History of Royalton, Vermont, with family genealogies, 1769-1911, Part 6

Author: Lovejoy, Mary Evelyn Wood, 1847-
Publication date: 1911
Publisher: Burlington, Vt., Free press printing company
Number of Pages: 1280

USA > Vermont > Windsor County > Royalton > History of Royalton, Vermont, with family genealogies, 1769-1911 > Part 6

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).

This could not have seemed very complimentary to New York, and shows that these "few lawless vagabonds" had been striking terror into the hearts of their opponents. Property was burned, sympathizers with New York were publicly whipped and driven from their holdings, and officers of New York intimi- dated by what their enemies were pleased to term the "Benning- ton Mob," under Allen, Warner, Baker and others. The settlers of Charlotte county were the chief complainants and sufferers. A proclamation was issued for the arrest of the leaders of the "mob." The whippings and ejections continued, and rawhides and writs were plentiful. New York failed in her effort to have the King order a military force to her aid. The home govern- ment at this time was too busy with colonial disaffection to attend to particular calls of that sort.

The riot at Westminster was the natural outcome of these disputes. By this time the "Bennington Mob," in opposing New York, felt themselves opposing the aggressions of Great Britain herself, and so the blood of French at Westminster is regarded by Vermonters as the first blood shed in the Revolu- tion. When Forts Ticonderoga and Crown Point fell into the hands of Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys, June 7, 1775, the controversy took on a different aspect. This was a

HISTORY OF ROYALTON, VERMONT

victory in which all patriots rejoiced, and in which men from both Massachusetts and Connecticut aided. The action of New York, on recommendation of the Continental Congress, in form- ing a battalion of Green Mountain Boys tended to produce, a better state of feeling. On July 20, 1775, Ethan Allen wrote a very polite letter to the Provincial Congress of New York assur- ing them that their "respectful treatment not only to Mr. War- ner" and himself, but to the Green Mountain Boys in general were by them duly regarded, and he would be responsible that they would "retaliate" that favor by wholly hazarding their lives, if need be, in the common cause of America.

The convention at Dorset, Sep. 25, 1775, made up of fifty- six delegates from thirty-six towns indicated their desire to be formed into a district distinct from New York. This action alarmed New York, which refused to furnish arms to a people who were likely to use them in a revolt against her authority. The Declaration of Independence fostered the spirit of freedom which nowhere found a richer soil than in the hearts of the settlers on the Grants. The Continental Congress in its efforts to raise troops looked to the valorous sons of the Grants, and took steps to secure a force independent of New York, a course which New York openly resented.

January 15, 1777, at Dorset a Convention of delegates from the Grants declared their independence, and assumed the name of New Connecticut. Thomas Young, under date of April 11 of the same year, wrote to the people of the Grants encouraging them in their course, and advised them to choose delegates to Congress, ensuring them of success at the "risque" of his repu- tation. Those who think graft is a sin of recent years alone, may learn otherwise from his advice: "Let the scandalous practice of bribing Men by places Commissions &c be held in abhorrence among you. By entrusting only Men of Capacity and Integrity in public Affairs -

- - is your liberties well secured." On complaint of New York to Congress, that body resolved that Young's representations were grossly wrong, and Congress could not receive delegates from Vermont. Copies of this action of Congress were sent to the Vermont towns with the request that they be read in the town meetings. The name of the new state had been changed at Windsor by a convention which met June 4, 1777, from New Connecticut to Vermont, as they had learned that a district of land on the Susquehanna river already bore the name first selected.

February 23, 1778, the legislature of New York, fearful of losing the Grants, made a great reduction in fees and quit-rents, and offered to confirm those actually possessing and improving their lands under title from New Hampshire, although such land

HISTORY OF ROYALTON, VERMONT

might have been afterward granted by New York. This and other overtures were made on condition that the independence of Vermont should not be recognized. There were many settlers who were loyal to New York, and who hated Ethan Allen as much as the woman whom he married did, when, as a maiden, she first knew him. When urged by a relative to marry Allen, saying if she married Gen. Allen she would be Queen of the State, she passionately replied, "Yes, if I should marry the Devil I should be Queen of Hell." New York loyalists from nine towns met at Brattleboro, May 4, 1779, and petitioned New York for protection from the officials of the new state, and subse- quently declared that, if the Governor of New York did not take steps for their relief, their persons and property "must be at the disposal of Ethan Allen which is more to be dreaded than Death with all its Terrors."

