USA > New Hampshire > Grafton County > Lebanon > History of Lebanon, N.H., 1761-1887 > Part 12
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
Whatever may be thought of the soundness of this reasoning it was wonderfully effective in those days in the minds of many. They took their stand upon its soundness and by it were influ- enced to the boldest action.
It was this reasoning which led the people of the New Hamp- shire grants west of the Connecticut to cast off the authority of New York and declare themselves a free and sovereign state. First, they were placed under the authority of New Hampshire by the force of royal commissions; next, by royal decrees they were annexed to New York. In neither case were they con- sulted,-had no voice in their transfers from one to another au- thority any more than if they had been beasts or goods or chat-
120
HISTORY OF LEBANON.
tels. The authority which had thus assumed to dispose of them had been overthrown and the right, which had always been theirs, of self-disposal came actually into their hands as towns, and they had the right to choose their future connections.
The sixteen towns, with others, taking this view of their con- dition after the Revolution, already dissatisfied by their griev- ances with New Hampshire, influenced by neighborly sympathy with the struggling young state, many of the inhabitants being old friends and neighbors from Connecticut, joined themselves with Vermont.
We find the town voting a tax of £8 as their share of "the public expense arising from the compleation of the union with Vt."
On July 7, 1778, "Voted that Maj. Slapp procure a coppy of an act passed by the State of Vermont for Regulating Taverns and preventing Tipling houses." These matters, from the fre- quent reference to them in the records, seem to have given the fathers a great deal of trouble.
At the same meeting, acting in their sovereign capacity as a town, they appointed John Wheatley a justice of the peace till the session of the assembly of Vermont, in October next.
Although there is no record of any choice, by the town, of rep- resentatives, it appears from other records that Nehemiah Esta- brook and John Wheatley took their seats in the Vermont as- sembly October, 1778. The question came up what should be done with the towns which had united with the state from the east side of the Connecticut. The assembly voted on these ques- tions :
Whether the counties in this state shall remain as they were established by this assembly at their session in March last ? Yeas, 35; nays, 26.
Whether the towns east of the river, included in the union with this state, shall be included in the county of Cumberland ? Yeas, 28; nays, 33.
Whether the towns on the east side of the Connecticut River, who are included by union within this state, shall be erected into a distinct county by themselves ? Yeas, 28; nays, 33.
If the sixteen towns could not be included in any existing county, nor erected into a county by themselves, it was at least
WILLIAM P. GALLUP.
121
THE VERMONT CONTROVERSY.
a hint that there was no place for them in the new state. The representatives from the sixteen towns so understood it, and after a manly protest against the action of the assembly, retired.
Lebanon, by a vote December 1, 1778, approved the action of her representative.
The people of these towns were evidently deeply disappointed by this action of the Vermont assembly. They had cut them- selves loose from New Hampshire and their privileges under that jurisdiction, and united with Vermont in good faith, only to be summarily rejected. They had only a town organization- no place of records, no courts, no protection, except that fur- nished by themselves.
What is the meaning of this sudden change on the part of Vermont? They had at least encouraged this alliance, solemnly ratified it only in June preceding, had covenanted that these towns should have all the rights and privileges of the state, and yet deny them in such a way as to exclude them.
Self-interest is the key to this unexpected action.
Upon the report of the union of these towns, Mesheck Weare, president of New Hampshire, wrote, August 19, 1778, to the delegates in Congress from that state, protesting against the action of Vermont and of the towns east of the Connecticut, asserting that there was a respectable minority in the towns averse to any such transfer of their allegiance, and claimed pro- tection from New Hampshire; that the proceeding had excited so much feeling that there was likely to be bloodshed, and re- . questing the delegates to secure the interference of Congress.
