USA > New Hampshire > History of New Hampshire, Volume II > Part 17
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
19I
A HISTORY
The withdrawals left the Assembly without a quorum, the thirty-seven members remaining not furnishing the necessary two-thirds, and nothing was further attempted in the way of legislation. Ira Allen was sent to Exeter as an agent in behalf of the State, and Ethan Allen to Philadelphia, and after an appeal to the towns for instructions, and for the election of members in place of those who had withdrawn, an adjournment was taken to meet at Bennington, February 12, 1779, at which time it was found that the Bennington party was in undisputed supremacy.
As has been noted, the Assembly at Windsor had on the 20th of October appointed a committee of five members to prepare and publish a defense of the rights of the Grants on both sides the river to unite under one government. Three of the committee, a majority, Professor Woodward of Dresden, Col. Payne of Cardigan, and General Bayley of Newbury, as their appointment had not been rescinded, assumed the duty of preparing and publishing such a defense, although they had withdrawn from the body which appointed them. This "Public Defense of the right of the New Hampshire Grants, so-called on both sides Connecticut river, to associate together and form themselves into an independent State," must be considered a remarkable document, and its publication December 1, 1778, eight days before the meeting of the convention of the valley towns at Cornish was well timed. It was probably from the pen of Professor Woodward, and is the most elaborate exposi- tion of the controversy up to that time, which had been pub- lished. It was an answer to the letters of the Allens, and Governor Chittenden, and to a pamphlet which had been circu- lated during the summer, signed "Pacificus," supposedly writ- ten by Col. Timothy Walker of Concord, and intended to counteract the influence of a pamphlet previously issued by the College party and signed "Republican." This "Pacificus" pamphlet was a really able and well considered statement of the position of the Exeter government relative to its jurisdiction over the Grants east of the river. It was weakened, however, by its unwarranted personal attacks on the leaders of the Col- lege party. Professor Woodward and Col. Payne may possibly have possessed that decidedly human attribute of selfishness,
192
NEW HAMPSHIRE
but "Pacificus" added little to the force and influence of his pamphlet by calling them "ignorant" and "malignant." Per- sonal attacks on character and motives are not argument, and if proof were needed of the logical and unanswerable reasoning of "Republican" it is found in statements made by "Pacificus" like the following: "The disappointments of a small junta of aspiring, avaricious men, in their endeavors to raise themselves and their connections to a degree of importance in the State, far, very far, beyond what their numbers or estate give them any pretense to, is the source of all this feud." President Weare and Ethan Allen did not hesitate to impugn motives, and in- dulge in aspersions on character even more direct and forcible.
The "Public Defense" quotes in full the letters of Presi- dent Weare to the New Hampshire delegation in Congress and to Governor Chittenden, the letter of Ethan Allen to President Weare, and the report of Allen relative to his visit to Philadel- phia, which he made to the Assembly October 10, and the claims made in these are answered in detail. The vote of the Assembly of October 20, under the terms of which a committee of five was appointed to draw up a defense, and under which the majority of the committee were then acting is also given in full, this vote being the result of a consideration of the letters of Presi- dent Weare and the letter and report of Ethan Allen.
