USA > New Hampshire > History of New Hampshire, Volume II > Part 18
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
"Resolved that the said committee confer with the said in- habitants, and that they take every prudent measure to promote an amicable settlement of all differences and prevent divisions and animosities so prejudicial to the interests of the United States."
The committee named consisted of Representatives Edwards of Massachusetts Bay, Ellsworth and Post of Connec- ticut, Witherspoon of New Jersey and Attlee of Pennsylvania, any three of whom were empowered to act, and they were ordered to report specially and with all convenient speed, the further consideration of the subject being postponed until they
20I
A HISTORY
had made their report. Only two of the committee, the two last named came to the Grants. After spending a few days in Bennington and without giving any hearing to any of the parties, they returned to Philadelphia and made an informal inconsequential report July 13. Such representations as they did make were understood as in favor of the claims of New York.
A Convention of the United Towns had been called by Chairman Marsh of the Standing Committee to meet at Dresden July 20, for the purpose of preparing a statement to lay before the Congressional Committee, but before that date two mem- bers of the latter committee had been in Bennington and returned again to Philadelphia. The convention, however, met according to call, appointed Col. Olcott and Professor Woodward agents to attend upon the Continental Congress and adjourned till July 27 to meet at Lebanon. At the Lebanon meeting nineteen towns were represented, and a memorial to Congress which had been prepared in the interval between the two meet- ings by the Standing Committee was adopted and immediately transmitted by the hand of Col. Olcott to the Congressional Committee at Philadelphia. This memorial was accompanied by a copy of the Public Defense, the pamphlet signed "Republi- can" and the so called College Hall Address. There were also complaints from the towns of Barnet, Newbury, Fairlee, Royal- ton, Hartford, Sharon and Norwich of the course pursued by the Vermont Assembly relative to land grants and other matters. While these were properly delivered to the Congressional Com- mittee, and possibly were presented to Congress, they received so scant attention that when a few months later, the documents were wanted they could not be found, having never been placed on file, or if filed had been purloined.
The committee of five which had failed to perform its duties, was discharged and September 24, 1779, Congress requested New Hampshire, New York and Massachusetts, which had come into the affair by claiming rights in the Grants, to confer upon it authority to hear and determine the entire controversy, and invited all parties together with the people on the Grants to send representatives to Philadelphia, February 1, 1780, when a hearing was not only promised but the faith of Congress was
202
NEW HAMPSHIRE
pledged to make a final determination, and to enforce its decision with all the power of the Confederation.
The Dresden leaders had now come to the conclusion that no arrangement which could be depended upon could be made with either Bennington or Exeter and were ready to enter into an agreement with New York to fix the boundary at the Green Mountains, and thus realize, despite what New Hampshire might do, their ambition of securing a separate state in the Connecticut Valley, and New York for a time at least seemed disposed to agree. Jay wrote to Clinton in October that he favored this plan, and in November Gen. Moses Hazen, then at Peekskill, wrote Col. Timothy Bedel, that the general opinion was to the effect that a division of the Grants with the Green Mountains as the line of division was more than probable.
New Hampshire, New York and Massachusetts gave Con- gress the authority to determine the matters in dispute, and their accredited agents appeared in Philadelphia February I, 1780. The United Towns were also represented by Col. Olcott and Professor Woodward with the tacit understanding if not explicit instructions from a Convention held at Dresden the previous December, that they use their influence in favor of the establishment of a separate state in the valley, and if that could not be obtained that New Hampshire exercise jurisdiction over the entire Grants. Vermont, however, declined to have anything to do with the matter and refused to send agents to Philadelphia, taking the ground that she was independent of all three claimants, who were seeking her destruction, by dividing her among themselves, and also independent of Congress and the confederation. Messrs. Olcott and Woodward saw in this refusal of Vermont an advantage for the College party of which they were not slow to avail themselves. They bore credentials, signed by Chairman Marsh of "the Committee of United Towns," and claimed to represent the most of the towns in the northern district of the New Hampshire Grants on both sides the Connecticut river. Congress did not grant them full recognition, but permitted them to present their written protest against any division of the Grants with the river as dividing line.
