USA > Vermont > Records of the Council of Safety and Governor and Council of the State of Vermont, to which are prefixed the records of the General Conventions from July 1775 to December 1777, Vol. I > Part 46
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
On the meeting of the legislature of Vermont at Windsor, February 12, 1779, to get rid of a connexion which had occasioned so much trouble and danger, the Assembly passed an act, dissolving the union of the six- teen towns in New Hampshire. Mr. Ira Allen was again appointed to wait on the General Assembly of New Hampshire, then sitting at Ex- eter, with the act of dissolution, and to make such explanations respect- ing the whole transaction as might be conducive to a good understand- ing between the two states. After discharging the duties of his mission, and before he left Exeter, he found it was the intention of some mem- bers in the Assembly of New Hampshire to extend jurisdiction over the territory of Vermont, under the pretence of opposing the claim of New York, and the befriending of the new State in Congress. Mr. Allen thanked them for their good intentions, and offered, as his opinion, that Vermont would receive more benefit by their disinterested vote in Con- gress than by being a party. Mr. Ira Allen discovered the true, though secret cause of this pretended friendship towards Vermont, by a conver- sation with Major Atkinson, a member from Portsmouth, with some other members in a coffee-house, in which he observed that " as the seat of government had been moved from Portsmouth to Exeter, and would soon be removed to Concord, the eastern members ought to contrive and sell the seat of government to the highest bidder, and so let it go to Con- necticut River; and as Governor Wentworth and his Council had made fortunes by granting lands, we may do the like by extending our juris- diction, and giving out grants of unlocated lands, which will be included in the new acquisition."
408
Appendix G.
This conversation evidently showed what measures would be adopted by the Court of New Hampshire, to extend their elaim. Ira Allen pru- dently kept the matter a secret, until he returned to Vermont, when he informed the Governor and Council thereof, who failed not to make pro- per use of the hints. They kept the matter a secret also, and, at the next session of the legislature, (which was previous to the meeting of the General Court of New Hampshire,) Mr. Ira Allen was again ap- pointed to go and concert measures with the general Court of New Hampshire, with instructions to settle a boundary line between said States, to quiet the minds of the people on both sides of Connecticut river, and to make them easy under their respective Governments.
Mr. Ira Allen attended the court of New Hampshire, and made his mission known, but found they were pursuing measures to extend their jurisdiction over Vermont, from pretended friendship, and to overturn the claim of New York then before Congress; after which the Legisla- ture of New Hampshire pretended they would withdraw their claim, and urge Congress to admit Vermont to be a State, and to have a seat in that venerable body. Upon such ostensible reasoning, Mr. Ira Allen was advised, as agent of Vermont, to assent to the plan and claim of New Hampshire, and was assured that the interest of Vermont as a sep- arate State from New Hampshire, was the pledged principle on which they acted. Mr. Allen expressed no doubt of their sincerity, but re- plied, that he was convinced that it would be the opinion of the Gover- nor and Council of Vermont, that the highest act of friendship to be shewn by the Legislature of New Hampshire to the State of Vermont, would be, not to become a party in the dispute, but to use her influence and vote in Congress in favour of Vermont, and to unite their mutual endeavours in quieting the people settled on both sides of Connecticut River, and rendering them contented under their respective States. by establishing a boundary line.
In the mean time Mr. Allen discovered the President's plan was, un- der pretence of friendship to Vermont, to lay before Congress a claim of jurisdiction over the State; and that New Hampshire would make interest to have Congress decide against New York in her favour, to set- tle a dispute, that otherwise might be injurious to the common cause of the United States. That when such decision was made in favour of New Hampshire, the people that had professed allegiance to New York, and those who had withdrawn from the Legislature of Vermont with their friends, would naturally be for uniting with New Hampshire. That the people contiguous to Connecticut River, would feel an interest in joining with New Hampshire, on account of the seat of Government coming there.
That a union with New Hampshire would secure the title of Lands under the New Hampshire Grants, in consequence of which those on the west side of the Green Mountains, &c. would follow the example of those contiguous to Connecticut river, rather than contend alone for in- dependence.
