USA > Vermont > Orange County > Newbury > History of Newbury, Vermont, from the discovery of the Coos country to present time > Part 13
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94 | Part 95 | Part 96
At that time the New York assembly consisted of seventy members, apportioned to counties; New York city and county having nine, Albany city and county ten, Dutchess seven, and the others in like proportion. Vermont was divided into three counties and allowed only nine members as follows: County of Charlotte four, Cumberland three, Gloucester two. The Senate had twenty-four members, of whom three were apportioned to the Vermont counties .? When Gen. Bayley and the other leaders in this part of the territory had read this constitution, and perceived the unfairness which gave to Albany County alone, a larger representation than the whole of Vermont, they were convinced that the common interest of the Grants compelled the formation of a new state .¿
On the fourth of June the convention met at Windsor, at which seventy-two delegates representing forty-two towns were in attendance. The minutes of the convention give "Mr. John G. D. Bailey, and Capt. Robert Johnson" as the delegates from Newbury.
*Documentary Hist. of N. Y. Vol. 4, p. 560-561. Gov. and Council I, p. 373, 4.
¡Governor and Council, p. 1, p. 54.
¿Hon. L. E. Chittenden's letter, Sept. 7, 1898.
IIO
HISTORY OF NEWBURY, VERMONT.
They were, without doubt, John G. Bayley and Capt. Robert Johnston. But there is nothing in our town records to show that any meeting to choose delegates to this convention was ever held. This is probably owing to the neglect of the town clerk, Col. Kent, to record the warning and the proceedings of the town meeting. That both these men attended, is certain. It having been discovered that the name, New Connecticut, had been given to a district on the Susquehanna, the convention unanimously voted that the New Hampshire Grants should thereafter be called and known as Vermont. The towns were directed to hold meetings on the 23d of June, to choose delegates to a convention to be held in the meeting-house at Windsor on the 2d of July. Accordingly, at a town meeting duly warned, of which Reuben Foster was moderator, it was voted, "To be separate from the state of New York, and formed into a state by name of Vermont." Also "To accept of the independence voted in the convention held at Westminster on the 15th of January, with the amendments, and that Col. Jacob Bayley and Reuben Foster be delegates."
"Of the proceedings of that convention," says Mr. Walton, "no complete account exists." Even the names of the delegates are not all known. The reason is, that at that time Burgoyne was on his march, all New England was in alarm, and the proceedings of the convention passed unobserved. But the members remained at their posts until the 8th, adopted a constitution, and chose a Council of Safety, which should administer the affairs of the state until a government under a constitution could be organized. Of this famous council, Jacob Bayley of Newbury was one, and was chosen, says Hon. L. E. Chittenden, in a letter to the editor of this volume, at the personal solicitation of Thomas Chittenden, who represented to the convention the importance of having the strongest man east of the mountains, upon the board. The only source of authority in Vermont, from August, 1777, to March, 1778, was this council, which prescribed the conduct of the war, raised troops, appointed officers, and exercised all the duties which commonly fall to the executive. The records of this Council of Safety fill 121 pages of the first volume of "Governor and Council."
The constitution, which was very nearly a copy of that of Pennsylvania, provided for a Governor, Deputy Governor, House of Representatives, and a council of twelve members instead of a Senate. The convention then adjourned, and before it came together again, Burgoyne had met his fate.
The first General Assembly of Vermont convened in the meeting- house at Windsor, March 13, 1778, and organized the new state, the Newbury minister, Mr. Powers, preaching the election sermon. It seems probable that Col. Jacob Kent represented Newbury. We have no record of the election of anyone. On the opening of the Assembly, a committee from sixteen towns on the east side of
III
NEWBURY IN THE VERMONT CONTROVERSY.
Connecticut river appeared, and presented a petition praying that these towns might be admitted to become part of the new state. There were the river towns between Cornish and Littleton and six lying back from the river .*
Foreseeing that to grant their request would involve the new state in trouble with New Hampshire, and yet unable to dismiss the petition without offending the river towns on the Vermont side, with whom the proposed union was popular, the Assembly hit upon the expedient of referring the subject to the freemen of the several towns, to be decided according to the instructions which they should give their representatives, at the next meeting of the assembly.