President Weare wrote also, August 22, 1778, to Governor Chittenden of Vermont, claiming the sixteen towns as an integral part of New Hampshire, and protesting against their reception by Vermont. He says further :
Were not those towns settled and cultivated under the grant of the governor of New Hampshire? Are they not within the lines thereof as settled by the King of Great Britain, prior to the present era? Is there any ascertaining the boundaries between any of the United States of America, but by the lines formerly established by the authority of Great Britain? I am sure there is not. Did not the most of these towns send delegates to the Convention of this state in the year 1775? Have they not, from the commencement of the present war applied to the state of New Hampshire for assistance and protection? It is well known that they did-and that New Hampshire, at their own expense,
122
HISTORY OF LEBANON.
hath supplied them with arms and ammunition &c to a very great amount as well as paid soldiers for their particular defence and all at their request, as members of this state. Whence, then, could this new doctrine that they are not connected with us originate?
Here we have the argument on the other side. It is to be no- ticed that British authority is cited or denied as is most for the interest of the parties.
The president gives a diplomatic hint in the closing part of his letter far more effective than his argument :
When I consider the circumstances of the people west of the Connec- ticut River, the difficulties they encountered in their first settlement, their late endeavors to organize government among themselves, and the uncertainty of their being admitted as a separate State, I am aston- ished that they should supply their enemies with arguments against them, by their connecting themselves with people whose circumstances are wholly different from their own, and who are actually members of the state of New Hampshire.
The controlling aim of Vermont at this time was recognition from Congress as a sovereign state. The hint of President Weare, that her action in receiving the towns from New Hamp- shire might stand in the way of this recognition, produced its intended effect. The governor and council of Vermont were alarmed. They thought it possible that they had made a mis- take in taking the New Hampshire towns into union with them- selves. To be certain of this, Gen. Ethan Allen was dispatched to Philadelphia to ascertain what effect this action of theirs had produced upon Congress. Upon his arrival he found that the New Hampshire delegation had already introduced a protest against the action of Vermont in respect to the New Hampshire towns. He took pains to learn the general feeling of Congress concerning the proceeding and thus reports it :
From what I have heard and seen of the disapprobation at Congress, of the union with sundry towns east of Connecticut River, I am suffi- ciently authorized to offer it as my opinion that, except this state recede from such union, immediately, the whole power of the Confederacy of the United States of America, will join to annihilate the State of Ver- mont, and to vindicate the right of New Hampshire, and to maintain inviolate the articles of confederation which guarantee to each state their privileges and immunities.
123:
THE VERMONT CONTROVERSY.
This it was which caused that sudden change of disposition in the Vermont assembly towards the sixteen towns, so lately cor- dially received, and led to that rather unmanly way of inform- ing them that their presence was not desired.
But the towns, though disappointed, were not discouraged. A convention was called at Cornish, December 9, 1778, to take into consideration their situation and to determine what action they would take. The convention was composed of delegates from twenty-two towns-eight of the towns were on the west side of the Connecticut River.
The convention seems to have finally adopted the proposals of a committee appointed to take into consideration the condition of the New Hampshire grants on both sides of the Connecticut. The majority of that committee were Jacob Bailey of Newbury, Vt., Elisha Payne of Orange, and Beza Woodward, professor of Dartmouth College. These proposals were as follows:
1. To agree upon and settle a dividing line between New Hampshire and the Grants, by committee from each party, or otherwise, as they may mutually agree.
Or 2, that the parties mutually agree in the appointment of a Court of Commissioners of disinterested judicious men of the three other New England states to hear and determine the dispute.
Or 3 that the whole dispute with New Hampshire be submitted to the decision of Congress in such way and manner as Congress shall pre- scribe:
Provided always that the Grants be allowed equal privileges with the other party in espousing and conducting their cause.
Or 4, if the controversy cannot be settled on either of the foregoing articles, and in case we can agree with New Hampshire upon a plan of government, inclusive of extent of territory, that we unite with them and become with them one entire state, rejecting the line arbitrarily drawn on the western bank of the Connecticut river by the King of Great Britain in 1764.
They further requested the towns of Vermont to withdraw the vote which cast out the towns from the east side of the river, and that all other towns join them in the foregoing proposition to New Hampshire.
Messrs. Marsh, Woodward, Morey, Child, Payne, Olcot and Bailey were appointed a committee to receive proposals from other towns.