The Assembly had voted :
I. That a declaration be drawn up, setting forth the political state of the Grants on both sides of Connecticut River, from the time of their being granted-viz., that the Grants were taken as being under the jurisdiction of the government of New Hampshire; where the grantees expected to have remained-that the King of Great Britain under the influence of a false and ex-parte representation passed a decree in Council, A. D., 1764, that part of the Grants should be under control of the Government of New York-that said decree was in its nature void from the beginning, on account of the undue influence under which it was obtained; and that the whole of said Grants were consequently of right, under the same jurisdiction as before said decree took place-but the Governor of New Hampshire not exercising jurisdiction over those west of the river, they remained part under the juris- diction of the government of New York, but the greater part in opposition thereto, till near the time of the Declaration of Independence by the United States, by which the whole of the Grants became unconnected with any state; and had an opportunity to assert and enter on measures to support their just rights, and were at liberty to unite together or into any other state
193
A HISTORY
which might agree to receive them-in this situation the inhabitants of the Grants west of the river (already determined by the cruel treatment they received from New York not to be under the control of that state) en- tered on measures for establishing a government among themselves; and a considerable number of towns on the east of the river, after various in- effectual attempts to unite with New Hampshire on such principles as they esteemed just and equitable, united with the Grants west of the river on the plan of government which they had adopted; and with them have solemnly covenanted to support each other in such government-and as by their situ- ation and agreement in manners, habits, &c., they consider they are called upon and warranted to set up and maintain civil government in a distinct state; and as these Grants ought not to be divided between New York and New Hampshire, or any other way, merely to serve interested views; they are unanimously determined in every prudent and lawful way, to maintain and support entire, the state as it now stands.
2. That proposals be made to New Hampshire; that these towns only, which lie west of the Mason claim, and which shall accede to union with this state, agreeable to a resolve of Assembly at their sessions at Bennington the IIth day of June last, be admitted to a union with this state-and in case New Hampshire shall not agree thereto, or to some line that shall be agreed upon as an equivalent, that they agree to a submission of all matters of com- plaint and dispute in the premises, to Congress for decision; the Grants being allowed equal privileges as the state of New Hampshire in supporting their cause-or that they submit the matter to any court, that may be agreed on, and constituted by the parties, for a decision ; saving to themselves in the trial, all the right, privilege and advantage which they may or might have, by any former grant, jurisdiction, power or privilege, on account of any former situation or connection with any province or state heretofore had; and notwithstanding any subsequent transactions.
The "Public Defense" makes first of all the clearest and sharpest distinction between the charter governments of Massa- chusetts and Connecticut, and the royal commission govern- ment which had been exercised in New Hampshire, since it was on this distinction that the claims of the Grants rested. Presi- dent Weare had asserted that the seceding towns could no more claim that they were unconnected with any State than could Hartford claim to be unconnected with Connecticut or Boston with Massachusetts. In replying to this the authors of the Defense state pretty nearly their whole case. They say :
"It is surprising that men who pretend to be wise politicians by being educated under an arbitrary government, are so grossly ignorant of the dis- tinction there is between charter rights and the exercise of despotic power. Do they not know that every individual inhabitant, and consequently every
194
NEW HAMPSHIRE
town in the State of Connecticut, by charter, make up the Governor and Company of that state; and that, by the same grant or Charter they hold all their landed property, as much as any body of proprietors of a township or tract of land? And by the same Charter they were made a Body Politic in name and fact. And in holding the Charter sound, they hold themselves indissolubly connected together, which bond of Union must remain so long as the state exists. There never has been, nor does there need to be, any alteration of the mode of government in that state to comport with a state of independence, except the transposition of the name in which the executive power is exercised from the King to the people. In the same way and man- ner are the people of Massachusetts held together and united by Grants and Charters from the King, comprising both landed property and jurisdiction ; which the King could not constitutionally alter, and which the people still hold sacred! and therefore hold themselves connected together as much as Connecticut. Now wherein does New Hampshire compare with these two states? New Hampshire, as such, never owned an inch of land or farthing of property; neither could they even grant so much as a town corporation; nor had they right to a voice in the matter. In short they never were a body Politic in any legal sense whatever, and nothing more than a number of peo- ple subjected to the obedience of the King's servant in such way and manner as the Commission