The town-meeting held in Newbury upon the above matter, agreed to leave the whole subject for fuller consideration. Nothing appears on our town records as to such later action, but from the sequel we infer that the delegates, Reuben Foster and Jacob Kent, were instructed to declare in favor of receiving these towns, and others which wished to join the new state.
The Assembly met at Bennington in June, when these sixteen New Hampshire towns were received by vote. This was called the "First Union." On the 8th of October, 1778, the Assembly met again at Windsor, when the representatives from the west side of the mountains, who were called the Bennington party, and who had opposed the union with the New Hampshire towns because it threatened to disturb the supremacy which they wished to hold in the new state, brought forward, upon the second day, a protest from President Weare of New Hampshire, against an action which threatened to dismember that state. They also produced represen- tations which they had secured from members of the Continental Congress, to the effect that Vermont could not be admitted into the union as a state, unless it relinquished its claim upon these New Hampshire towns. The Bennington party, although not strong enough to dissolve the union by a direct vote, succeeded in passing a series of resolutions, which were calculated to cause uneasiness among the delegates from the towns on both sides of the river.
All the actions of the Assembly are not known, but the course taken was such as to cause twelve members from each side of the river, with Lieut .- Gov. Marsh, two members of the Council, and the clerk of the House, to withdraw from the Assembly. These seceders met and called a convention to meet at Cornish, N. H., on the 9th of December. The remaining members of the Assembly adjourned to Bennington on the 12th of February 1779, where they dissolved the union without opposition.
At a town-meeting held in Newbury, on December 7th, 1778,
*These towns were :- Cornish, Lebanon, Dresden, (Hanover,) Lyme, Orford, Piermont, Haverhill, Bath, Lyman, Apthorp, (Littleton,) Enfield, Canaan, Cardigan, (Orange,) Landaff, Gunthwait, (Lisbon,) and Morristown, (Franconia.)
112
HISTORY OF NEWBURY, VERMONT.
General Bayley being moderator, the town approved of the action of its representatives in withdrawing from the Assembly, and chose Col. Thomas Johnson and Dr. Gideon Smith to represent the town in the Cornish convention.
There were now three well defined parties which desired to exercise authority over what is now the state of Vermont. They are known as the Bennington party, of which the Allens and Thomas Chittenden were leading spirits, which strove to erect a new state between the Connecticut river and Lake Champlain. The second party, called the New Hampshire party, desired to re-annex the Grants to that state. The third, called the New York party, asserted the claim of that state over what is now Vermont. It seemed probable that the two last parties would effect a compromise, and divide Vermont between them, along the ridge of the Green Mountains.
To these parties was now added a fourth, smaller than either of the others, but which commanded attention, from the ability of its leaders. This party, sometimes called the "college party," because its head-quarters seemed to be at Dartmouth College, had for its prime object, the union, under one jurisdiction, of the towns on both sides of Connecticut river. It grew out of the common interest of the valley towns, which were much more intimately connected with each other, than with those which lay beyond the mountains to the east, or the west of the valley. This party determined to keep these towns together, either by a union of them with New Hampshire or with New York, or, failing to make favorable terms with either, by erecting a new state, in the Connecticut valley, to be composed of the towns on both sides of the river.
"The struggles of these four parties," says Professor Chase in his History of Dartmouth College, "for six years kept New Hampshire and New York, as well as the new state itself, in an unceasing turmoil, that involved even the Continental Congress, and threatened not only civil war at home, but, at one stage, through the unscrupulous tactics of one of the parties, the surrender of the disputed territory to the British."
CHAPTER XIX.
NEWBURY IN THE VERMONT CONTROVERSY-CONTINUED.
THE CONVENTION AT CORNISH .- MANIFESTO OF BAYLEY, PAYNE AND WOODWARD .- TOWN MEETINGS .- VERMONT IN AN UNFORTUNATE STATE .- ACTION OF NEW- BURY-OF HAVERHILL .- THE CHARLESTOWN CONVENTION .- THE "SECOND UNION."-THE NEW YORK TOWNS .-- THE VERMONT LEGISLATURE MEETS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE .- CIVIL WAR THREATENED .- WASHINGTON'S LETTER .- DIS- SOLUTION OF THE UNION .- THE THETFORD CONVENTION .- TOWN MEETINGS .- RECONCILIATION .- ADMISSION OF VERMONT INTO THE FEDERAL UNION.
