ment, with prescribed bounds, by petitioning for a separate gov- ernment, which the people on the grants had never done, and they, therefore, claimed the right to choose their own govern- ment-to give their allegiance where they thought fit.
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.