prescribed; very similar to the old feudatory system in England. * When the King's authority was thrown off and rejected by the Declaration of Independence of the United States, the royal com- mission became a mere nullity, and was to the people as though it had never been, for it contained nothing more than a command from the magis- trate therein named to govern, and a requisition or command to the people to obey. Nothing was contained in it reciprocal between the King and the people. Nothing that the people could claim as a grant or benefit, not even so much as the continuance of the commission itself; but it rested wholly at the pleasure of the crown. Now as the commission altogether ascertained the extent as well as the power of jurisdiction, when the commission was once removed out of the way, there were no more any limits of jurisdiction left than there was power of expressing it. Consequently there never having been any confederacy of the people,, either by themselves or by any grant or charter from the crown or otherwise, whereby they were ever incorporated and united into a political body, whenever that compulsive power (which alone held them together) ceased, they became unconnected; and so will re- main until by their own act they unite and confederate together, as much as the thirteen United States were before they united into a confederacy. Nay the people never were at liberty to unite together or not to unite until that despotic power which alone held them togther was thrown off, which was done by the declaration of independence. * * When the coercive power of the King was rejected and ceased to operate, the people made a stand at the first legal stage, viz., their town incorporations, which they re- ceived from the King as little grants or charters of privileges by which they were united in little incorporated bodies with certain powers and privileges
195
A HISTORY
which were not held at the pleasure of the King (as those commissions were) but were perpetual. These the people by universal consent held sacred; and so long as they hold these grants, so long do they hold them- selves subjects of government according to them; and as such must and do they act, and transact all their political affairs. Hence it is that the major part of one of these towns have a right to control the minor part, Those are all the grants the people ever had from the King whereby they became united together and could hold against the King, &c., Consequently they will re- main so many distinct corporations until they agree to unite in one aggre-
gate body. * * Moreover, so long as men have a regard to the safety of their persons and families, their liberties and properties, they will naturally associate and confederate together, so far as will best secure them- selves; which is the whole design of government. And the same principle that influenced them to hold sacred those town incorporations, will prompt them to unite still further. Necessity and interest are so influential in this matter that there is not the least danger. The only difficulty ever arising in this case is the manner and form of uniting and mode of government."
There could be no mistaking the attitude of the College party on this Defense. That the Grants had taken part in the formation of the Exeter government was admitted, but it was claimed in offset to this participation, that the Exeter govern- ment had been entered upon only as a temporary makeshift before the separation from Great Britain, and that it could in no sense be regarded as a permanent bond when the authority of the Crown ceased. In the matter of expediency, the Defense dwelt upon the local situation of the people on the two sides of the river, their intimate intercourse with each other, their com- mon habits and customs, in both political and religious matters, in all of which there was a radical difference from the people of the Mason Grant. There was no indulgence in personal at- tacks on leaders of either the Exeter or Bennington party, unless the arraignment of Ethan Allen for bargaining away the interest of the east side towns for the support of the Exeter government against the claims of New York in Congress might be so con- sidered. But the characterizing of such conduct or bargaining as being "derogatory to the honor and integrity of Congress," and "as savoring too much of intrigue and bribery," was dig- nified as compared with the personal invective employed by the other side. President Weare in writing at this time to Gov- ernor Chittenden speaks of the scheme of a new state in the Connecticut Valley as the blind design of some uneasy and
196
NEW HAMPSHIRE
never-to-be-contented persons whose views must certainly be more detrimental to you than they possibly can be to New Hampshire." Ira Allen wrote of them as "a few restless, un- easy men not having the good of either of the States at heart, but their own private interest and immolliment"; while Ethan his brother was more explicit in declaring that "the heads of the schism at large are a petulent, pettifogging, scribling sort of gentry, that will keep any government in hot water till they are thoroughly brought under by the exertions of authority."
Twenty-two towns were represented in the convention which met at Cornish, December 9, fourteen on the east side the river and eight on the west. The number of towns was not as large as had been expected and were not contiguous in terri- tory, but they were the most populous and influential in the two counties of Grafton and Gloucester, and it was felt they could be depended upon to secure the assent of their less popu- lar neighbors to any plan which might be agreed upon. The convention organized with Lieut .- Governor Marsh as chairman and Professor Woodward as clerk.
