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 62
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
2 The letter of Col. Patterson was similar to the petition; and Gov. Clinton in his reply promised to order out the militia instantly in case Vermont attempted to reduce the petitioners by force of arms. For these papers, see Documentary History of New York, vol. 4, pp. 576-580. Gov. Clinton's letter of May 29th, covering Mr. Minott's, was received while Congress was in committee on this subject on the 1st of June.
521
Appendix J.
The report being read, Congress thereupon came to the following res- olutions:
WHEREAS divers applications have been made to Congress on the part of the State of N. York and of the State of N. Hampshire. relative to disturbances and animosities among inhabitants of a certain district known by the name of "the New-Hampshire Grants," praying their interference for the quieting thereof; Congress having taken the same into consideration,
Resolved, That a committee be appointed to repair to the inhabitants of a certain district known by the name of the New-Hampshire Grants, and enquire into the reasons why they refuse to continue citizens of the respective states which horetofore exercised jurisdiction over the said distriet; for that as Congress are in duty bound on the one hand to pre- serve inviolate the rights of the several states, so on the other they will always be careful to provide that the justice due to the states does not interfere with the justice which may be due to individuals: That the said committee confer with the said inhabitants, and that they take every prudent measure to promote an amicable settlement of all differences, and prevent divisions and animosities so prejudicial to the United States.
. Resolved. That the further consideration of this subject be postponed until the said committee shall have made report.
Ordered, That they report specially and with all convenient speed.
Previous to passing the first resolution,
A motion was made by Mr. Henry [of Maryland, ] seconded by Mr. Carmichael [of Maryland, ] to strike out the word "several," and in lieu thereof insert "united;" and on the question, shall the word several stand? The yeas and nays being required by Mr. Henry. New-Hamp- « hire, Massachusetts-Bay, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Penn- sylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, voted aye: and Rhode Island and Maryland voted no; So it was resolved in the athir- mative.
Resolved, That to-morrow be assigned for electing the Committee.
Resolved unanimously, That the president inform the governor of New-York, that a more early attention would have been paid to the pressing applications of that state, relating to the disturbances men- tioned in his several letters, had it not been prevented by matters of the greatest importance; and that Congress will continue to pay equal at- tention to the rights of that state with those of other states in the union.
WEDNESDAY, June 2, 1779.
Resolved, That the committee to repair to the inhabitants of the New- Hampshire Grants consist of five, any three of whom to be empowered to aet.
The members chosen, Mr. Ellsworth [of Connecticut,] Mr. Edwards, Mr. Witherspoon [of New-Jersey,] Mr. Atlee [of Pennsylvania, ] and Mr. Root [of Connecticut.]
WEDNESDAY, June 16, 1779.
The committee, consisting of Mr. Jenifer [of Maryland,] Mr. Arm- strong [of Pennsylvania, ] and Mr. Sharpe [of North Carolina, ] to whom was referred the letter of the 7th of June from governor Clinton, brought in a report; whereupon,
1 In this letter Gov. Clinton expressed his astonishment and concern that "the Congress have passed over in profound silence the remon- strances on the seizure and imprisonment of the principal officers of government in the county of Cumberland by the revolters of this State," 35
522
Appendix J.
Resolved unanimously, That the officers acting under the state of New-York, who were lately restrained of their liberty by certain per- sons of a district called the New-Hampshire Grants, ought to be imme- diately liberated.
Resolved unanimously, That the committee appointed to repair to the inhabitants of a certain district known by the name of the New-Hamp- shire Grants, be directed to enquire into the matters and things con- tained in the letters of governor Clinton of the 27th of May and of the 7th inst. and that copies of the said letters be transmitted to the said committee; and that they be directed to report specially to Congress.
Resolved unanimously, That it was not the intention of Congress by their resolution of the 1st inst. nor ought the same or any other part thereof be construed to hold up principles subversive of, or unfavoura- ble to the internal policy of any or either of the United States:
That as Congress expect very salutary effects from the appointment of the said committee, therefore all further proceedings on governor Clin- ton's letter be postponed until they report.
WEDNESDAY, Sept. 22, 1779.
After reciting the foregoing resolution of June 1, the record proceeds as follows:
And whereas it so happened that a majority of the committee ap- pointed in pursuance of the aforementioned resolution, did not meet in the said district, and therefore have never executed the business com- mitted to them or made a regular report thereon to Congress:
Ordered, that the said committee be discharged.
Of the committee of five, only two visited Vermont-Messrs. Wither- spoon and Atlee. They had an interview with Governor Chittenden, and an arrangement was made with the intent of preventing collisions between the Vermont authorities and the adherents to New-York. Of this interview and arrangement, a report was made to Congress on the 13th of July, but as only two of the committee acted, it could not be re- ceived and treated as an official report. No account can now be given better than that which may be gathered from the following documents.