There seem to be two main purposes in these propositions,
124
HISTORY OF LEBANON.
one to make a state out of the grants on both sides of the Connec- ticut, the other to make a state out of New Hampshire as limited to the Masonian grant and the whole of the New Hampshire grants. But there was undoubtedly a secret purpose in the minds of the chief actors underlying both propositions, and that purpose was that the capital of the state, however constructed, should be somewhere on the Connecticut. Ira Allen, who says he was providentially ( ?) at the convention, writes "at or near the college."
The following papers show the attitude of the people of Leba- non towards these propositions :
With Respect to the Question proposed by the Comtee Chosen at Cor- nish in Dec. Last (viz) whether the people on the Grants or in this town are willing that the State of New Hampshire should Extend their Claim and jurisdiction over the whole of the Grants, N. H. at the same time submitting to Congress whether a New state shall be Established on the Grants-upon which motion we would observe
1st that New Hampshire Never had any Right of Jurisdiction (either by Charter or Compact) over the N. H. Grants (so called, therefore their attempting to Extend their jurisdiction over any part of s'd Grants, without the free and full Consent of the inhabitants on s'd Grants is such a stretch of arbitrary power, as we Conceive to be incom- patable with the Natural and Just Rights of a free people
2nd And as the assembly of N. H. have not yet Determined to submit to Congress whether a N [new] state shall be Erected on the Grants or not, we think We Cannot Consistent with the principles held up to publick view by the Dissenting towns on s'd Grants Consent that the State of N. H. should Extend their Jurisdiction over the whole or any part of s'd Grants-Yet, Nevertheless
3dly if the State of N. H. are Desirous to Extend or set up their Claim over the whole of s'd Grants, in Opposition to the State of N. York in order to Facillatate the Establishment of a New State on s'd Grants we are free to Concede thereto, or
4thly if the state of N. H. will agree with the people on s'd Grants upon an Equitable plan of Government in which the Just and Natural Rights of the people shall be inviobly maintained & supported we are, on our part willing to unite with them and become one Entire state.
At a town Meeting of the Legal inhabitants of the Town of Lebanon Holden May 24th 1779 was taken under Consideration the Questions Purposed in a hand bill Published by a comitee at Dresden Apr 23 1779 and Resolved that the town Esteams no Consideration as an Equivalent to the Priviledg of an Equatable Representation-and not being favored with Gen. Bayleys Report are unable to pass any further Resolve upon said Question, it Being in our view foreign from the Prinsapel object in
125
THE VERMONT CONTROVERSY.
view under our Present Dispute With New Hampshire it being farther from our intention to Coaless with any state without our Inviolable Wrights and Privileges are made first Certain and as to advise New Hampshire concerning Extending jurisdiction-we look upon that to be a falacious Request-Calculated to Bring the Good people on the Grants into a Perpetual unrepresented situation that may be fattall to our Wrights and Liberties
According to votes of the convention a proposal to New Hampshire was made in March, 1779, to extend her jurisdiction over the whole of the grants on both sides of the river. The proposal met with ready acceptance on the part of the assembly, but in order to give time for due consideration it was postponed till the next session. June 24, 1779, the assembly voted that they would lay claim to the whole of the New Hampshire grants, so called, unless Congress should erect Vermont into a separate state. At all events, they would exercise jurisdiction as far as the Connecticut River.
Of course this action on the part of New Hampshire created fresh alarm and anxiety on the part of Vermont. Her diffi- culties were still further complicated by the action of towns in the southeastern portion of the state, who proposed to continue their allegiance to New York.
All these matters finally came before Congress for settlement. They appointed a committee to visit the disturbed region and report. A part of the committee came and made some inquiries, but seem not to have made any report. Congress heard and con- sidered and delayed-and finally dismissed the whole subject for a time and left all parties in doubt and confusion.
On July 16, 1779, a convention was called at Dresden (Dart- mouth College), at which the town was represented by Nehemiah Estabrook and Captain Turner. What was done at that con- vention does not appear from any records.
December 22, 1779, the town voted a tax of £200 to defray the expense of an agent or agents to represent the circumstances of the people on the New Hampshire grants before Congress on the first day of February, 1780.
