USA > New Hampshire > New Hampshire and Vermont : an historical study > Part 3
USA > Vermont > New Hampshire and Vermont : an historical study > Part 3
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
In 1772, the Governor of New York made an attempt to settle the controversy, and for that pur- pose opened correspondence with the Rev. Mr. Dew-
16
ey of Bennington, and some others, signifying his willingness to confer with any person or persons the opposite party might choose, except Allen, War- ner and three others. Capt. Stephen Fay and Mr. Jarias Fay were appointed to confer with the Gov- ernor ; but this attempt at diplomacy failed for the reason that the Green Mountain Boys undertook to try their hand at the ejectment process while these negotiations were pending, which resulted in the abandonment of the whole scheme.
In the mean time the hostile condition of those occupying the New Hampshire grants became more and more alarming. Committees of safety were ap- pointed in the several towns, and they were in con- stant communication for the purpose of devising the best means of common defence. The inhabitants were forbidden the acceptance of the honors of office under the Colony fo New York, on the pain of being "viewed." These "views" generally resulted in a liberal application of the "beech seal," vigorously laid upon the naked backs of the "yorkers."
The inhabitants of the "grants" were peculiar in many respects. Their laws, their manner of trial, their penalties and methods of punishment, were all vested in the Committee of Safety, and no person was allowed to escape on technicalities. Benjamin Hough was one of the King's Justices, under the authority of New York, and undertook to act in that capacity within the limits of the New Hampshire grants. He was brought before the Committee at
17
Sunderland, where he pleaded the jurisdiction of New York; but the Green Mountain Boys considered the decree of the convention, forbidding all persons from holding office, civil or military, under the Colony of New York, to be supreme, and passed the following sentence, which they proceeded to execute without giving time for spiritual advice or repentance :
"That the prisoner be taken from the bar of this committee of safety and be tied to a tree, and there, on his naked back, to receive one hundred stripes ; his back being dressed, he should depart out of the the district, and on return, to suffer death, unless by special leave of the committee."
In another case, a person who had advised the settlers to submit to the authority of New York, after disregarding the warning of the committee, was arrested and carried to the Green Mountain Tavern in Bennington, where his defence was patiently heard, and then he was ordered "to be tied in an arm chair and hoisted to the sign, and there to hang two hours in sight of the people, as a punishment merited by his enmity to the rights and liberties of the inhabitants of the New Hampshire Grants."
The sign to which he was raised consisted of a post twenty-five feet high, with a sign-board at the top, upon which stood a stuffed catamount's skin facing New York, with a ferocious countenance. This Inn was ever after known as "Catamount Tav- ern" and was standing in 1869, but has since been destroyed by fire. Near this spot David Redding
18
was hanged, June 1777, for "inimical conduct."
The General Assembly of New York, on the 5th day of February, 1774, passed resolutions wherein they called the Green Mountain Boys "the Benning- ton Mob," and recommended the passage of a law for their suppression and punishment. These pro- ceedings made it necessary to call a general meet- ing of all the committees, which meeting was held at a private house in Manchester, on the 1st day of March, 1774. At this meeting the inhabitants re- solved that while they were willing to encourage the execution of the laws, both civil and criminal, "that were so indeed," and that they should act only on the defensive, they would stand by and defend their friends and neighbors "at the expense of their lives and fortunes."
On the 9th day of March, 1774, the Assembly of New York passed an act that struck the key note of rebellion. It provided that if any person should oppose any civil officer of New York, in the dis- charge of his duty, or wilfully distroy the grain, corn or hay of any other person, being in any enclosure; or if any persons should assemble together, to the disturbance of the public peace, and demolish or pull down any building in the county of Albany or Charlotte, said offence should be deemed a felony, without benefit of clergy, and that the offender should suffer death. All crimes committed on the Grants were to be tried by the courts of Albany, and said courts were empowered to award execution
19
against such as should be indicted for capital offen- ces, who should not surrender themselves, in the same manner as if they had been convicted on a fair and impartial trial; and a reward of £50 each was offered for the arrest of Ethan Allen, Seth War- ner, and six others.