That the State of New Hampshire would be benefited by the unloca- ted lands in the district of Vermont, and that, if possible, Mr. Allen should be persuaded to consent to such a claim.
That President Weare, supposing Mr. Allen unacquainted with the real object of the plan, fell in company with, and in conversation advised him to give his consent to the claim, as the means to defeat the claim of New York, and bring Vermont into a confederacy with the thirteen United States, as a proper acknowledgment of her great exertions in the common cause, as well as to quiet the minds of the people, and to settle the discord subsisting on both sides of Connecticut river, and de-
Appendix G. 409
clared on his honour that he had no secret design of overthrowing the. present system of Government adopted in Vermont, or of uniting that State to New Hampshire, and called God to witness the truth of his as- sertions ; several members of the Council and Assembly then present. declared themselves in like manner. Mr. Allen thanked them for their good intentions, and told them his present instructions and power did not authorize him to assent to their claim, which he opposed, and thought it very strange that the Legislature of New Hampshire should insist upon doing Vermont a favour, when her agent thought and contended that it would be an injury; he therefore requested in general Court, that the determination of the matter be referred to their next session, that the opinion of the Legislature of Vermont might be taken thereon. The question was moved and carried by a majority.
This procrastination was essential to Vermont, as it tended to unite the people contiguous to Connecticut river on the west, which was nec- essary at the next election, and to counteract the designs of the Cornish Convention, as well as to gain time to guard against the ill effects of such a claim, if extended, and which afterwards was accordingly done, so that the jurisdictional claim of New Hampshire extended as before the year 1764, including the whole of Vermont.
Accordingly that State put into Congress a claim to the whole terri- tory of Vermont. As New Hampshire had not the least pretence, upon any principle whatever, to make such a claim, it was not doubted in Vermont, but that intrigues had been formed by the leading men in those two States, to divide Vermont between them. Massachusetts now interposed; whether aiming to disappoint the views of New Hampshire and New York, or in earnest to secure a part of the controverted lands, that State also put in a claim to a large part of Vermont.
[From Belknap's History of New Hampshire, vol. II, pp. 338-345.]
The inhabitants on the eastern side of Connecticut river [in 1778] were very conveniently situated to nnite with those on the western side, and many of them had the same principles and views. They argued that the original grant of New Hampshire to Mason was circumscribed by a line drawn at a distance of sixty miles from the sea; that all the lands westward of that line, being royal grants, had been held in subjec- tion to the government of New Hampshire by force of the royal com- missions, which were vacated by the assumed independence of the American colonies; and therefore that the inhabitants of all those lands had " reverted to a state of nature." By this expression, however, they did not mean that each individual was reduced to such a state; but that each town retained its corporate unity, unconnected with any superior jurisdiction. They distinguished between commissions derived from the King, which were revokable at his pleasure, and incorporations held on certain conditions, which being performed, the powers and privileges granted by the incorporations were perpetual. They asserted that juris- dictions established by royal commissions could bind a people together no longer than the force which first compelled continues to operate; but when the coercive power of the King was rejected, and its operation had ceased, the people had a right to make a stand at the first legal stage, viz. their town incorporations. These by universal consent were held sacred; hence they concluded that the major part of cach one of those towns had a right to control the minor part ; and they considered them-
28
410
Appendix G.
selves as so many distinct corporations, until they should agree to unite in one aggregate body.1
In these sentiments the people were not all united. The majority of some towns was in favor of their former connexion, [with New Hamp- shire,] and in those towns where the majority inclined the other way, the minority claimed protection of the government.
They supposed that the existence of their town-incorporations. and of the privileges annexed to them, depended on their union to New Hamp- shire; and that their acceptance of the grants was in effect an acknowl- edgment of the jurisdiction, and a submission to the laws of the State; from which they could not fairly be disengaged without its consent; as the State had never injured or oppressed them.