B EFORE the convention assembled at Cornish, three of the seceders, Jacob Bayley of Newbury, Elisha Payne of Orange, N. H., and Bezaleel Woodward of Hanover, issued from Spooner's press at the last mentioned town, a pamphlet, dated December 1, 1778, entitled, "A Public Defense of the right of the New Hampshire Grants on both sides Connecticut River to associate together and form themselves into an Independent State. "*
This, which is but one of several appeals which made their appearance at the time, was undoubtedly prepared by Mr. Woodward, and occupies fourteen closely printed pages of the fifth volume of Governor and Council. The pamphlet itself, is exceedingly rare.
The Cornish convention passed a number of resolutions containing the reasons for their action, looking toward a union of the river towns in Vermont with the state of New Hampshire, in case they failed to unite the river towns in New Hampshire, with the state of Vermont. General Bayley and Davenport Phelps were appointed a committee to present the action of the convention to the New Hampshire legislature, and at Newbury, on the 17th of
*Vt. Gov. and Council, Vol V, p. 525. N. H., State Papers, Vol. X, p. 287.
8
114
HISTORY OF NEWBURY, VERMONT.
March, 1779, they drew up a definite proposition addressed to that body.
Bayley and Phelps, with Lieut .- Gov. Marsh, repaired to Exeter, and presented their case before the legislature. Ira Allen appeared in the interest of the Bennington party. The legislature voted to appeal the matter to the Continental Congress, which was done, but nothing seems to have come of their action.
The freemen of Newbury were warned to meet in town-meeting on April 6th, 1772, "to take into consideration a letter sent into the town by Col. Peter Olcott, the substance of which is to see if the town, with the other towns lying on the Connecticut river, will petition to Congress not to confirm the state of Vermont, until we should have an opportunity to give our reasons why it should not be confirmed, and to consider the form of such a petition." This meeting, of which Ephraim Webster was moderator, voted, "that a petition be laid before the Continental Congress, representing the arbitrary, unjust, and unconstitutional proceedings of the state of Vermont, so called."
The protest of Nehemiah Lovewell, against this petition, "as being erroneous, and very unfortunate," may still be seen in the first volume of Town Proceedings. Nothing, however, came of the petition to Congress.
Vermont was now in a very embarrassing situation. . New York claimed the whole territory on one side, and New Hampshire on the other, while Massachusetts put in a claim for a strip along the southern border. Congress seemed indifferent, and it appeared that the new state would be divided up among its neighbors, or fall a prey to the wiles of the British in Canada. This was in the very midst of the revolutionary war, when politics ran high, party spirit was bitter, and the alarms kept the country in a constant state of anxiety.
During a space of two years our town records are silent upon the controversy, but on the 22d of March, 1781, a town-meeting was called by order of the General Assembly, "to see if they would accept of the union of the people on the east side of the river, to be with the Grants on the west side." Voted in the affirmative, and that Jacob Kent and Josiah Page represent the town at Windsor.
It will appear that a great change had taken place since the First Union was so summarily rejected, and we shall have to go back several months to understand the cause.
We must bear in mind, however, that the whole history of these proceedings is very obscure, and many interfering interests add to our perplexity. The action of the town of Haverhill, on March 31, 1781, was similar to that taken by many other towns east of the river .* "To agree to the articles of union between the state of
*Haverhill Town Records.
NEWBURY IN THE VERMONT CONTROVERSY-CONTINUED. 115
Vermont and the New Hampshire Grants," and chose Timothy Bedell, and Joshua Howard representatives to the General Assembly at Windsor." It is not necessary for us to consider the grievances which led the towns in the western part of New Hampshire, to desire a separation from the rest of that state, and annexation to Vermont.
A convention of delegates from the towns in Cheshire County, held at Walpole, November 17, 1780, determined that "matters lately agitated with respect to the New Hampshire Grants, render a union of territory absolutely necessary."
They sent out a printed circular, calling a convention from all the towns within the Grants, to meet at Charlestown, on the third Tuesday in January, 1781. This convention was attended by delegates from forty-six towns, and passed resolutions looking toward a second union of the towns on the east side of the river with Vermont. A committee was appointed to confer with the Vermont legislature, which was to convene at Windsor in February, and the convention adjourned, to meet at the same time, at Cornish, on the opposite side of the river.
This session of the Assembly met on the third of February, and on the 10th received the committee of the convention. After consideration of an elaborate report, articles of union were agreed upon, to take effect when ratified by two-thirds of the interested towns.
