USA > New Hampshire > Sullivan County > Cornish > History of the town of Cornish, New Hampshire, with genealogical record, 1763-1910, Vol. I > Part 5
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
"We might have had enough, enough for every want of ours, For luxury, medicine and toil and yet have had no flowers.
"The clouds might give abundant rain, the nightly dews might fall,
And the herb that keepeth life in man, might yet have drunk them all.
" Thien wherefore, wherefore were they made, all dyed with crim- son light-
All fashioned with supremest grace, upspringing day and night-
"Springing in valleys green and low, and on the mountain high, And in the silent wilderness, where no man passes by?
"Our outward life requires them not, then wherefore had they birth?
To minister delight to man, to beautify the earth." -Mary Howitt.
An observant mind, instructed in the love of the beautiful discovers that Nature has bestowed with unstinted measure the wild flower upon our hills and through our valleys. "Every- where about us they are glowing." In great variety, each in its own season, from early spring until the severe frosts of autumn these lovely messengers are sent for the pleasure and inspiration of man. Their varieties are almost numberless, and even un- named. They would teach us wisdom and incite to praise.
"Were I in churchless solitude remaining, Far from all voice of teachers or divines, My soul would find in flowers of God's ordaining, Priests, sermons, shrines."
-Horace Smith.
The wild flowers of our primeval forests possessed charms hardly excelled by those of the present day. Ages before man
42
HISTORY OF CORNISH.
saw them, they annually sprung up, flourished in their beauty, performed their mission, and then lay down awaiting the resur- rection of the following year.
After the removal of the forests, the flora of the field under- went a change. The soil of the cultivated fields was now open to the reception of any foreign seeds which might be brought to it, and in place of the wild flower were the cultivated grasses with their flowers. So in the open field have the clovers and daisies, with their sweet flowers, in part supplanted the many varieties of the wild flower; while in their wild retreats, the latter still maintain their pristine excellence and beauty.
A corresponding change of the flora has taken place in the gardens of cultivated flowers. Our grandmothers were content with a few lilacs, hollyhocks, poppies and moss pinks, and a few medicinal and fragrant herbs, but the modern housewife now revels among a great profusion of cultivated flowers of almost endless variety.
CHAPTER IV.
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE GRANTS.
THE tract of country situated west of the Connecticut River, and now known by the name of Vermont was originally claimed by both New Hampshire and New York. In 1741, Benning Wentworth became governor of New Hampshire, receiving his commission from the king. He continued in office until 1767. In 1749, he received a commission giving him power to issue grants of the unimproved lands, including those lying west of the ยท Connecticut River. He and his successor continued doing so until the year 1764, when the king and council, revoking their former action, decided in favor of New York by declaring the eastern limits of their state to be the western bank of the Connec- ticut River, and that said line should be the western boundary of New Hampshire.
The grants which Governor Wentworth had made during this period of fifteen years, of lands west of the river, was 138 towns. At this point begins the celebrated conflict of jurisdiction, which lasted twenty-six years, over the "New Hampshire Grants, " now known as the State of Vermont.
Cornish, owing to its location in such close proximity to the territory in dispute, became a party in the bitter political strife of those years. Its inhabitants became such active participants in the controversy, that it is deemed proper to here record the leading features of that eventful period. Cornish, too, at that time, had her share of men of mental stature and influence that could not be defeated by any trifling opposition. Their inten- tions were doubtless in favor of the public good, even if in the heat of the controversy they have been charged with ambitious designs.
The grants issued by Governor Wentworth of lands west of the Connecticut River, the government of New York now declared to be void and called upon the settlers to surrender their charters and purchase new titles to their lands of the government of New York at exorbitant prices. Some of the towns complied with
44
HISTORY OF CORNISH.
this unjust requisition, but the larger portion of them refused to do so.