[From the Documentary History of New York, vol. 4, pp. 588-590.]
John Witherspoon and Samuel J. Atlee, of the Committee of Congress, to Samuel Minott.
BENNINGTON, June 230, 1779.
Gentlemen-The Subscribers are here at present as Members of a Com- mittee of Congress sent for the express purpose of endeavouring to bring about an amicable settlement of the Differences between the State of New-York and the Inhabitants of the New-Hampshire Grants who have formed themselves into a State called by them the State of Ver- mont. We have' understood that you and others who adhere to the State of New-York have declined taking your Turn of Militia Duty for
"and what renders their silence still more extraordinary is, that Ethan Allen, having the rank of a Colonel in the service of the United States, was a principal actor in this ontrage."-See Doc. History of New York, vol. 4, p. 584.
-
523
Appendix J.
the Defence of the frontiers because the Requisition was made under the Authority of the State of Vermont, and that you have met with some Trouble on this Account. We have therefore sent this to inform you that we hope there will be by interposition of Congress a happy Accom- modation of all Differences in a short Time; in the mean while we have obtained a promise from Governor Chittenden that you shall not be no- lested till matters are finally settled, and we have engaged to write to you voluntarily and freely to raise your full Proportion of Men when- ever your Neighbours are called, and you are informed of this either by continental Officers or the New State till such Time as you have Special Directions from the Governor of New-York, which we hope to obtain for you on our Return home. This we are confident you will readily comply with, as otherwise People will be tempted to impute your Con- duet to disaffection to the Cause of the United States. We hope you will understand that the Protection and Forbearance which is promised in your behalf is to be considered as on the condition of your cordially complying with our Request and in every Respect behaving quietly and orderly while the measures for Pacification are on foot.
We are, &c. JOHN WITHERSPOON, SAM. J. ATLEE.
Governor Chittenden to a Vermont officer in Cumberland County.
BENNINGTON, 23d June, 1779.
Sir,-Your favor by Mr. Tucker came to hand yesterday. Am un- happy to hear of a second insurrection and open Violation of the Authority of this and the United States; The present distressed Situa- tion of our northern Frontiers absolutely demands the assistance of their Brethren and Friends. Am sorry to find that private difficulties should in the least impede and prevent a general Union in Defence of the Grand Contest on which the Liberty and happiness of the whole de- pends. With pleasure I ean inform you (and desire the same may be communicated to the respective Inhabitants) that a Committee of the honorable Continental Congress have arrived at this Place, from which we may expect the most salutary and agreeable effect in a speedy Settle- ment of the unhappy Dispute between this and the State of New-York.
From the Situation of the present affairs and the pressing necessity of securing our frontier Inhabitants together with the Advice of the Committee aforesaid transmitted in a Letter, I presume the Inhabitants will readily turn out in Defence of their Country agreeable to orders; and in the mean Time I would recommend while they continue to do their proportion in the present War, the suspending of all prosecutions in the Law against those who aeknowledge themselves Subjects of the State of New-York, (except Capital Offences) until Congress makes a final Determination in the Matter.
I am Sir Your humble Seryt.,
THOS. CHITTENDEN. A true Copy pr Jos. FAY.
Gov. Chittenden's Answer to the Queries of the Committee of Congress. STATE OF VERMONT, Bennington, 24th June, 1779.
Gentlemen,-Agreeable to your Requisition I have made and subjoined to your Questions the following answers, viz.
Q: Are there any Lands in this State still unpatented ?
A: Yes a large Body which was not granted previous to the King's Prohibition to the Governor of New-York.
524
Appendix J.
2 Q: Are there any Lands which have been patented by the State of Vermont and in what Condition were they before ?
A: None as yet but many Petitions are made and are on File waiting for a settlement of the public Disputes.
3 Q: Are there any Lands patented under New-Hampshire and re- granted to different Persons under New-York but are not yet occupied by either of the Grantees ?
A: Yes a large quantity.
4 Qu: Are there any Lands patented under New-York of date prior to the Patents under New-Hampshire and at present possessed under the New-Hampshire Title ?
A: Some old Patents of New-York are said to extend over some Parts of the Townships of Pownal, Bennington, and Shaftsbury.
5 Qu: Are there any Persons living in the State of Vermont upon the New-Hampshire Rights who have large Property in Lands in differ- ent Townships not yet improved ?
A: Some few there are and there is many that own small Quantities. 6 Qu: Are there any Persons in actual Possession of Lands under the New-York Title to which others have a prior Right under New- Hampshire ?
A: Yes some few.