Congress found itself unable to act, a sufficient number
203
A HISTORY
of disinterested states not being represented, and determin- ation was postponed until a constitutional quorum of states should be represented. It however ordered, June 2, that status quo be maintained until settlement was made, and it especially enjoined Vermont to attempt no exercise of authority over towns which did not acknowledge her jurisdiction. It also forbade her to make grants of new townships. Vermont, how- ever, had entered on a course of independence and paid no attention to the injunctions and commands of Congress.
The Committee of the United Towns on the 20th of July addressed a letter to Congress complaining that Vermont by its granting of land grants was engaged in a systematic course of bribery in order to enlist the sympathy and aid of prominent men in New Hampshire. They wrote concerning the action of Vermont: "They have ever since their sessions in March been assiduous to obtain surveys of the ungranted lands and have now sundry parties of men out for that purpose, who instead of resting matters, are hastened on account of the late resolves of Congress, with a view to obtain surveys of the whole before their sessions in October next, and we understand are deter- mined to make grants of the whole to such persons as they shall apprehend will be most useful to assist in the establishment of a new state, and thereby at one stroke prevent an occasion for any further prohibition of Congress, purchase advocates in ad- jacent states and procure supplies of money to accomplish their purpose. * * Vast numbers are continually making application for lands, and become advocates for their establish- ment in order to obtain them.
* In short no measures are omitted which may tend to weaken the authority of Con- gress in the minds of the people, and destroy the salutory influence of their late resolves, which they say were passed only to quiet New York till they can establish their state. New Hampshire continues to call on these towns east of the river (who have connected themselves with those west) for men, money and provisions, but there is no authority to which they can consistently own allegiance till Congress decide the dispute.
The people in these parts mean to abide by the decis- ion of Congress, and abhor the sentiments of those who deny their right .- They will cheerfully acquiesce in anything Con-
204
NEW HAMPSHIRE
gress may judge proper, but ardently wish a union of the two sides of the river. New Hampshire will be their choice, if a new state be not admitted which they have generally done ex- pecting."
The College party, however, were fearful that the claim of New Hampshire to the Grants would not be earnestly pushed when Congress should take the matter up. This is apparent from a letter written under date of July 25 by Professor Wood- ward to Samuel Livermore who with General Sullivan had been designated to represent New Hampshire in the matter. The condition of affairs in the Gloucester and Grafton County towns, repudiating as they did the authority of Vermont and New Hampshire respectively, and their confederation, was, at its best, existing only for the special purpose of securing in some way a statehood which should give them recognition as towns, and prevent a division at the river, was one of constant alarm and uncertainty, which was increased by the discovery that certain of the Bennington leaders were in secret corre- spondence with the British in Quebec with a view of uniting Vermont with the king's dominions in Canada. The so-called "Haldimand Correspondence" which was carried on from 1779 to 1783 certainly warranted suspicion that the Bennington leaders, growing desperate over the delay in securing recogni- tion of Vermont at the hands of Congress were favorably con- sidering an open alliance with Great Britain, and the College party did not hesitate to openly charge that Ethan Allen was. at the head of a plot to detach Vermont from the American cause.
The attitude of the United Towns Committee presented a striking contrast to this. For months they had been planning an invasion of Canada, collecting at their own expense supplies and material for such invasion, securing the enlistment of a considerable body of troops under command of Col. Bedel, and persistently urging the importance of such an expedition, on the New Hampshire and Massachusetts authorities, and also upon Congress and General Washington. In promotion of this scheme another convention of the United Towns assembled at Dresden August 30. Professor Woodward, as clerk, and by order of the convention, wrote the President of Congress: "Col.