These lands, or towns, which the settlers refused to repurchase were granted to others by the governor of New York, and actions of ejectment brought and judgment obtained against the settlers in the courts at Albany. The settlers, seeing no hope through the law, determined on resistance to the arbitrary and cruel decisions of the court. Having fairly purchased their lands of one royal governor, they were determined not to submit and repurchase them of another. The attempts of the New York executive officers to enforce their governor's decrees were met with avowed opposition and they were not suffered to proceed in the execution of offices. The settlers who so resisted were indicted as rioters, but the court at Albany found it impracticable to carry their decisions against the settlers into execution. This opposition soon became organized under the lead of Ethan Allen, Seth Warner and others, who stirred up the minds of the people, who met in their several towns and appointed "committees of safety," and concerted measures for the common welfare. Their principal object, at first, was resistance to the high claims of New York. In 1774, the government of New York passed an act declaring that unless the offenders surrendered themselves to their authority within seventy days they should, if indicted, be convicted and suffer death without the benefit of clergy. At the same time a reward of fifty pounds was offered for the appre- hension of eight of the principal leaders who had become dis- tinguished in the opposition. This threatening state of affairs continued without abatement until the war commenced between Great Britain and her colonies, which event was close at hand. This probably prevented the parties from proceeding to open hostilities.
During these years of strife and conflict of claims, another sentiment found birth in the minds of the settlers of these grants. They owed no allegiance to the State of New York, neither regarded any of her claims, save that of contempt. They began to regard it as no violation of compact, or of good feeling with New Hampshire, their mother state, should they become a sepa- rate and independent people. The sentiment rapidly developed in intensity and force that they, the inhabitants of the New Hampshire Grants ought, for certain reasons which they set forth,
45
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE GRANTS.
to be an independent state by themselves. Accordingly, conven- tions were held at Dorset, Vt., in July, 1776, and also September 25th of the same year, and at Westminster, Vt., January 15, 1777. At this last convention it was resolved that the New Hampshire Grants be a new and separate state. This convention adjourned to meet at Windsor, Vt., July 2, 1777, when a constitution was adopted. It adjourned again to meet on December 24 following at Windsor, when the constitution was revised, and the day set for election of officers March 1, 1778, and the Legislature of the new state to be held at Windsor on the second Thursday of the same month.
For months, previous to this the Province of New Hampshire had been taking steps to formally sever its connection with Great Britain and set up an independent state government. A series of provincial congresses had been holden at Exeter, N. H. The fifth and last of these was held December 28, 1775, when a committee was appointed to draft a new constitution for the government of the colony. This committee completed their work and reported the draft of the new constitution January 15, 1776. The convention adopted and voted to be governed by it. These acts virtually changed the Province of New Hampshire, politically, into the State of New Hampshire. This seems to have been a transition period, more so than was realized at the time, for the government of the province and of the towns passed almost imperceptibly from the government of a king to a government of the people, and yet the records of those years hardly showed the change which had actually occurred.
The severing of the relations between Great Britain and the Province of New Hampshire gave rise to this peculiar idea: that as the Crown had given towns charters, they were, by virtue of said charters, independent corporations of themselves, and that after their allegiance to the Crown was dissolved, they had a right to form confederations of their own, or to ally themselves with other federations as they saw fit or deemed best. This idea of independence became developed, especially in that portion of New Hampshire lying west of "Mason's Line" (so called). The Province of New Hampshire was originally granted to John Mason on November 7, 1629. The limits of his grant ex- tended "sixty miles west of the sea." The region between this line and the Connecticut River had subsequently been
46
HISTORY OF CORNISH.
annexed to the Province of New Hampshire by royal authority. This authority now being annulled, the people believed they were under no obligation to continue under the government of New Hampshire, but had the privilege of choosing for them- selves the jurisdiction to which they should belong.
Vermont having just organized as a state, was holding a session of its assembly at Windsor, in March, 1778. This seemed a favorable time for those towns east of Connecticut River in New Hampshire to take some concerted action to be admitted into the State of Vermont. By reason of kinship and similarity of habits they preferred to unite with Vermont, rather than remain with the people of eastern New Hampshire.