Much pains were taken, by the other party, to disseminate the new ideas. Conventions were held, pamphlets were printed, and at length a petition was drawn in the name of sixteen towns .* on the eastern side of Connecticut River, requesting the new State, which had assumed the name of VERMONT, to receive them into its union, alleging, 'that they were not connected with any other State, with respect to their in- ternal police.' The Assembly at first appeared to be against receiving them; but the members from those towns which were situated near the river on the west side. declared that they would withdraw and join with the people on the east side, in forming a new State. The question was then referred to the people at large, and measures used to influence a majority of the towns to vote in favor of the union, which the Assembly could not but confirm. The sixteen towns were accordingly received. [1778, June 11;] and the Vermont Assembly resolved. that any other towns on the eastern side of the river might be admitted on producing a vote of a majority of the inhabitants, or on the appointment of a Rep- resentative. Being thus admitted into the State of Vermont, they gave notice [June 25] to the government of New Hampshire, of the separa- tion which they had made, and expressed their wish for an amicable set-
1 Marginal note by Mr. Belknap: "Public defence of the right of the New Hampshire Grants, &c. Printed 1779." This note indicates that the statement is the substance of the argument contained in the pamph- let referred to as of 1778 by Ira Allen, and the reader can compare this statement with Allen's in the preceding extract. The view then enter- tained of the right of the towns, as corporations, to establish a state gov- ernment, was practically exemplified in the constitution of Vermont, which was adopted by a convention of town delegates, without being sub- mitted to the people at large for adoption or rejection.
* 1 Cornish,
2 Lebanon, a name given to the district
3 Dresden, belonging to Dartmonth Col- ( lege, but now disused.
4 Lime,
5 Orford,
6 Piermont,
7 Haverhill.
8 Bath,
9 Lyman,
S now [1791] divided into Lit-
10 Apthorp, ¿ tleton and Dalton.
11 Enfield,
12 Canaan.
13 Cardigan, now [1791] Orange.
14 Landaff,
Gunthwaite, now [179]] New Concord.
16 Morris-town, now [179]] Franconia. 2
2 This note is from BELKNAP. It will be seen that he does not include Hanover, unless he included it in Dresden. This is true also of the res- olution of the General Assembly of June 11, 1778. In 1781, Dresden and Hanover both acceded to the second union with Vermont, as dis- tinct towns .- See Slade's State Papers, p. 137.
411
Appendix G.
tlement of a jurisdictional line, and a friendly correspondence.1 The President of New Hampshire, in the name of the Assembly, wrote to the Governor of Vermont, [August 22.] claiming the sixteen towns as a part of the State, the limits of which had been determined prior to the revolution : reminding him that those towns had sent delegates to the [New Hampshire] convention in 1775; that they had applied to the As- sembly for arms and ammunition, which had been sent to them; that their military officers had accepted commissions and obeyed orders from the government [of New Hampshire;] that the minority of those towns was averse to a disunion, and had claimed protection of the State, which the Assembly thought themselves bound to afford; and beseeching him to use his influence with the Assembly of Vermont to dissolve the newly formed connexion.
At the same time, [Aug. 19,] the President wrote to the delegates of the State [of New Hampshire] in Congress ; desiring them to take advice and endeavor to obtain the interposition of that body ; intimating his apprehension, that without it, the controversy must be decided by the sword, as every condescending measure had been used from the begin- ning and rejected.
The Governor and Council of Vermont sent a messenger [Ethan Allen] to Congress to see in what light the new State was viewed by them. On his return he reported, that the Congress was unanimously opposed to the union of the sixteen towns with Vermont ; otherwise they (excepting the delegates of New-York) had no objection to the independence of the new State.