Congress failed to do anything to give relief to the people at that time, but later in the year gave good advice, cautioning the people against disorders, and enjoining patience till all parties
126
HISTORY OF LEBANON.
were prepared for a hearing. September 9 seems to have been appointed as a time for a final hearing.
Meantime all parties were making appeals to Congress and new projects discussed. Among them was one from Dresden, which seems to have been the birthplace of many projects, said to be the result of a convention held there. It is called the peti- tion of the principal inhabitants on both sides of the Connecticut River, and is addressed to Congress. It sets forth the desir- ability of annexing Canada to the United States, and represents the project as feasible and not at all difficult!
At the same convention Colonel Olcot of Norwich, Vt., was appointed agent to represent the people on both sides of the Connecticut River from Charlestown upward. The sentiment of the people in this region on both sides of the river at this time seems to have been setting strongly towards union with New Hampshire.
In September, Congress took up these questions, and, as usual, delayed any decision. All parties became impatient, nearly to desperation. Vermont was determined to maintain her inde- pendence and secure a recognition. Since all previous argu- ments had failed, a new move of diplomacy was made. She began to coquette with the British authorities, intimating that as no place could be found for her in the Union, she might cast in her lot with her former sovereign. It is not easy to determine how far these intrigues were carried, but certainly to the very verge of discretion.
They awakened the gravest suspicions of fidelity on the part of the Americans, and created great alarm. The British authori- ties were led on with confident hopes of regaining that important territory. They made liberal offers, were careful to treat all captives with great kindness, frequently sending them back to their homes to speak the praises of their lenity. There is little doubt that those raids of Indians and others at this time, which made it necessary for Lebanon and the other towns to employ so many scouts, was another part of their policy. They designed to keep the inhabitants in such a state of anxiety and alarm, to put them to so much trouble and expense in guarding them- selves, as to discourage and weary them, and lead them to con- clude that it would be best for them to make peace with their
127
THE VERMONT CONTROVERSY.
enemies, and so gain opportunity to care for their fields and homes. There is no doubt but that the Allens were the leaders in these negotiations.
To complicate matters still more, another movement was made to form a new state, originating this time in the southern portion of the grants on both sides of the river. After several prelim- inary meetings a general convention of towns on both sides of the river was called at Charlestown, in January, 1781.
This town voted, December 25, 1780, "to accept of the motion made By the County of Cheshire. Voted that Lieut Elihu Hyde be a Delegate to attend the Convention at Charlestown, Jan. next."
The convention assembled at Charlestown, January 16, 1781. Forty-three towns from both sides of the river were represented. All the parties interested sent agents to watch, guide and control affairs, if possible, in their own interest. A large and able com- mittee was appointed to prepare the business of the convention. That committee reported January 17 in favor of a union of all the towns on the grants with the state of New Hampshire, a result which was expected from the tone of the preliminary meet- ings. The agents of New Hampshire "were much pleased with their success and well enjoyed the night." The agents of New York were in no wise downcast, for it is suspected that there was a secret understanding between New Hampshire and New York that they would share the territory of Vermont between them, making the ridge of the Green Mountains the boundary of the two states.
But Vermont? It is manifest that this measure, if consum- mated, would be fatal to her interest. She could not afford to lose so many towns on her own side of the Connecticut. It was probable that many more towns would be persuaded to join the movement. Thus, shorn of so much of her domain, she could present her claims to Congress with little hope of recognition as an independent state. But what can be done to arrest the move- ment or to turn it in her favor? It seems a hopeless task. But one of her ablest sons is present at that convention, watching with eagle eyes its proceedings. He has come prepared for all emergencies, for he has the certificate of a delegate in his pocket, though he has not presented it. His skill has never forsaken
128
HISTORY OF LEBANON.
him, he never loses heart. He is equal to the crisis in the fate of his beloved state. He inspires a motion that the report shall "be recommitted to be corrected and fitted for the press, as it would be a matter of public notoriety" and of great importance. The report is recommitted and Ira Allen does not sleep much that night. What arguments he uses, what considerations he presents, what motives he presses, cannot now be known. But when the next morning, January 19, at 10 o'clock, the report of the committee, "corrected and prepared for the press," is pre- sented, behold, Vermont is substituted for New Hampshire and union with the first state instead of the latter state is recom- mended.