A committee from sixteen towns east of the river presented this petition to the Vermont Legislature in their first session at Windsor on the second Thursday of March, 1778. They rep- resented that they were not under the jurisdiction of any state, and asked that they might be admitted to, and consti- tute a part of, the new State of Vermont.
The towns east of the river represented at Windsor at this time were: Cornish, Lebanon, Hanover (then Dresden), Lyme, Orford, Piermont, Haverhill, Bath, Lyman, Littleton (then Apthorp), Dalton, Enfield, Canaan, Orange (then Cardigan), Landaff, Lisbon (then Granthwaite), Franconia (then Morris- town). The town of Cornish was especially active in this movement. February 9, 1778, they chose a committee con- sisting of William Ripley and Moses Chase to meet a general committee assembled at Lebanon on May, 1778, which committee voted to join the State of Vermont. So the town, at a meeting on June 2, 1778, likewise passed the same vote. Another town meeting was holden on August 11, 1778, to choose a justice of the peace, agreeable to an act of the Vermont Assembly and William Ripley was chosen.
The Legislature of Vermont was undecided at first as to what to do with the petition. Members of the assembly from towns of Vermont on and near the river were inclined to favor the petition and even threatened to withdraw from the state, unless the peti- tion of their friends across the river was granted. This induced the Vermont Assembly to accede to the union, provided the assent of the several towns of Vermont could be obtained, and the matter be acted upon at the next meeting of the assembly. This con-
47
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE GRANTS.
vened in June, 1778, and it was found that thirty-seven out of forty-nine towns represented were in favor of a union with the New Hampshire towns. An act was passed at this time enabling the sixteen towns to elect and send representatives to their Legis- lature, and also that other towns east of the river might by a ma- jority vote be admitted to the union. But the controversy did not end here. It was found that many of the inhabitants of those towns were strongly opposed to their union with Vermont. New Hampshire, too, also put in a vigorous protest. Mesheck Weare, the governor of New Hampshire, wrote the gov- ernor of Vermont, protesting against the course she had taken in admitting those towns to a union with herself. This evidently unsettled the minds of many of the leaders of public opinion in Vermont, who had been looking forward to a union with the thir- teen original states. Therefore the governor and council of Vermont sent a messenger to Congress to see how the new state was viewed by them, and the course they had pursued in receiving the sixteen towns across the river.
The messenger soon learned that Congress was unanimously opposed to the union of the sixteen towns with Vermont, but had no objection to the independence of the new state-the represen- tatives from New York alone dissenting. This information produced a radical change of sentiment throughout Vermont.
At the next session of the Vermont Assembly at Windsor, in October, 1778, the members from the sixteen towns east of the river, having taken their seats, demanded that they be attached to some county or counties in the state. But this request was denied them. This plainly indicated a change from their for- mer opinions, and that they would doubtless seek to undo what they had already done. The members from the sixteen towns in New Hampshire indignantly protested against the action of the assembly and promptly withdrew. They were followed by many members in sympathy with them, from the towns in Vermont west of the Connecticut River. These seceding members from both sides of the river immediately (October, 1778) resolved them- selves into a convention, and after conference decided to call a convention of delegates from towns both sides of the river to take measures to form a new state independent of either Vermont or New Hampshire. This convention was called to meet at the "Cornish meeting-house on December 9, 1778." The convention
48
HISTORY OF CORNISH.
met at the time and place designated and twenty-two towns from both sides of the river were represented by their delegates. They agreed to act together and disregard the limits established by the king in 1764. Anticipating the action of the Vermont Assembly, they now decided to make proposals to New Hampshire in sub- stance as follows: "Since Vermont has taken us and then dis- courteously rejected us we will now unite with you (New Hamp- shire) and give you our aid and influence in laying claim to all the New Hampshire Grants lying west of the Connecticut River, thus making one entire state subject to the approval of Congress." Until this be consummated they proposed to trust in God and defend themselves.