It was voted unanimously that the members of the Con- vention will unite together "for the purpose of pursuing such legal and regular measures as may have a tendency to secure to these Grants the benefits of good government, without any regard to the distinction made by the arbitrary line drawn on the western bank of Connecticut river by the King in Council in the year 1764." The Public Defense was repeatedly read and unanimously approved.
No Journal of the proceedings of the Convention has been preserved but a series of resolves adopted by it is in the posses- sion of the New Hampshire Historical Society. These provided first, for agreeing upon and settling a dividing line between New Hampshire and the Grants; secondly, that the whole dis- pute with New Hampshire be submitted to the decision of Con- gress, provided the Grants be allowed equal privileges with other parties in espousing and conducting their cause; thirdly, that the Vermont towns not represented in the Convention be requested to join proposals for the settlement of the boundary line at or near the Mason line, and in case of their neglect or refusal to thus join, then efforts should be made to induce New Hampshire to claim jurisdiction over all the Grants, pro-
197
A HISTORY
vided that state will adopt a plan of government satisfactory to the people of the Grants. Lastly it was unanimously de- clared that until one or the other of their proposals be accepted the "United Towns," as they now styled themselves, would trust in Providence to aid them in their efforts to defend their rights. Before adjournment, a standing committee was ap- pointed, with large powers which immediately established permanent headquarters at Dresden, and entered into an active campaign of visitation and correspondence. This committee consisting of Joseph Marsh of Hartford, chairman, Bezaleel Woodward of Dresden, clerk, Israel Morey of Orford, Jonathan Child of Lyme, Elisha Payne of Cardigan, Peter Olcott of Nor- wich and Jacob Bayley of Newbury was an exceptionally able one. The committee were empowered to call a convention of the Grant towns whenever in their opinion it might be necessary.
The action of this convention was by no means regarded with indifference either at Bennington or Exeter. Ira Allen, who in a letter to President Weare under date of December 12, 1778, said he "providentially happened at the Convention," declared that the leading spirits had the design "to break up this State (Vermont) and connect the whole to New Hamp- shire for the sole purpose of bringing the Seat of government on Connecticut river at or near the College and to establish a plan of government similar to Vermont." Allen was probably not so far wrong as to the purpose of the College party, and his assurance that the union of the New Hampshire towns with Vermont would be formally and officially dissolved at the next session of the Vermont legislature was well grounded. At the same time he warned President Weare that any attempt on the part of New Hampshire to extend her jurisdiction west of the river would be resisted by Vermont to the extent of her resources. He also published an address to the people of Ver- mont urging them to adhere to the government they had organ- ized, and to confine its jurisdiction within the limits originally contemplated. Lake Champlain on the west and Connecticut river on the east.
Lieutenant-Governor Marsh and his committee exerted themselves to induce those Vermont towns which were still legal to the Windsor Constitution to instruct the Vermont legislature at its next session in Bennington in February, 1779,
198
NEW HAMPSHIRE
to perfect a union with the New Hampshire towns, but the Bennington leaders were active, and when the legislature met February II, such instructions as the towns had given were found to be directly opposite those asked for by Governor Marsh, and on the second day of the session February 12, it was voted without opposition that the sixteen east side towns "are of right included within the jurisdiction of New Hamp- shire" and that the union of these towns with Vermont "be and is hereby dissolved, and made totally void, null and extinct."