The first record which we have of Royalton having a part in the controversy is dated May 15, 1779: "At a meeting Legaley Warned first made choice of Let Jo Parkhurst modera- tor. 2d The Question sent us By the Commitee apinted by the Convention held at Cornish December Last Viz Was Putt Whether this town is Willing that the assembly of New Hamp- shire Extend their Claime and jurisdiction over the Whole of the Grants New Hampshire at the Same time Submitting to Congress whether a New State Shall be Established on the Grants &c but we Resarved to ouerSelves a Right To Vendecait ouer claime to be a New State 3d Dissolved the meeting" At an- other meeting held July 12, 1779, they "Chose Lieut Joseph Parkhurst agent to Seet in Convention at Drisden the 20th of this instant" and "3d Voted to support the yeomen for a distinct state on the (- - - - ) of the Grants 4th Voted in case the yeo- men cant be supported we are to be annexed to New Hamp- shire." These records show that the sentiment of the people was in favor of independence, and more friendly to New Hamp- shire than to New York.

The new government of Vermont had avowed its loyalty to the government of the United States, and was active in raising a militia force to aid in the Revolution. Those favoring New York refused to be drafted by the authority of Vermont officers, or to furnish arms, and so were severely dealt with. Congress, as is well known, procrastinated in its action on the numerous petitions from both Vermont and New York. September 24, 1779, it passed resolutions advising the states affected by the dis- putes to authorize Congress to settle them. Meantime the Presi- dent of Dartmouth College, desirous of having the college part of Hanover, called Dresden, given a separate existence by New Hampshire, and failing, favored the plan of uniting sixteen 3

HISTORY OF ROYALTON, VERMONT

towns on the Connecticut river with Vermont, in the hope, as is thought by some, of making Dresden the capital. These towns had been dissatisfied with their representation in the New Hamp- shire Assembly. Two towns were often paired, sending only one representative. They turned to Vermont, and claimed that by Mason's grant New Hampshire had no legal right to exercise jurisdiction over them. Vermont was not very anxious to re- ceive them into her fold, but she saw in such a union a way to increase her numbers and her influence with Congress, and June 11, 1778, this union was effected, and Dresden was admitted as a separate town, making seventeen towns in all that were ad- mitted. A few days later it was voted to take the incorporated University of Dartmouth under the patronage of the state, and President Wheelock was appointed a justice of the peace.

New Hampshire took action to bring her refractory children to submission. Vermont lost rather than gained with members of Congress by this political move. On Oct. 21, 1778, three propositions were before the assembly of Vermont: (1) Whether the counties should remain as they were the last March, when the whole state was divided into two counties; (2) whether the counties east of the Connecticut river which had been joined to the state should be included in Cumberland county; or (3) should they be erected into a separate county? On the first question the affirmative was carried, and the vote was negative on the two others, which showed that Vermont declined to do anything further in the matter of union, and the New Hamp- shire representatives withdrew. The question of dissolving the union was referred to the freemen of the state, who before voted on the admission of these towns. A minority of the legislature invited all the towns on both sides of the Connecticut river to meet in convention at Cornish, N. H., on December 9th. They met and agreed to unite, snapping their fingers at the boundary line established on the west bank of the Connecticut river in 1764, and coolly laid down an ultimatum to New Hampshire. Only eight Vermont towns were in this convention, one of which was Royalton, as the following record shows, the earliest of all the town records :

"Royalton December 1st 1778

At a meeting Legally Warned made Choice of Mr. Rufus Rude Moder- ator 2d Voted that it is the Opinion of this Town that the Votes or Resolves passed in the General Assembly Oct 21 Viz 1st The countys Remain as thay ware 2d the towns on the East Side of the River Shall not be enexed to Cumberland 3d Nor Shall form a County by themselves are unconstitutional 4ly Voted that this town ac (accept?) of the Protest Signed by Leut Jo Parkhurst and approve of the Same 5ly Chose Elias Curtis to Repersent this Town in a convention to Be holden in Cornish."