1
205
A HISTORY
Olcott is again appointed agent in behalf of the people on both sides Connecticut river from Charlestown upward, in the dispute betwixt the claiming states and the New Hampshire Grants .- We entreat that a determination of the question, 'Whether a new state shall be allowed on the Grants' may be deferred no longer, as every confusion is taking place among the people and will continue while that point is unsettled, of which he can give particular information, and to whom we beg leave to refer Congress. * There is no one point in which the people can agree so well as in an union with New Hampshire in case the whole on both sides the river shall not be permitted to unite in a new state which the body of the people have now done expecting. Great numbers think they have an undoubted right to demand a union with New Hampshire by virtue of the compact made with them by the king in the Grants he made of the lands by the Governor of New Hamp- shire. It has been suggested that the people will take arms and claim the protection of Canada under the Quebec bill in oppos- ition to any resolve Congress may pass against a new state, which we can assure them is without foundation in respect to the body of the people, who are waiting with earnest expecta- tion the decision of Congress on the subject, and mean to conform their conduct to it-there are very few but what will readily acquiesce-none of any consequence on this side the Green Mountains, and few on the other, however some of their leaders may desire to raise a tumult in opposition to them."
Professor Woodward also urged that Congress order within a month an expedition into Canada, detailing at length the practicability of such an expedition and the success almost certain to attend it. "A good commander with few Continental troops in addition to such volunteers as may be raised for such purpose on these Grants and in the New England States, with a suitable quantity of arms and ammunition to furnish those Canadians who are now eager for such an expedition, and will at once join us on arrival of an army there, will easily take possession of and keep the district of Montreal, and that being secured, the country above, even to and beyond the western Lakes must soon submit to the United States. Your petitioners are confident that fifteen hundred men from these Grants will
206
NEW HAMPSHIRE
turn out (if called for) to assist in taking possession of that country. They can and will cheerfully furnish five hundred horses, one hundred teams and ten thousand bushels of wheat, and more if necessary, also such other grain as may be wanted, on the credit of the Continent, from the district of country between the heights of the two sides of Connecticut river and north of the Massachusetts Bay, the inhabitants of which, (more than five thousand families) are now chiefly obliged to hold the sword in one hand and tools of husbandry in the other, and probably must continue so to do till that country is reduced, unless we have a large Continental force continually supported here to defend us from their ravages, as our frontier is very exten- sive." It does not anywhere appear that Congress ever con- sidered this matter of a Canadian expedition, though the authors of the scheme continued for some time to agitate its desirability. The 30th of August Convention at Dresden was more largely attended than those which had preceded it, the Cumberland and Cheshire county towns, north of Charlestown, sending dele- gates, having been spurred to this action by the suspicious transactions taking place west of the mountains.
The long promised hearing by Congress from which so much was expected, at least by the United Towns began Septem- ber 19, 1780. At the opening of the hearing Ira Allen and Stephen R. Bradley appeared for Vermont, but finding little encourage- ment for their claims, discovered that their authority had ex- pired, that they lacked important documents, demanded an adjournment, entered a protest against the proceedings, and withdrew without taking part. Col. Olcott represented the United Towns or College party, and he was sustained by one Luke Knowlton, who had been sent by a convention of Cum- berland County towns held at Brattleboro August 20, in the interest of New York which was now in favor of making the Green Mountains the line of division. New Hampshire repre- sentatives laid claim to the entire Grants. There was however a strong suspicion that the New Hampshire delegates in Con- gress were not entirely loyal to their instructions. General Peabody was well known to be opposed to New Hampshire jurisdiction beyond the Connecticut, and according to Ethan Allen, Josiah Bartlett had entered into an agreement with him
207
A HISTORY
to oppose such jurisdiction. Gen. Sullivan had written Presi- dent Weare three days before the hearing opened that because of the assurance of Col. Olcott that the general sentiment of the Grants was in favor of a union with New Hampshire, he would be less violent in his opposition to that proposition than he had previously been, but at the same time he did not desire a decision which would extinguish Vermont. Of the New Hamp- shire representatives at Philadelphia, Woodbury Langdon was undoubtedly alone in advocating without reservation the exten- sion of the jurisdiction of that state over the entire Grants. The hearing lasted three days when the whole matter, to the sore disappointment of Col. Olcott and those whom he represented, was indefinitely postponed. The reason assigned for postpone- ment was the withdrawal of the Vermont representatives after their defiant protest, but the real attitude of the New Hampshire delegation in Congress had doubtless much to do with the failure of Congress to take action.