On the 26th day of April, 1774, Ethan Allen and six others made and signed a remonstrance, wherein they resolved to inflict immediate death on whoever might attempt to apprehend any person indieted as a rioter for the purpose of inflicting the death penal- ty, declaring that "Our lives, liberties and properties are as verily precious to us as to any of the king's subjects ; but if the governmental authority of New York insists upon killing us to take possession of our vineyards, let them come on; we are ready for a game of scalping with them, for our martial spirits glow with bitter indignation and consummate fury, to blast their infernal projects. " About this time an attempt was made by Col. Philip Skeene to erect the New Hampshire Grants into a separate govern- ment under Great Britain ; and it is said that his plan met with some favor on the part of the British government, and was probably instrumental in caus- ing the Grants to declare themselves free and in- dependent, in 1777.
Early in 1775 hostilities commenced between the Colonies and Great Britain, which overshadowed the controversy with New York, and the proscribed pat- riots of the New Hampshire Grants, with a bounty
20
upon their heads, entered into the conflict with no fear or expectation of defeat; and on the tenth of May Ticonderoga and Crown Point were captured by Allen and Arnold.
It has generally been claimed that the first blood shed in the American Revolution, was at lexington, Mass., April 19th, 1775; but Lexington has a rival. The first conflict between the constituted authorities of Great Britain and the American Colonies occurred on the New Hampshire Grants, and was followed up by successive engagements between the loyalists and the rebels till the close of the revolution.
On the 5th day of September, 1774, Congress ad- vised the people of the Colonies to maintain their liberties in such ways as should be found necessary ; and the inhabitants of Cumberland county, for the purpose of resisting British tyranny and oppression, found it necessary to interfere with the holding of the court at Westminster, on the 13th day of Marel, 1775. On this occasion there was a desperate strug- gle on one side to maintain the authority of the British government, while on the other the liberties of the people were defended ; and the lines between the two contending parties were as distinctly drawn and understood as at any future time during the war. Firearms were used, one man killed, several wound- ed, and many taken prisoners.
The battle of Lexington was fought within forty days from this time, and that of Bunker Hill within sixty days thereafter, against the same authority
21
and in the same cause. Had the war between the Colonies and Great Britain been commenced when the conflict occurred at Westminster ? If so, the first blood shed in the American Revolution was within the jurisdiction of the New Hampshire Grants and previous to the battle of Lexington.
Patrick Henry, after the fight at Westminster and before that of Lexington, made the following state- ment which has never been disputed : "The war is actually begun ! The next gale that sweeps from from the north, will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field ! Why stand we here idle ?"
The fight at Westminster was not a mob or a riot any more than was that of Lexington, but a deliber- ate resistance on the part of the people, to the gov- ernment of Great Britain, and the first attempt to defy, by an armed force, the authority of British rule. If the Revolution was brought on by reason of the defiance of laws made for the government of the Colonies, and a resistance to their execution by an armed force, we may justly claim that among the wilds of the New Hampshire Grants was shed the first blood in behalf of American liberty.
From this time for nearly two years the inhabit- ants of the Grants were active in their opposition to British authority ; and on the 15th day of January, 1777, at a convention held in Westminster, they declared themselves to be "a separate, free and in- dependent jurisdiction or State ; by the name and for-
22
· ever hereafter to be called, known and distinguished by the name of New Connecticut." On the 4th day of June, 1777, at a convention held in Windsor the name thus deliberately and formally given was abandoned, and the name of Vermont substituted. The reason given for making this change was, that a district of land on the Susquehanna river had been named New Connecticut, and it was claimed to be inconsistent for two districts on this continent to bear the same name.