On the fifth of April the convention and the Assembly met at the same places as before, and, the returns being favorable, members from thirty-five towns east of Connecticut river were admitted to seats in the legislature of Vermont .* This is known as the "Second Union." For the first time for several sessions of the Assembly, Newbury was represented, as we have stated, by Col. Kent and Josiah Page. Col. Bedell and Capt. Joshua Howard were the members from Haverhill. Thirty-six Vermont towns favored the plan of union, seven dissented, and six made no return.
In June, the Assembly met again, this time at Bennington, and at that session the representatives from eleven towns near Hudson river, now within the limits of the state of New York, were admitted to seats, on terms similar to those which had been given to the towns in New Hampshire. These New York towns were brought into the union through the contrivance of the Bennington party, in order to balance the increase of territory on the east side of the state. Newbury does not appear to have been represented at this session.
These towns were :- Hinsdale, Walpole, Surry, Gilsum, Alstead, Charlestown, Acworth, Leinster, Saville, Claremont, Newport, Cornish, Croydon, Plainfield, Grantham, Marlow, Lebanon, Grafton, Dresden, Hanover, Cardigan, Lyme, Dorchester, Haverhill, Landaff, Gunthwaite, Lancaster Piermont, Richmond, Chesterfield, Westmoreland, Bath, Lyman, Franconia and Lincoln.
II6
HISTORY OF NEWBURY, VERMONT.
This Assembly sent delegates to the Continental Congress, applying for the admission of Vermont to the Federal Union. These delegates were informed by that body, that it was indispensable for admission, that Vermont relinquish all claim to territory east of the Connecticut, and west of a line drawn from the north-west corner of Massachusetts, to the southern extremity of Lake Champlain. This was precisely what the Bennington party wished to bring about.
On the eleventh of October, 1781, the Vermont legislature met at Charlestown, in the state of New Hampshire, when Elisha Payne of Lebanon, in that state, was chosen Lieutenant-Governor of Vermont, in default of an election by the people. Members were present from thirty-six towns east of the river, and from sixty-six west of it. This Assembly passed some resolutions concerning the terms prescribed by Congress, and regulated the courts of the towns east of the river. It was not to be expected that the authorities of New Hampshire would stand idle, and allow the state of Vermont thus to detach a portion of its territory and hold a session of its legislature within its borders.
In most of these towns which had been thus annexed, this new union was strenuously opposed by a minority. Disturbances broke out, the authority of Vermont was defied in its new possessions, and armed collisions took place in Cheshire County.
The Governor of New Hampshire ordered a draft of 1000 men, to proceed to the scene of disturbance. The commander of the Vermont troops prepared to hold the new territory by force of arms. Civil war seemed imminent, and great anxiety prevailed, while disinterested spectators wondered what would come next.
It was at this period that the tories and the British in Canada were most active and most hopeful, for they expected and desired that the dissensions should increase, and the state of the Grants become such that the people would return to their allegiance, as their only refuge from anarchy. But this was not to be. Wiser counsellors were at hand. Vermont was not to become a province of Canada, neither was the Connecticut valley to be the scene of civil war. At this critical period, Washington, who had been observing these proceedings with deep anxiety, threw the weight of his vast influence into the scale. In a letter to Gov. Chittenden, he pointed out the danger to the general welfare of the country, if any state could, at will, seize upon and annex a portion of another state. He made an earnest appeal for immediate submission to the will of Congress as the only condition for the admission of Vermont into the Federal Union.
In February, 1782, the Vermont legislature met at Bennington, when few of the representatives from the eastern side of the state could be present, and dissolved the union with the New Hampshire towns by a formal vote.
It does not appear that either Gen. Jacob Bayley, or Col.
NEWBURY IN THE VERMONT CONTROVERSY-CONTINUED. 117
Thomas Johnson had anything to do with this Second Union. Indeed, during much of the time when it was in existence, Johnson was a prisoner in Canada. The deep-seated distrust which both held toward Ethan Allen and his associates madeit impossible for them to concur in any scheme which would put the river towns into the control of the Bennington party. In their view the interests of these towns were identical, and they wanted to have all the territory drained by the Connecticut, north of the Massachusetts line, under one government. It does not appear, either, that they opposed the plan, probably thinking it would come to nothing.