HISTORY OF ROYALTON, VERMONT

Royalton was then evidently training with the minority, and was in sympathy with the aspirations of Dresden. On Feb. 12, 1779, the legislature voted to dissolve the union. The Cornish convention proposed that the dispute over the towns be sub- mitted to Congress or to arbitrators, or else that the whole of the Grants become a part of New Hampshire. According to Ira Allen, New Hampshire advised Vermont to allow her to put in a claim to the whole of the territory of Vermont, with the ostensible purpose of defeating New York, but the leaders of Vermont believed New York and New Hampshire to be in collu- sion. Massachusetts would not agree to submit the boundary dispute to Congress, and pushed her claim, which action has since been shown to have been an expression of good will, intended to defeat both the other claimants, and to preserve the integrity of the state. The decision of Royalton over the question of unit- ing with New Hampshire has already been given in the record dated May 15, 1779. 1127806

Vermont was not represented in Congress, and now asserted her rights more vigorously than ever before. Appeals were made to other states, and agents were sent to them to work in the interest of the young republic. It has been said that the second plan of union of New Hampshire and New York towns with Vermont in 1781 was chiefly due to Ira Allen and Luke Moulton. The question of this second proposed union of New Hampshire towns was submitted to the people. The vote was overwhelmingly in favor of it. Thirty-five towns were accord- ingly admitted from New Hampshire and twelve from New York, a step which increased the territory of Vermont, and gave her better facilities for defence against the common enemy. By secret intercourse with agents of Gen. Haldimand the state was preserved from attacks of the British, and Congress became alarmed lest Vermont should go over to the enemy. The loy- alty of the Green Mountain State and its leaders is now well established, but at that time there was great uneasiness regarding negotiations which were thought to be going on between the British and the head officials of Vermont. The evasive policy of these leaders, who never really pledged support to the English government, resulted in protecting their frontiers, and in secur- ing the good will of the British in case it was needed to resist any attempt Congress might make to enforce either the claims of New York or of New Hampshire.

Acting on the petition of Vermont for admission in 1781, Congress signified its willingness to admit the new state, if she would resign her claims to the towns lately united with her. After a sharp refusal to do this, the attitude of the inhabitants was changed by a wise, conciliatory letter from Gen. Washing-

HISTORY OF ROYALTON, VERMONT

ton, and Feb. 22, 1782, Vermont relinquished all claim to the territory lately annexed. She expected Congress to fulfill her part of the conditions, but she was sadly disappointed. A policy of delay succeeded, most exasperating and injurious to Vermont. It was to be expected that many who had been beneficiaries of New York through large grants or holding of office, should be opposed to the jurisdiction of Vermont. This opposition was so violent in the southern part of the state that an armed militia was needed to keep the peace and resist the Yorkers. New York finally grew weary of attempting to subdue her refractory pos- session, and shared with Vermont her distrust of the good inten- tion and ability of Congress to end satisfactorily the controversy. Every day this wayward child of hers was waxing stronger. After the war closed emigrants thronged to it, induced partly by its freedom from obligations to help pay the national debt. The estates of tories were dealt with summarily, and the treasury of the state replenished thereby. By being good-natured and conciliatory New York realized that she would gain more than by attempting force. So in 1789 we find commissioners from both states meeting and arranging the questions of boundary and indemnity in a very amicable frame of mind. Vermont was to pay $30,000 indemnity for lands confiscated, and in 1790 New York gave her consent to the admission of the state of Vermont into the union of the United States of America. Thus the old foe of Vermont paved the way for the admission of the state in 1791.

One thing more should be added in relation to the attitude of Royalton toward the new state. In the Archives of the State Department at Washington is found in Vol. I of the "N. H. Grants," No. 40, page 311, a copy of a petition purporting to come from the towns of Hartford, Norwich, Sharon, Royalton, Fairlee, Newbury, and Barnet, dated March, 1779, and pre- sented to Congress in the August following by Peter Olcott. That part of the petition which is pertinent to the union of the N. H. towns with Vermont is quoted.