While these schemes concerning New Hampshire and Vermont were under consideration, the State of New York was pressing her claims of jurisdiction over the territory of Vermont and tak- ing active measures to enforce her authority. Massachusetts, too, at this time was claiming a portion of the southern part of Vermont.
These circumstances, together with the vigorous policy of New Hampshire and New York, induced Vermont to gracefully recede from her former position, so that at her next assembly in February 1779, a majority of the members were in favor of an- nulling their union with the sixteen towns east of the river. An act was then passed dissolving their union with those towns.
This action of Vermont ought to have ended the whole con- troversy, but instead it afforded a fresh cause for dissatisfaction especially with the inhabitants of the sixteen towns that had recently been in union with Vermont.
The convention in Cornish of December 9, 1778 (already alluded to) consisted of determined men, not easily deterred from carrying out any policy in which they engaged. Most of the prominent men of Cornish were strong advocates of the action of this convention. They voted in Cornish town meeting the follow- ing April (1779) that they were desirous the New Hampshire Assembly "should extend their jurisdiction over all the New Hampshire grants."
The petition of the Cornish Convention of December 9, 1778, was presented to the New Hampshire Legislature April 2, 1779, by Jacob Bailey and Davenport Phelps. A committee was ap- pointed on the petition, who reported to the Legislature June 24,
49
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE GRANTS.
1779. The House of Representatives took it into consideration and adopted it in substance, thus laying claim to all of Vermont, with this provision: "Unless Congress should choose to allow the grants west of the river to be a separate state by the name of Vermont," in which case they (New Hampshire) would relinquish its claim to said territory. Congress, at this time, was appealed to by delegates from both Vermont and New Hampshire, each state representing its own case. Congress sent a committee to inquire into the merits of the controversy. Upon the report of this com- mittee, Congress recommended that New Hampshire, New York and Massachusetts each pass aets giving Congress power to settle all boundaries and adjust all conflicting claims between these three states, thusignoring Vermont, the most interested party of them all. Congress had postponed any decided action, trusting the excite- ment would subside, and that they might adjust the difficulties among themselves. But this could hardly be possible owing to the diversity of schemes and opinions regarding the grants. These may be summarized in part as follows: New York claimed all of Vermont. Massachusetts also claimed a part of the southern portion of it. New Hampshire also desired to extend her claim west to the eastern boundary of New York, while, on the other hand, Vermont desired her independence as a state with her east- ern boundary still unsettled; and the grants of New Hampshire between "Mason's Line," and the Connecticut River clamoring either for independence as a state with many of its inhabitants desiring union with Vermont on the west or with New Hampshire on the east. Each of these schemes had its able advocates possessing but little spirit of concession, which fact rendered the solution of the difficulties hard to reach.
A convention met at Walpole, N. H., November 16, 1780. Col. Jonathan Chase had been chosen delegate from Cornish. They appointed a committee of representative men to formulate some plan of action in regard to boundaries and jurisdiction. They called another convention on January 16, 1781, at Charlestown, N. H., and caused one or more delegates to be appointed from each town in the grants to unite if possible on measures needful for the times. The convention met. Hon. Samuel Chase of Cornish was chosen chairman. Delegates from forty-three towns from both sides of the river were present. The convention adopted a set of resolutions claiming a right to join Vermont or submit to
5
50
HISTORY OF CORNISH.
the jurisdiction of New Hampshire. An able and numerous com- mittee was chosen to confer with the assembly of Vermont on the subject of union with that state.
The convention adjourned to meet at Cornish meeting house on February 10, 1781. They met agreeable to call, chose Hon. Samuel Chase chairman. Col. Ira Allen from Sunderland, Vt., told the members of the convention that the governor and council and leading men of Vermont were in favor of extending their claim in New Hampshire to "Mason's Line," sixty miles west of the sea. The effect of this communication was very marked. The convention therefore reported that all the territory of New Hampshire west of "Mason's Line" to the Connecticut River be united to the State of Vermont. This report was adopted by a great majority of the convention.