General Bayley wrote to President Weare at Exeter : "I am determined to fight for New Hampshire and the United States as long as I am alive, and have one copper in my hands."*
Several of the river towns in Vermont were not willing to give up the matter without another trial, and a convention was called to meet at Thetford in June, to which Newbury was invited to send a delegate. Our town records are silent as to this invitation, and any action which came from it, but in the state archives at Concord is a paper in the handwriting of Col. Kent, which is as follows : -
"NEWBURY, May 31, 1782.
At a Legal Meeting of sd Town, on said Day being a full meeting voted to be under the Government of the State of Newhampshire at the same time chose Gideon Smith to meet a Convension of members from towns who should be of our Opinion at Thetford in Order to make application to sd State of Newhampshire.
But two men Voted in the Negative, who were William Wallis and Levi Silvester.
JACOB KENT, Town Clerk.
It would certainly seem that at this time, Newbury people had little wish to join the new state of Vermont. The other towns which sent delegates to the convention at Thetford, were, Bradford, Thetford, Norwich and Hartford. This convention chose Abel Curtis of Norwich, agent, to present the application of these five towns to the New Hampshire legislature, and that body entered into a correspondence with the authorities of New York, which insured some protection to the frontier. Very little is known concerning either this correspondence or its result. But a second paper in the New Hampshire Archives shows that something was done :
NEWBURY, November 7, 1782.
Whereas Application was made to the State of Newhampshire at their Session at Concord in June last by Mr. Curtis, Agent for five Towns, and Incouragment given for Jurisdiction and Protection, and we are Sensiable that protection has been afforded from sd State for which we return sd State thanks in the Name of this Town, and now Desire said state would Extend Jurisdiction over Said Town in its fullest Extent as it is the Desire of the Town in General.
SYLVANUS HEATH, Selectmen of
JOSHUA BAYLEY,
FRYE BAYLEY,
Newbury.
*N. H., State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 281.
II8
HISTORY OF NEWBURY, VERMONT.
The precise meaning of this paper we do not at this distance of time, know.
It may be that prominent men in New Hampshire interceded with the Bennington party, now successful, on behalf of the towns which still held out. Certain measures of that party provoked an appeal to Congress, which drew from that body, December 7, 1782, an order forbidding any resort to coercive means.
But the troubles gradually subsided; the river towns, one by one, recognized the authority of the new state, till Norwich and Newbury were left alone in opposition. Two years later a complete change was wrought. Newbury sent two representatives, Jacob Bayley and Ebenezer White to the Vermont legislature, and in 1786, Jacob Bayley was again elected a councillor, and took his seat at the board under Governor Chittenden, whom he had a few years before, denounced as a traitor. Vermont looked for immediate admission into the Federal Union, but the influence of New York was strong enough to keep it out for several years.
Meanwhile the state was being peopled by an industrious and thriving class of emigrants, new towns sprang up, taxes were light, and the new state was, evidently, doing so well alone, that it became desirable to admit so prosperous a commonwealth into the Union.
Political reasons demanded its admission to balance the entrance of Kentucky; sufficient influence was brought to bear upon New York to give up its claims upon the payment of a sum of money, and at a convention which met at Bennington, January 10, 1791, in which Daniel Farrand represented Newbury, and took an important part, the state of Vermont assented to the Constitution of the United States.
The act for the admission of Vermont into the Union was approved by Washington, February 18, 1791, and on the fourth of the following March it became the first of thirty-two states to be admitted to the Federal Union.
CHAPTER XX.
AFTER THE WAR.
THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR AS IT NOW APPEARS .- THE TORIES .- A FAMILY FEUD .- HALF-HEARTED PATRIOTS .- DEPRECIATED CURRENCY .- THE LAW OF 1787 .- AN OLD BILL .- "THE CRITICAL PERIOD IN AMERICAN HISTORY."-GENERAL DISTRESS .- SHAYS' REBELLION .- HENRY TUFTS .- COUNTERFEIT MONEY .- THE BUSHEL OF WHEAT .- LUMBERING .- MASTS .- VISIT OF PRESIDENT DWIGHT.
TT is now a century and a quarter since the revolutionary war began, and it is possible to view, dispassionately, the whole course of events. Yet the precise measure of either praise or blame which should be allotted to each actor in those scenes cannot be awarded now, but the Americans were not all disinterested patriots, neither were all the British tyrants.
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.