"About the time of the declaration of independence of the united States, sundry persons from the western part of said Grants made known to us that the inhabitants west of the Green Mountains were very desirous of having a new State formed on the said New Hampshire Grants-that many among us expressed our willingness for such an event in case the Grants east of the Connecticut river might join us in pursuing that object, as we have ever thought their circumstances in almost every respect similar to ours-they having received the grant of their landed property in the same channel, their manners and habits the same, and the local situation of the country such as makes it very inconvenient for us to be divided from them &c .- That we were by an arbitrary decree of the King unjustly deprived of that union with the Grants east of the river, and that we are well assured the Grants in general have ever been desirous of having it restored and influenced

HISTORY OF ROYALTON, VERMONT

principally by a prospect of such union a considerable number of towns from among us did unite with the inhabitants west of the green mount- ains in forming a constitution for a State .- That the towns on the Grants east of the Connecticut River were about the same time invited to join in pursuing that object and in conformity to such invitation a number of towns east of the river were in the month of June last re- ceived into union with said new State (then known by the name of Vermont) by a resolve of the Assembly, the members thereof being pre- viously instructed so to do. That said Assembly have since in violation of their faith and honor, deprived the towns east of the river of their protection and actually extinguished the union with them. In con- sequence whereof a large number of the members of the council and Assembly have withdrawn their connection with that Assembly, to the very general approbation of their constituents .- We are assured that the members who continue to act in Assembly have last month ap- pointed a Committee to apply to Congress for an establishment of a State on the said Grants west of Connecticut river, which in the present situation of affairs we beg leave to represent that we utterly refuse our compliance with.

We therefore humbly pray that Congress will be pleased to do nothing relative thereto which may in the least encourage the establish- ment of a State under those disagreeable circumstances, but on the contrary that they will in some way express their disapprobation of it, and grant such relief to their injured petitioners as in their wisdom may seem fit."

In the town records of Royalton only two meetings are re- corded prior to this petition, and no reference whatever is made to it. It is very doubtful if the town as an organization au- thorized any such petition, yet it is worthy of notice that it sent no representative to the Assembly in 1779, and was not at first in high favor with the state government.

CHAPTER V.

COUNTIES.

The first county erected on Vermont territory was organized by New York, July 3, 1766, and named Cumberland, possibly after the Duke of Cumberland, the second son of George II. On its northern border were the townships of Linfield (Royalton), Sharon, and Norwich. The King declared this act void, June 26, 1767, as it was contrary to his orders regarding claims to the land in dispute between New York and New Hampshire. There was, however, an urgent demand for some county organi- zation where courts could be held and cases tried, and the county was re-established by Letters Patent, Mar. 19, 1768.

A Court of Common Pleas had been established before the annulling act was known, and provision had been made for the erection of county buildings at an expenditure not exceeding two hundred pounds. Supervisors and other officers were or- dered to be elected, and the supervisors were to meet and choose a shire town, and levy the tax for erecting the necessary build- ings. Chester was selected as the county seat, and a Court of General Sessions of the Peace was established, to meet twice a year at the same time as the Court of Common Pleas.

When the county was re-organized in 1768, the people were allowed to erect county buildings at their own expense. There was some opposition to the selection of Chester, as there was a strong feeling there antagonistic to New York, and it was far from the Connecticut river, along which were the most advanced settlements. Thomas Chandler, the first judge, came to the support of Chester by volunteering to erect a suitable court house and jail at his own expense.

Mr. Child in his Gazetteer of Windsor County gives a de- scription of the jail, which was found in an old chancery docu- ment. It states that the jail was in a corner of a hut, "the walls of which house were made of small hackmatac poles locked to- gether at the corners by cutting notches into the poles." The cracks between pole and pole were filled with tow, moss, or clay. This primitive, loosely constructed affair afforded small security against the escape of prisoners. Chandler's court house was no

HISTORY OF ROYALTON, VERMONT

more pleasing to the county than his jail, though he planned a building thirty feet by sixteen, which would be convenient when "finished," and he had it partly erected in 1771, the year the first settler came into Royalton.

Notice was given that on the third Tuesday in May, 1772, each town should elect one supervisor, two assessors, two collec- tors, two overseers of the poor, three highway commissioners, as many surveyors as each town thought necessary, two fence view- ers, and four constables. The supervisors were directed to meet at Chester at the "Court House," and select a place for a court house and a jail. After a struggle Westminster was selected on May 26th of that year, and the proper buildings were erected there. The population of Cumberland county in 1771 was but 3947, which was divided among several towns. In some of the towns there could hardly have been voters enough to go around in the distribution of offices.