This brief but decisive Declaration of Independ- ence opened a new field for strife. The New York people were alarmed at the conduct of Vermont, and their committee of safety appealed to Congress, declaring it to be necessary that the commission of Col. Warner, who had been authorized to raise a regiment, be recalled; that nothing else . would do justice to New York. Certain persons of ability and influence were urging Vermont to maintain her independence, choose delegates to Congress, and form a State Constitution. One Thomas Young printed and issued an address to the inhabitants of Vermont, urging them to be firm in their attempt to maintain the position they had assumed, assuring them that they had a right to choose how and by whom they should be governed. This address and other publications of a like nature were printed at Philadelphia, and the authorities of New York were much disturbed by their appearance.
23
One of the New York delegates presented the printed letter of Thomas Young to Congress on the 23d day of June, 1777. The entire subject was ex- amined and discussed in committee of the whole, and on the 30th day of June resolutions were adopted declaring "That the independent government at- tempted to be established by the people styling themselves inhabitants of the New Hampshire Grants, can derive no countenance or justification from the act of Congress declaring the United Colonies to be independent of the crown of Great Britain, nor from any other act or resolution of Congress; and that the petition of Jonas Fay, Thomas Chittenden, Hiram Allen and Reuben Jones, praying that the district they represented might be ranked among the free and independent States, be dismissed." Although this action was favorable to New York, the Vermont- ers were still more confirmed in their determination to maintain their independence, if need be, against the whole world.
Up to this time there had been no controversy between Vermont and New Hampshire. In fact New Hampshire had acknowledged the independ- ence of Vermont through her President, Mr. Weare, in a letter to Ira Allen, Secretary of the State of Vermont, wherein the New Hampshire Grants were designated as "a free and sovereign, but new State."
By the use of this language it was supposed that New Hampshire would use her influence to have Vermont recognized by Congress as an independent
24
State; but there was really no tenable ground for such a supposition. While it was understood that the easterly line of New York was by the Connecti- cut river, New Hampshire had no cause for com- plaint against Vermont for maintaining the same boundary The inhabitants on the east side of the river well knew that the east line of New York might have been extended to within sixty miles of the sea with as much propriety as any of the lands more than twenty miles east of Hudson's river could be claimed by the government of New York. The inhabitants of Vermont were also aware that the unchartered territory between the river and the Province of New Hampshire, as granted to John Mason, did not belong to New Hampshire with any more certainty than did the territory west of the river; and it was claimed that their declaration took effect on both sides of the river to such an ex- tent that all persons residing west of the Mason line and east of the river, were free to join such govern- ment as they might desire, but more especially Ver- mont. These ideas were undoubtedly concocted and promulgated by the inhabitants west of the river and east of the Green Mountains, for the pur- pose of giving political strength to eastern Vermont, without any malicious intent to injure New Hamp- shire. The action taken on the part of the towns east of the river was remarkable.
On the 12th of March, 1778, sixteen towns east of Connecticut river declared in convention that they
25
were not connected with any State, and thereupon petitioned the State of Vermont for an opportunity to confederate with its inhabitants. This petition was presented to the Assembly of Vermont. The members from the west side of the mountains, as might have been expected, were strongly opposed to it, but those from the vicinity of Connecticut river generally favored the union, and were so per- sistent in their efforts to accomplish the object of their strife as to propose a withdrawal from Ver- mont and the erection of a new State, including territory on both sides of the river. The independ- ence of Vermont so recently and so unanimously promulgated to the world was now threatened with early dissolution ; but it was found that a majority of the Assembly were not in favor of the annexation of any of the New Hampshire towns. This state of affairs caused some delay ; and when the matter was brought before the next meeting of the Assembly, it was asserted that the inhabitants of the towns ap- plying for annexation were nearly or quite unani- mous, and that the state of New Hampshire would make no opposition. By means of these false rep- resentations, made by interested parties in both states, a vote of 37 to 12 was obtained in favor of the union ; and by resolution it was provided that any town east of Connecticut river might be admit- ted on sending a representative to the Assembly of Vermont.