The report is adopted by a large majority. Eleven delegates from eight towns on the east of the Connecticut, most of them members of the New Hampshire assembly, dissenting and pro- testing.
The secret of this marvelous change of front is undoubtedly this: Certain prominent men in that convention had never abandoned the scheme of the capital of a state somewhere on the Connecticut River. When they planned for a union with New Hampshire they thought that they would so far extend her terri- tory westward as to bring its center to the Connecticut. Just then, a suggestion is made to them that Vermont is willing to claim jurisdiction up to the line of Mason's grant. That sugges- tion is made by Ira Allen. It is now a question of probabilities, of the realization of their favorite scheme. New Hampshire has a capital already. Vermont has none, but is migratory. The large numerical majority of population in New Hampshire is in the eastern portion of the state and they would resist the re- moval of the seat of government so far to the west. Vermont has no concentrated population ; it is more numerous in the Con- necticut Valley than elsewhere-the balance of probabilities is with Vermont, and with her they would cast their lot.
Before the convention adjourned they appointed a committee to treat with the Vermont assembly and arrange for a union, and then adjourned, "to meet at Cornish N. H. Feb. 8 1781 opposite to Windsor Vt. where the Assembly would be in session."
February 10, 1781, Col. Elisha Payne presented to the Ver- mont assembly the request of the towns represented in the con-
HON. GEORGE S. TOWLE.
129
THE VERMONT CONTROVERSY.
vention at Charlestown-Cornish to be received into union with that state. The assembly prepared the way for their reception by resolving that "in order to quiet the disturbances on the two sides of the river (Connecticut), and the better to enable the inhabitants on the two sides of the river to defend their frontier, the Legislature of this state do lay a jurisdictional claim to all the lands whatever east of Connecticut river, north of Massa- chusetts, west of the Mason line and south of latitude 45° and that they do not exercise jurisdiction for the time being." The latter is a saving clause, looking cautiously to future contin- gencies.
The terms of union were mutually agreed upon and confirmed February 22, 1781. By these terms the towns were to be re- ceived whenever they, by a majority vote, accepted them.
At a town meeting held March 13, 1781 :
The several Articles of Union, Agreed upon By the Assembly Comtee of the state of Vermont & the Comtee of Convention from the County of Cheshire and Grafton &c being Read in s'd meeting was agreed to, Nem. Con. & Voted that Col. Elisha Payne and Lieut. Elihu Hyde Rep- resent the town of Lebanon in the Assembly of Vermont to be Holden in Windsor the first Wednesday in April next.
Colonel Payne had from the beginning been a leader in all these affairs, being a resident of Cardigan (Orange), until this time, when he came to East Lebanon and built extensive mills there.
The following towns were formally admitted to union with Vermont at the session of the assembly at Windsor in April : Acworth, Alstead, Bath, Cardigan, Charlestown, Chesterfield, Claremont, Cornish, Croydon, Dresden, Enfield, Gilsum, Grafton, Gunthwaite, Hanover, Haverhill, Hinsdale, Landaff, Lebanon, Lempster, Lyman, Lyme, Marlow, Morristown, New Grantham, Newport, New Stamford, Orford, Piermont, Plainfield, Rich- mond, Saville, Surry, Walpole and Westmoreland.
But the measure designed "to quiet the disturbances on the two sides of the Connecticut river," resulted in anything but quiet. New Hampshire did not see her domain rent from her without vigorous protests and action. In many of the towns there was a strong minority who still clung to their former
9
130
HISTORY OF LEBANON.
allegiance. As each state claimed jurisdiction over the same territory by the appointment of officers, institution of courts, and levying of taxes, collisions of a serious nature were inevitable. Vermont took possession of the records of the court of common pleas at Keene, N. H. New Hampshire protested and resisted. New Hampshire officers were arrested by Vermont officers and each was rescued by mobs of their friends. Vermont was charged with exchanging British soldiers taken in arms for private citizens. New Hampshire complained that in her dis- membered condition she could not comply with the requisitions of Congress for soldiers and provisions.
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.