At the next session of the Vermont Assembly at Windsor, [October,] when the Representatives of the sixteen towns had taken their seats, a debate arose on a question, whether they should be erected into a new county, which passed in the negative. Conceiving that they were not admitted to equal privileges with their brethren, the members from those towns withdrew, and were followed by several others belonging to the towns adjoining the river on the west side. They formed themselves into a convention, and invited all the towns on both sides of the river to unite, and set up another State by the name of New-Connecticut. This secession had nearly proved fatal to the State of Vermont. A ridge of mountains which extends from south to north through that territory, seemed to form not only a natural, but a political line of division. A more cordial union subsisted between the people on the eastern side of the Green Mountains, and the eastern side of Connecticut river, than between the latter and those on the western side of the mountains : but these alone were insufficient without the other, to make a State. The Governor, and other leading men of Vermont, who resided on the west side of the Mountains, wrote letters to the Assembly of New-Hamp- shire, informing them of the separation, and expressing their disappro- bation of a connexion with the sixteen towns. The assembly regarded these letters as ambiguous, and as not expressing a disinclination to any future connexion with them. Jealousy is said to be a republican virtue ; it operated on this occasion, and the event proved that it was not with- out foundation.
1 Dr. WILLIAMS, in his history of Vermont, said : "Having thus effected their purpose, the sixteen towns announced to the government of New Hampshire, that they had withdrawn from their jurisdiction, and wished to have a divisional line established, and a friendly corres- pondence kept up."
412
Appendix G.
A convention of delegates from several towns on both sides of the river assembled at Cornish [Dec. 9,] and agreed to unite, without any regard to the limits established by the King in 1764 : and to make the following proposals to New-Hampshire, viz., either to agree with them on a divid- ing line, or to submit the dispute to Congress, or to arbitrators mutil- ally chosen. If neither of these proposals were accepted, then. in case they could agree with New-Hampshire on a form of government, they would consent that 'the whole of the grants on both sides of the river 'should conneet themselves with New Hampshire, and become one entire ' State, as before the royal determination in 1764.' Till one or the other of these proposals should be complied with they determine 'to trust in Providence and defend themselves.'
An attempt was made in the following year [1779] to form a constitu- tion for New-Hampshire, in which the limits of the State were said to be the same as under the royal government 'reserving nevertheless our 'claims to the New-Hampshire Grants west of Connecticut river.' Though this form of government was rejected by a majority of the peo- ple ; yet there was a disposition in a great part of the Assembly to retain their claim to the whole of the grants westward of the river. At the same time the State of New York set up a claim to the same lands, and it was suspected, perhaps not without reason, that intrigues were form- ing to divide Vermont between New-Hampshire and New-York, by the ridge of mountains which runs through the territory. Certain it is that the Vermonters were alarmed ; and that they might have the same advantage of their adversaries, they extended their claim westward into New-York, and eastward into New-Hampshire ; and thus not only the sixteen towns, but several other towns in the counties of Cheshire and Grafton, be- came incorporated with Vermont by 'articles of union and confederation."
It is not easy to develope the intrigues of the several parties, or to clear their transactions from the obscurity which surrounds them .* He who looks for consistency in the proceedings of the Conventions and As- semblies which were involved in this controversy, will be disappointed. Several interfering interests conspired to perplex the subject. The peo- ple on the western side of the Green Mountains wished to have the seat of government among them. Those adjoining Connecticut river, on both sides, were desirous of bringing the centre of jurisdiction to the verge of the river. The leading men in the eastern part of New Hamp- shire were averse to the removal of the government from its old seat. Vermont had assumed independence ; but its limits were not defined. New York had a claim on that territory as far as Connecticut river, from which there was no disposition to recede. That State had been always opposed to the independence of Vermont. New Hampshire at first seemed to acquiesce in it; and some letters which the President [Weare] wrote to the Governor of Vermont, when threatened with invasion in 1777, were understood as an acknowledgment of it. Had there been no attempt to unite with the towns on the eastern side of the river, New Hampshire would perhaps never have opposed the independence of Ver- mont. But the Assembly was afterward induced to claim all that terri- tory, which before the year 1764, had been supposed to be within the
* The author [Belknap] has spared no palns to get as perfect a knowledge of these things as the nature of them will admit. If he has not succeeded in obtaining materials, for a just and full ac- count, it is his request that those who are better acquainted with the subject would oblige the pub- iic with more accurate information.
If Mr. Belknap could not give an accurate and complete account in 1791 from the archives of New Hampshire, it is hardly reasonable to ex- pect that much can be added after the lapse of more than eighty years.