26
This attempt to swallow up New Hampshire crea- ted dissatisfaction and alarm among the inhabitants. An appeal was made to the Governor of Vermont, and a minority of the sixteen seceding towns claim- ed protection from the state of New Hampshire. An effort was made to interest Congress in their behalf. Col. Ethan Allen, who had been sent to Philadel- phia for the purpose of solving this difficult problem, reported that Congress would not favor the union, but, in case it was abandoned, would not oppose the independence of Vermont.
In October, 1778, representatives from ten towns east of the river took their seats in the Assembly of Vermont, and it was proposed to erect a new county, to be composed of the towns which had been admit- ted to a union with Vermont; but this proposition was voted down, whereupon the members from the towns east of the river withdrew from the Assem- bly. Fifteen members from towns west of the river also withdrew, leaving just two thirds of the whole number, all of whom were required to be present for the transaction of business. The matter in rela- tion to the union with New Hampshire was referred to the next Assembly.
Those who had withdrawn met in convention at Cornish, Dec. 9th, 1778, the towns on both sides of the river having been invited to send delegates. At this convention it was agreed to unite regardless of the boundaries established in 1764, and the conven- tion also consented that the whole territory compri-
27
sing the New Hampshire Grants might become one State as it was bounded previous to that time .- Until something of this kind should be accomplished, they resolved to trust in Providence and defend themselves. The propositions put forth by this con- vention were such, if adopted, as to unite a part of New Hampshire with a part of Vermont, or to de- stroy the government of Vermont and unite the whole territory with New Hampshire. Had a State been thus formed, the Capitol would undoubtedly have been located near Connecticut river; but this dangerous experiment was avoided in a singular way, without detriment to either State.
On the 12th day of February, 1779, the Assembly of Vermont voted to dissolve the union with the towns of New Hampshire. This unreliable course on the part of Vermont had the effect to encourage the authorities of New Hampshire, and cause them to claim the entire domain over which Wentworth exercised jurisdiction previous to 1764, and an ap- plication was made to Congress claiming the whole of Vermont. New York was awakened by these proceedings, and claimed the same territory.
At this time it began to look as though Vermont would be divided between New York and New Hampshire; and her condition was now more criti- cal than at any previous period, for the reason that this controversy was a troublesome matter for Con- gress to deal with, and such a disposal of the terri- tory of Vermont as was urged and expected by some,
28
would destroy the State; but, if the entire matter of jurisdiction could be forever settled thereby, such a result did not seem to be then improbable.
Massachusetts also saw this glittering bait and put in her claim to a large portion of Vermont. Whether this was intentionally done on the part of Massachusetts to prevent the swallowing of Vermont in two parts, by two other states, or for some other purpose, is of but little consequence; but it may be justly said that Vermont owes Massachusetts a vote of thanks for that act. It was evident that some- thing must be done forthwith, or civil war,
"The child of malice and revengeful hate,"
would cast its grim shadow over the territory in dispute, to the nation's peril.
The controversy with New York became intensi- fied on account of the attachment of sundry influen- tial persons, residing in Cumberland (now Windham) county, to that State, and their opposition to Ver- mont. They had boasted of their military strength, claiming that they had raised a regiment of 500 men who were opposed to Vermont and in favor of New York. Col. Ethan Allen was directed to engage a portion of the militia for the purpose of bringing these warlike demonstrations to a close, whereupon Col. Patterson of New York, sought the advice of Gov. Clinton as to holding the militia of Albany in readiness for any emergency, and suggested the propriety of employing the enemies of Vermont in
-
29
each town as spies. The Governor became uneasy and wrote to the President of Congress, stating that he was daily expecting to order out a force to resist the troops commanded by Allen. On the 29th day of May, 1779, Congress referred the matter to a committee of the whole, and on the first day of June, by resolution, provision was made for a com- mission to settle all matters in dispute.