The next step taken by the Committee of the "United Towns" was to urge New Hampshire to claim jurisdiction over the whole of the Grants ignoring the royal decree of 1764, in other words to assert jurisdiction over the entire State of Ver- mont. Consistency does not always count in controversies, and in urging New Hampshire to make this claim the College party seemingly forgot that it had all along emphatically denied that New Hampshire had any rightful jurisdiction westward of the Mason line from the date of the Declaration of American Inde- pendence. General Jacob Bayley of Newbury and Davenport Phelps of Orford were named as the committee to make the proposals to the Exeter government. Their petition was pre- sented March 17. It set forth that the inhabitants of the Grants since the Declaration of Independence, viewed themselves at liberty to connect in one body politic, or unite with any other state, and that they are now in general desirous of a union with the State of New Hampshire. The petition in closing said, "We being duly authorized for that purpose, do now propose to this honor- able court, that the whole of said Grants be connected and confederated with the State of New Hampshire, receiving and enjoying equal privileges and immunities with the good people of said State." Nothing was said in this petition concerning the terms on which the Grant towns would be willing to unite with the New Hampshire government towns which had been previously emphatically stated and set forth, and subsequent events proved that the statement that "the people generally on the Grants were desirous of a reunion with New Hampshire" was made without any adequate knowledge of the situation, since when this question was submitted to the towns west of the river for a vote, little interest was shown in the matter and the returns were scanty and unsatisfactory.
199
A HISTORY
When the Bayley-Phelp's petition was presented, Ira Allen was at Exeter, whither he had been despatched by the Benning- ton leaders, ready to counteract, so far as possible any influence which might be exerted by Bayley and Phelps. The New Hampshire Assembly proceeded cautiously. The petition was referred to a committee of which Josiah Bartlett, who had held previous negotiation with Ethan Allen, was chairman, which reported April 2 in favor of exercising jurisdiction as far as the western bank of Connecticut river, "and no further until the dispute is settled by Congress." This report amounted to noth- ing, as was doubtless intended by its chairman, and its con- sideration was referred to the next session of the Assembly to be held in June. The next day, April 3, an attempt was made to conciliate some of the leaders of the Dresden party by naming Elisha Payne as Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas for Grafton County, and Bezaleel Woodward associate, and justice of the peace and quorum, but they did not accept, and the courts were not opened. The United Towns' Committee, at the suggestion of the New Hampshire Assembly in April, sent a circular letter to each of the Vermont towns requesting a formal vote by these towns on the proposition of union with New Hampshire, with the number of votes in each town, and the whole number voting. Returns were received in the affirma- tive from Newbury, Hartford, Peacham and perhaps two or three other towns, but there was a general failure to make return. This failure was charged by the committee as due to the interception and destruction of great numbers of the cir- cular letter by emissaries of the Bennington party, and though this charge was strenuously denied, there were evidences of its substantial truth.
On the third of June the standing committee of the United Towns met at Dresden and designated two of their number, Professor Woodward and Col. Olcott, to wait upon the New Hampshire Assembly and urge that body to claim jurisdiction over all the Grants on both sides of the river. They found Ira Allen also present at Exeter and a hearing was given both parties, the result of which was a vote by the Assembly June 24 that New Hampshire should claim jurisdiction over the whole of the Grants with this proviso, "that if the Honorable
200
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Continental Congress shall allow the said Grants west of Con- necticut river to be a separate state, as now claimed by some of the inhabitants thereof, by the name of Vermont, that in such case New Hampshire will acquiesce therein." As this was a measure only as against New York, leaving Vermont free to win her independence, if the consent of Congress could be secured and other difficulties removed, it was the kind of a victory for the College party which was eminently satisfactory to Governor Chittenden, the Allens and other leaders of the Bennington party.
New York was not without its friends in Cumberland County, and these gathered in convention at Brattleboro early in May, 1779, and petitioned the governor of New York to take immediate and effectual steps to establish the authority of that State over that section. This Brattleboro convention doubtless hastened action which had been contemplated by Congress for some time, because of various appeals and repre- sentations by various parties, and June I, 1779 Congress passed the following resolve: "that a committee be appointed to repair to the inhabitants of a certain district known by the name of New Hampshire Grants, and inquire into the reasons why they refuse to continue citizens of the respective States which here- tofore exercised jurisdiction over the same district. For that as Congress are in duty bound on the one hand to preserve inviolate the rights of the several States, or on the other they will always be careful to provide that the justice due to the states does not interfere with the justice which may be due to individuals.
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.