Dissatisfaction with the outcome was violently manifested almost immediately in the river towns, and the storm of indig- nation which arose led to the formation of new combinations. At a meeting of the people of Cumberland County, heretofore partisans of New York, held at Brattleboro October 31, a meet- ing promoted by Knowlton on his return from Philadelphia, dele- gates were appointed to meet such persons as should be authorized for the purpose "by a convention of committees of Gloucester County on the west and Grafton County on the east side of Connecticut river, to devise and carry into execution such measures as they shall deem best calculated to unite in one political body all the inhabitants from Mason's Grant on the east to the height of land on the west of said river." This was a revival of the "New Connecticut" scheme which had been pro- posed by the College Hall Convention of 1776. It is more than probable that this proposal was suggested by the United Towns Committee, since there is no evidence that it originated with the Brattleboro meeting. The convention proposed was held at Charlestown November 8, with delegates present from Grafton, Gloucester and Cumberland counties, and while little record of the meeting exists, measures were adopted to ascertain more fully the sentiments of the people preparatory to action. With
208
NEW HAMPSHIRE
the exception of Charlestown, Cheshire County towns were not represented at this meeting. It does not appear that they had been invited to participate, perhaps for the reason that they were for the most part represented in the Assembly at Exeter, and had not been ignored, as had Grafton, in the distribution of favors by that body. It was soon discovered, however, that, if possible, they were more exasperated by the inconsistent, not to say hypocritical, course of New Hampshire, than were the Grafton County towns. The Cheshire towns, under the lead of Gen. Bellows of Walpole, held a meeting in that town November 15, at which a committee was appointed to confer with like com- mittees from other counties, and at which it was determined "that matters lately agitated with respect to the jurisdiction of the New Hampshire Grants render a union of the territory indispensably necessary."
This Walpole Committee of which Gen. Benjamin Bellows was chairman sent out a printed circular letter to the several towns on the Grants on both sides the river asking them to appoint one or more delegates to a general convention to be held at Charlestown, Jan. 16, 1781. The committee set forth, the purpose of the convention as follows: "The situation of the territory, by reason of there being a frontier, as well as many other matters, which are obvious respecting commerce and transactions of a public nature, make it expedient that they be united in all their interests, in order to make their efforts, in that quarter, against the common enemy, more vigorous and efficacious. In respect to government, great disadvantages may arise by a division. In that case delinquents may easily evade the operations of justice, by passing frome one state to another, and thereby be induced more readily to practice iniquity on that part where the body of inhabitants and the principal traffic center. And we imagine that a union of public interest is the only means by which the contentions and animosities, now sub- sisting among the inhabitants of the territory, can be brought to a happy issue : for, so long as the course of justice is in different channels. where people are so nearly allied, disturbances will arise. From authentic information, we cannot but apprehend, that the State of New Hampshire is greatly amiss, if not grossly negligent (to call it by no harsher name) in trusting affairs of
209
A HISTORY
such great importance as the settlement of their western bound- ary, to a committee, some of whom, we conceive would wish the loss of half the state, rather than New Hampshire should extend their claim west of the Connecticut river. And from the best authority that can be obtained, it appears that the agent of the state aforesaid, is endeavoring to confirm a division of the Grants, contrary to their true interests ; which has given the people on the Grants just occasion to rouse and exert them- selves in support of an union of the whole."