7 Qu: Are you satisfied that the Proclamations by the Governor of New-York would secure your Property in the Soil tho' the jurisdiction were allowed ?
A: By no Means, as it is only a shadow without any principle Sub- stance, calculated to answer sinister Purposes, which is implied in his second Proclamation vizt : " That all such lands which have heretofore been granted by the Government of New-Hampshire or Massachusetts- Bay and have not been since Granted by the Government of New-York," the words, " and have not since been granted by the Government of New- York" wholly exclude the most valuable Lands in this State ; including that which is in actual Possession. as the State of New-York have since made Grants of the same Lands-and I presume to say it is not in the Power of the Legislature of New-York to confirm those Lands, being previously granted to others. There are sundry other Passages in the same Proclamation equally insufficient and dissatisfactory.
8 Qu: If the Property of your Lands were perfectly secured to you would you be willing to return under the Jurisdiction of New-York ?
A: We are in the fullest sense as unwilling to be under the Jurisdic- tion of New-York as we can conceive America would to revert back under the Power of Great Britain (except a few disaffected Inhabitants who say they will become willing subjects of this state on the approba- tion of Congress) and we should consider our Liberties and Privileges (both civil and religious) equally exposed in future Invasions.
9 Qu: Would your returning under the Jurisdiction of New-York promote or hinder the complete Settlement of the Country ?
A: Experience has taught me to believe that it would greatly impede the settlement of this Country to have it affixed to New-York.
10 Qu: What was the occasion of Colo Allen's proceeding by arms to take and confine sundry officers in Cumberland County who professed to be subjects of the State of New-York ?
A. Colo. Allen proceeded into Cumberland county under Direction of the Civil Authority of this State to assist the Sheriff in the Execution of his office in apprehending a certain Number of Persons for the Pur- pose of bringing them before the Superior Courts of this State for Trial for riotously impeding a certain officer in the Execution of his Office in selling Estate taken by said officer according to Law from Persons who
525
Appendix J.
refused to do their tour of Militia Duty in Guarding the Frontiers of this and the United States of America against the Common Enemy agreeable to Orders of the Board of War of this State issued in Pursu- ance of advice received from Brigr. General Clinton for that Purpose.
11 Qu: Are you willing and do you think it is the Minds of the Pro- ple to refer the final Decision of this Matter at any Rate to the Congress of the United States ?
A: I believe I may be warranted to say in Behalf of the People of this State, that they would think themselves happy in submitting the long controverted Differences subsisting between this and the State of New-York to the Determination of Congress, they being allowed equal Privilege as the State of New-York in supporting their Cause, reserving to themselves in the Trial all Rights. Privileges, Immunities and ad- vantages which they had or might have by any former Grants, Juris- dictions, Powers, and Privileges on account of any Province or State heretofore had, notwithstanding any subsequent Transaction.
I am Gentlemen with the highest Esteem
Your obt. humble servant.
THOS. CHITTENDEN.
The Honble Doct" Witherspoon & Colo. Atlee, Members of a Committee of Congress.
[From Hiland Hall's Early History of Vermont, p. 292.]
On the 11th of June, some time before the arrival of the committee, Gov. Chittenden had issued an order for raising men for service on the frontier, and after the committee had left Bennington, he received in- formation that the property of some delinquents in Cumberland county had been sold under such order in conformity to the law of the State. which information he at once communicated to them by letter, in which he stated that as this " was occasioned wholly by reason of those persons neglecting to do their proportion of duty in the present war, they would readily perceive it could not be construed to be any breach of the en- gagement which, agreeably to their advice. he had entered into with them." In their answer, dated at Albany the 28th of June, they say they were " not willing to consider it a breach of the agreement," but expressed great apprehension that " it might be the means of defeating all their endeavors for procuring peace," and gave it as their opinion that the agreement would be wholly frustrated unless a stop was put to fur- ther proceedings of the kind, and restitution made to the people whose cattle had been thus seized.
ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS.
-
To comply with one provision of the act for the publication of the record of the Councils, it has been necessary to commence the printing of this volume before the copy for it entire had been completed ; and hence errors have passed through the press which, most of them at least, would have been otherwise avoided. These are now indicated as follows, with a few additions and explanations.
Capt. John Grant, p. 7 .- The suggestion that he may have declined service in Warner's first regiment is incorrect. He served with credit, and was appointed captain in Warner's continental regiment, July 5, 1776. See page 160.
Col. William Marsh .- The first note on p. 15 should refer to page 22.
Josiah Fish .-. "Joshua Fish," p. 21, should probably be Josiah Fish. See p. 15.
Benjamin Hickok. James Bentle, and Thomas Braten, on pages 15 and 22. should probably be Benjamin Hitchcock, James Bentley, and Thomas Brayton.