There were now four different claims submitted to Congress, to a tract of country, the inhabitants of which had been recently united under a Declaration of Independence, but were now at war with them- selves and all the rest of mankind. On the 24th day of Sept., 1779, Congress passed a resolve recom- mending that New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, and New York, "forthwith pass laws expressly au- thorizing Congress to hear and determine all differ- ences between them relative to their respective boundaries." It was also resolved that "in the opin- ion of Congress the three States aforementioned ought in the mean time to suspend executing their laws over any of the inhabitants of said district, except such of them as shall profess allegiance to, and con- fess the jurisdiction of the same respectively."
There being numerous persons in Vermont who adhered to all these States, this resolution, if carried out, would establish four governments over the people of Vermont. To have that number of sepa- rate jurisdictions operating at the same time over the same territory, after the people had assumed the
30
functions of a State government, declared themselves free and independent, framed and adopted their con- stitution, enacted a code of laws and erected courts of justice, was a novel state of affairs from which no government outside of the New Hampshire Grants would ever expect to escape and be again identified by friend or foe.
On the second day of June, 1780, Congress passed a resolve declaring that the inhabitants of the New Hampshire Grants had pursued an unwarrantable course, subversive of the welfare of the United States and requiring them to exercise no further authority, civil or military, over those professing allegiance to the other states. To this resolution the Governor and Council made reply, asserting the independence of Vermont, and claiming that Congress had no right to meddle with their jurisdiction, as they were not included among the thirteen United States, but were at liberty to declare war or peace with Great Britain, without asking permission ; but so long as Congress declined to recognize Vermont in her in- dependence, they had no interest to fight Great Britain for the purpose of defending a frontier for the benefit of the United States, but that they were willing once more to offer a union with the United States of America.
Congress seemed inclined to entertain this propo- sition, while New Hampshire and New York put in their claims that Vermont was not entitled to inde- pendence, but belonged to them. Vermont claimed
31
a hearing, and was notified to appear on the 19th day of Sept., 1780, but her representatives were not allowed to be heard, whereupon on the 22d day of Sept. they filed a remonstrance to the proceedings as they were being carried on, and declared that if such was to be the manner of treatment on the part of Congress, they were "ready to appeal to God and the world, who must be accountable for the awful consequences that may ensue." The contending parties were so much exasperated as to suggest an alliance with Great Britain in case their rights were not respected. There was danger in this suggestion, but in order to obtain a decision in favor of Vermont, it was important to show that her military power would be of some value to the United States, and not be absorbed in contentions with other States. There was no time lost by either of the States in making reasonable and unreasonable efforts in their own behalf.
It was soon discovered that the inhabitants in most of the towns in western New Hampshire were desirous of being annexed to Vermont, who now proposed to take up the weapons used by her oppo- nents, to wit, the claiming of jurisdiction. There- upon a convention was held at Charlestown, N. H., Jan. 16th, 1781, and 43 towns in western New Hampshire were represented therein, a large major- ity being in favor of forming another union with Vermont; and a committee was appointed to con- sider the matter and report. On the 10th day of
32
February the assembly of Vermont, sitting at Wind- sor, received information from the committee that the convention of the New Hampshire towns "was desirous of being united with Vermont in one sepa- rate, independent government, upon such principles as should be mutually thought the most equitable and beneficial to the whole." On the 14th day of February, the Assembly of Vermont resolved to lay "a jurisdictional claim to all the lands whatever, east of Connecticut river north of Massachusetts, west of the Mason line and south of forty-five degrees north latitude." The convention of the New Hampshire towns, then in session at Cornish on the opposite side of the river, agreed upon a union on the 22d day of February; and the Assembly of Vermont re- solved that the union, thus confirmed, should be held sacred. New York by this time began to dis- cover that the frontier needed defence, and the in- habitants adjacent to Vermont petitioned the Assem- bly of that State for protection.
Upon this petition the Assembly of Vermont re- solved to "lay a jurisdictional claim to all the land situate north of the north line of the state of Massa- chusetts, extending the same to Hudson's river; the east of the center of the deepest channel of said river, to the head thereof; from thence east of a north line, being extended to latitude 45 degrees ; and south of the same line, including all the lands and waters to the place where this State exercises jurisdiction." In each of these unions jurisdiction
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.