In the meantime Gloucester county had been chartered, Mar. 7, 1770, by the Provincial Congress of New York, and New- bury was selected as the shire town. This included all the ter- ritory north of Cumberland and east of the Green mountains. Both counties were sparsely settled. The census taken by the authority of New York in 1771 showed that in May of that year Gloucester had 762 inhabitants. Charlotte county was formed in 1772, its southern boundary being Sunderland and Arlington. It included the territory west of the mountains on both sides of Lake Champlain to the Hudson river. The part of Vermont on the west side of the mountains south of Charlotte county was included in Albany county.

The first Cumberland County Convention met at Westmin- ster Oct. 19, 1774, and occupied the new "County Hall." Stir- ring times were witnessed there, both before and after the mem- orable massacre, in which the first blood of the Revolution was shed, as many Vermonters claim.

This was the status of the counties when Vermont declared her independence in 1777. The next year, Mar. 17, the General Assembly divided the entire state into two counties, Bennington west of the mountains, and Unity east of them. A few days later "Unity" was discarded for the old name, Cumberland, and the next year a line of division was established. The next change occurred in October, 1780, under an act to establish county lines, and Cumberland was divided into Cumberland and Gloucester, the division between the two running on the north line of Wind- sor county about as it is today. The two counties east of the mountains were now nearly the same as they had been under New York. Of course New York retained the original names, and therefore much confusion in the names of counties is found

HISTORY OF ROYALTON, VERMONT

in old deeds. Sometimes Royalton is in Cumberland county, New York, again in Cumberland county, Vermont, and a third time in Gloucester county, New York, and so on, with other vari- ations.

In February, 1781, the population of the state had so far increased that a new division was decided upon, and Cumber- land county as it was in 1778 was divided into Windham, Wind- sor, and Orange counties, and the old names finally disappeared. All north of Windsor county was called Orange. Various changes have been made in the boundaries of Windsor and Wind- ham counties, but space forbids a further account, except to say, that on March 2, 1797, the state was divided into eleven counties, which number was later increased to fourteen by the organiza- tion of Grand Isle, Washington, and Lamoille, the last and youngest being incorporated in 1835.

The boundaries given to Windsor county in 1797 have re- mained unchanged, though efforts have been made to effect a division. The county includes twenty-four towns, is forty-eight miles long by thirty wide, and contains 900 square miles. Wind- sor was designated as the shire town of the county by act of the legislature October, 1781. Legislative sessions had been held there in the early part of the year, and members favored that location, though the later settled town of Woodstock was ambi- tious to secure the county seat. This led to attempts to have the county divided into two shires, of one of which Windsor should be the county seat, and Woodstock of the other. The matter came up in the Assembly as early as June, 1781, when they voted not to divide the county. The selection of Windsor did not put an end to the rivalry between the two towns. The next step was to get an expression of opinion from the inhabitants of the county, as to the best place for the county buildings, which had not yet been erected. A meeting called by the authority of the county was held at Windsor in March, 1784, but not enough were interested to make a quorum. At this juncture some of the pub- lic spirited citizens of Windsor subscribed about $500 towards building a court house fifty feet by thirty-four, and at once began its erection.

Woodstock was not thus to be baffled. The Hon. Benjamin Emmons, the representative from Woodstock, declined the honor of an appointment to a vacancy in the Council, that he might fight for his home town in the Assembly, and had the satisfaction of winning a victory, when the bill for establishing Woodstock as the shire town was approved, Oct. 27, 1786. Now the pro- prietors of "Windsor Court House" began to be busy. What was to become of their new building, if Woodstock was to be the shire town? Petitions besieged the legislature, and the mat-

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.

History of Royalton, Vermont, with family genealogies, 1769-1911, Part 6

Author: Lovejoy, Mary Evelyn Wood, 1847- Publication date: 1911 Publisher: Burlington, Vt., Free press printing company Number of Pages: 1280

Author: Lovejoy, Mary Evelyn Wood, 1847-
Publication date: 1911
Publisher: Burlington, Vt., Free press printing company
Number of Pages: 1280