413
Appendix G.
limits of the State. This interfered with the claim of New York ; and at the same time Massachusetts put in a claim to a part of Vermont. The controversy had become so intricate, that it was thought necessary to be decided by Congress: and application being made to that body, they recommended [Sept. 24] to the three States of New York, Massa- chusetts and New Hampshire, to pass acts which should authorize Con- gress to determine their boundaries; and at the same time they advised the people of Vermont to relinquish jurisdiction over all persons on the west or east sides of Connecticut river, who had not denied the author- ity of New York and New Hampshire, and to abstain from granting lands, or confiscating estates, within their assumed limits, till the matter should be decided. The States of New York and New Hampshire passed these acts; but Massachusetts did not. The Vermont Assembly proceeded in granting lands and confiscating estates ; and Congress could only resolve that their proceedings were unwarrantable.1
[ From Slade's State Papers, pp. 90-102.]
From President WEARE to the New Hampshire Delegates at Congress. EXETER, AUGUST 19, 1778.
GENTLEMEN,
By order of the council and assembly of this state, I am to inform you, that the pretended state of Vermont, not content with the limits of the New-Hampshire grants (so called) on the western side of Connecticut river, have extended their pretended jurisdiction over the river, and taken into union (as they phrase it) sixteen towns on the east side of Connecticut river, part of this state, and who can have no more pretence for their defection than any other towns in this state; the circumstances of which you are well acquainted with; and great pains are taking to persuade other towns to follow their example.
By the best information I have from that country, nearly one half of the people, in the revolted towns, are averse to the proceedings of the majority, who threaten to confiscate their estates, if they do not join with them ; and I am very much afraid that the affair will end in the shedding of blood. Justices of the peace have been appointed and sworn into office in those towns, under the pretended authority of said Ver- mont: and persons sent to represent them there. I must not omit to let you know, that Col. Timothy Bedel, who has received great sums of money from Congress, and their generals, under pretence of keeping some companies, last winter, and now a regiment, for the defence of that northern frontier, or to be in readiness for marching into Canada, (though very little service has been done, as I am informed) by influence of the money and his command, has occasioned a great share in the disorders in those towns. 'Tis wished by the more sober, solid people in that quarter, he could be removed for some other command, if he must be kept in pay and employed.
I am directed to desire you, on the receipt of this, to advise with some of the members of Congress on this affair, and proceed, as you may judge expedient ; and, after advising as aforesaid, to endeavor to obtain aid of congress, if you think they can. with propriety, take up the matter. Indeed, unless congress interfere, (whose admonitions, I believe, will be obeyed) I know not what consequences will follow. It is very probable the sword will decide it, as the minority, in those towns, are claiming
1 A continuation of Belknap's account of the second union of New Hampshire towns with Vermont, is reserved for future publication with other documents on that subject.
414
Appendix G.
protection from this state, and they think themselves bound, by every tie, to afford it ; and you know that every condescending measure has been used from the beginning of the schism, and rejected.
From President WEARE to Governor CHITTENDEN.
SIR, EXETER, AUGUST 22, 1778.
Although I have had information that the people, settled on the New Hampshire grants, (so called) west of Connecticut river, had formed a plan for their future government, and elected you their first magistrate : yet, as they have not yet been admitted into the confederacy of the Uni- ted States, as a separate, distinet body, I have omitted to address you. in your magistratical style, and not out of disrespect to you, or the people over whom you preside; which, in these circumstances. I doubt not, your candour will excuse, and that you will attend to the important subject of this address.
A paper has been laid before the general assembly, attested by Thom- as Chandler, jun. as secretary of the state of Vermont, dated June 11, 1778, purporting a resolution of the general assembly of the state of Vermont, to receive into union with said state, sixteen towns on the east side of Connecticut river; and leave. or rather an invitation, to any towns, contiguous to those sixteen. to enter into the same union.
On which I am directed to represent to you, and to desire it may be laid before the representatives of your people, the intimation in said re- solve, that the said sixteen towns ' are not connected with any state, with respect to their internal police,' is an idle phantom, a mere chimera, without the least shadow of reason for its support.
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.