The assembly of Vermont, now in session at Windsor, gave a hearing to the action of the Cornish convention, and a mutual agreement followed, subject to a certain provision, namely : that the question of union should be referred to towns exceeding twenty miles from the river, and if two thirds of such towns were in favor it should be considered settled. On the 22d of Febru- ary, 1781, the terms of union were confirmed between the Vermont Assembly and the convention at Cornish. The two bodies adjourned to meet in their respective places on Apri 15, 1781.
They met according to adjournment, the Vermont Assembly at Windsor and the convention at Cornish. The committee of the convention reported thirty-four towns east of the river favored the union and none opposed it. The Vermont Assembly from the west side reported thirty-six towns favoring and seven opposed to the union. The assembly informed the Cornish Convention that the union was agreed upon by a major part of the towns of the state, and that they would receive members re- turned, to sit in the assembly. This was accordingly done, each taking the necessary oaths of office. The member from Cornish was William Ripley, Esq. Thus the sixteen towns which united with Vermont a few years before, so soon to be dropped, were again brought in union with Vermont and as many more towns with them.
The necessary political machinery of government was put in motion in the towns now united, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the State of Vermont. The government of New
51
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE GRANTS.
Hampshire energetically opposed this action of the towns east of the river, as well as the aggressive movement of Vermont. Through its delegates to the Continental Congress, New Hamp- shire made a strong appeal for Congress, in some way, to settle the controversy.
New troubles now arose to add to the already serious complica- tion, a large minority of the inhabitants of the towns now united to Vermont still rejected the union with much opposition, con- sequently the laws and the civil officers frequently came into collision. Disputes and contention prevailed and party spirit run high. Both Vermont and New Hampshire found it very difficult to extend their complete jurisdiction over those towns. Finally Congress appointed a committee to investigate the merits of the case, and hear both sides of the controversy through delegates from both parties.
The State of Vermont at this time was seeking admission to the Federal union of the thirteen states, but on account of the claims of New Hampshire and New York to her territory, her request was denied. Finally Congress moved in the matter and sent an ultimatum to Vermont by a commissioner appointed for the purpose, viz .: that Vermont, before being admitted to the union, must confine her limits on the east to the west bank of the Connecticut River and give up to New York all the towns for a breadth of twenty miles east of the Hudson River, adopting a line from the northwest corner of Massachusetts to the south end of Lake Champlain. Accompanying this recommendation was a threat, in substance as follows: that in case of the refusal of Ver- mont to comply with those terms, all lands west of the Green Mountain range, running through the state, should be placed under the jurisdiction of New York, and all lands east of this line should be under the jurisdiction of New Hampshire; and that if Vermont neglects or refuses compliance with these terms, it would be deemed a hostile act, and that the forces of the state should be employed against them, unless these orders are carried into execution.
The assembly of Vermont considered these resolves of Congress and firmly declined to accede to them, and resolved that they would not submit the question of their independence to any power.
A period of excitement bordering on anarchy or civil war now
52
HISTORY OF CORNISH.
reigned among the people. The majorities undertook to control the minorities, and the latter were not willing to submit to them. Both states appointed civil officers throughout all the towns that had united with Vermont. As a consequence, sheriffs, justices and courts came into collision in attempting to perform their duties as officers of their respective states. Many cases of injustice are left on record as occurring during this "reign of terror," orders were issued by the New Hampshire Legislature for three regiments of militia to be mustered, armed and provi- sioned and gotten in readiness to march into western New Hamp- shire to establish and maintain its authority to the Connecticut River. The governor and council of Vermont issued counter orders, and instructions were sent to General Payne to call out any or all of the militia east of the Green Mountains to assist the civil officers in the execution of the laws of Vermont, and, in case that New Hampshire makes an attack by force, to repel by force. Three regiments of Vermont troops were notified to be in readiness to act under the authority of Vermont. One of these regiments was Col. Jonathan Chase's Regiment containing the Cornish men. But they were never called to this service.
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.