New Hampshire seemed to realize that the situation was a critical one, and just before the convention met at Charles- town appointed Gen. Bellows and Samuel Livermore delegates to Congress with instructions to move for a speedy decision of the question "Whether the Grants shall be allowed to be a separate state or not." While these instructions were not so explicit as might be desired, the character and well known views of the delegates indicated that the Assembly was at last really in earnest to prosecute the claim to the whole of the Grants to a conclusion. It also assented to a plan for a new constitutional convention to be held at Concord in June on the basis of repre- sentation which had from the beginning been contended for by the College party, viz., to allow one member to every town, parish and district having fifty familes and under, and an addi- tional member for every fifty families in excess of that number, and precepts were to issue to the Grants on the west side the river as well as to those on the east side.
When the convention met January 16, 1781, forty-three towns, were represented, about equally divided between the two sides of the river. There were no delegates from west of the Green Mountains. No list of the delegates has been preserved, but representative men of all parties to the controversy were there. The New Hampshire Assembly was represented by twelve of its members from Cheshire County. Col. Olcott, Col. Payne, Professor Woodward, Luke Knowlton, Gen. Bellows, Ira Allen and others of the leaders, were there either as dele- gates from their own towns or from adopted constituencies. For example Ira Allen bore credentials from Sunderland, but his real credentials were his secret instructions from Governor Chittenden to defeat at all hazards any attempt to divide Ver-
210
NEW HAMPSHIRE
mont. Samuel Chase of Cornish was made chairman and Professor Woodward, clerk. It was recognized that action of large importance was about to be taken, and all parties and interests were watchful and active. New York, Exeter and the United Towns or College party were united in favor of joining all the Grants east of the mountains to New Hampshire. The College party had not entirely abandoned hope of securing a separate state in the valley, but the hope had become faint and they were ready to accept union with New Hampshire with the Green Mountains as the western boundary, which would result as a matter of course in giving the territory west of the moun- tains to New York. After two days of discussion it was voted by a large majority that New Hampshire should extend her jurisdiction as proposed, and a committee headed by Gen. Bellows prepared a report embodying this recommendation. Before final action was taken on this report. Ira Allen arrived, and he recognized at once that the situation was a critical one for Vermont-a matter of life or death. He managed to secure the re-commitment of the report over night ostensibly to secure some minor corrections, and at once set himself at work, with his characteristic energy and resources to undo what had already been accomplished. There is little doubt that he spent a busy night. Just what arguments he used with Gen. Bellows' Com- mittee and with the members of the convention to secure from the majority of the committee an entirely different report than the one recommended, and its adoption by a large majority is not known, but committee and convention which was on the 17th of January for New Hampshire, was on the 18th for Vermont. Allen's own account of what was done and how it was done is enlightening: "Mr. Allen informed some confiden- tial persons, that the governor, council, and some other leading characters, on the west side of the Green Mountains, were for extending their claim of jurisdiction to the Mason line: and that if the Convention would take proper measures, the legis- lature of Vermont would extend their claim at their adjourned term in February 1781 ; and that he was authorized to give such assurance."
A motion was made and carried, to consider the report and recommit it to the committee, to be corrected and fitted for
211
A HISTORY
the press, as it would be a matter of public notoriety, and to lay it again before the convention the next morning. The friends of New Hampshire were much pleased with their suc- cess and well enjoyed the night: but the scene changed the next morning, and the committee reversed their report, and reported to unite all the territory of New Hampshire, west of Mason's east line, extending to Connecticut river, with the State of Vermont; which report was accepted, by a great majority of the convention, it being principally opposed by twelve mem- bers of the Council and Assembly of New Hampshire, who, thereupon, withdrew to remonstrate against the proceeding.
This barefaced conduct of the members of the legislature disclosed their intention at once, and furnished Vermont with fair pretensions to extend her jurisdiction on grounds of similar policy and self preservation.
The convention then appointed a committee to confer with the legislature of Vermont at their next term, and adjourned to meet at Cornish (only three miles from Windsor the place of sessions of the legislature of Vermont, agreeable to adjourn- ment) on the same day with them.
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.