Col. William Williams .- Joseph Williams, p. 67, line 4, should be William Williams.
Matthew Lyon, pp. 71-74, 123-128; and Benjamin Emmons .- HENRY S. DANA, Esq., of Woodstock, (whose contributions and criticisms the editor has gladly received,) is of opinion that Matthew Lyon was not a. member of the Council of Safety, for the reasons that in 1798, in his de- fence before the Committee of Privileges of Congress on the Griswold affair, and in his speech on the subsequent resolution of expulsion, he named sundry of his services and offices in Vermont, and did not name membership in the Committee of Safety ; and also that, for a period after his retreat from Jericho in 1776. he was "in disgrace." Both of these points are alluded to in the text ; and the first one (suggested on page 73,) is strong enough to make one doubt, at least : but after all, the editor has not been able to find a person with so good a claim to the honor as Lyon had. Mr. Dana suggested Hon. BENJAMIN EMMONS in lieu of Lyon, remarking that some of Mr. E's. descendants ranked him as one of the Council of Safety. In a subsegent letter, however, Mr. D. wrote thus : "I think Lyon is excluded by his own witness, but I rather
527
Additions and Corrections.
think you will never be able to prove that Emmons had a much better right to the place-nothing beyond hearsay."
Members of the Convention that adopted the Constitution, p. 63 .- Mr. DANA has kindly furnished the following list of delegates to the Wind- sor Convention of July 1777, copied from a memoir of William Gallup, by his son the late Doet. Joseph A. Gallup, dated August 14, 1846. Doet. Gallup was eight years of age in 1777, and must in his youth have heard much of the public men and the transactions of that period:
Jabez Sargent, Cavendish, [Chester.] Joel Matthews, Hartland. Benjamin Emmons, Woodstock. Stephen Tilden and Joseph Marsh, Hartford.
John Throop and John W. Dana, Pomfret. Peter Olcott and Jacob Burton, Norwich.
Joel Marsh, Sharon. Daniel Gilbert, Royalton, [Sharon.] William Gallup, Hartland .*
Roger Enos, p. 111 .- "Gen. Robert Enos" should be Gen. Roger Enos. P. 122 .- Joseph Fay was Secretary of the Council of Safety till March 12, 1778, [instead of 1788.]
P. 124, fifth line, for " Goodrich " read Griswold.
Col. Philip Skene, p. 130, last line .- "Col. Steene" should probably be Col. Skene.
Rescue of Remember Baker, 1772, pp. 149-50 .- Gov. Hall has written to the editor saying :
"I do not quite like what you say about the rescuers of Baker in your notice of John Munro. I do not admit there is a shadow of doubt but that the rescuers were the list given in the Rural Magazine, [the first list given on page 150.] Ira Allen in his history (p. 31,) after speaking of the capture of Baker says that an express was sent to Bennington with the tidings, instantly on the news ten men mounted their horses and pursued them, &c. This, with the circumstantial narrative in the Rural Magazine, to which there was no contradiction, seems to me con- clusive. You say that the list in the Documentary History of New York, p. 777, 'is represented as having been furnished by Munro himself.' That does not appear in the Documentary History. The letter of Munro. giving an account of the rescue, is dated April 15, 1772, and the list is stated to have been produced in Council the 26th of May, 1772, more than a month after Munro's letter, but by whom produced does not ap- pear. The statement in the Vermont Historical Magazine, vol. I. p. 125, is evidently the mere conjecture of Mr. [Rev. F. A. ] Wadleigh. It might have been furnished by Munro, and might not, but a loose memo- randum found on the files of the New York Council, from an unknown source, which has but lately seen the light, should not, I think, be al- lowed the weight of a feather against the authentic statements of Ira Allen and the Rural Magazine, both published while there were nulme- rous living actors in the affair."
Gov. Hall referred me to Ethan Allen's account, which, I find, indicates that inhabitants "on the premises," i. c. near the scene in Arlington,
* The names in Italic are additions to the list of delegates.
528
Additions and Corrections.
went immediately in pursuit. His words, fas quoted by Du Puy,1 were :
"These distressing tidings being soon spread on the premises, en- hanced the innocent inhabitants, and for the preservation of Baker his family & their own persons, families and effects, some of them did pur- sue the said carriage about thirty miles, and when said John with his at- tendants, being savage like, conscience struck and condemned, run and hid themselves so private that it is not known by his or their acquain- tances where they have been ever since ; leaving the said Baker with very little remains of life, unable to fight for himself, who willingly in his capacity accepted of mercy, which he had been so long a stranger to."
Having found it said, in the history of Arlington in the Vermont His- torical Magazine, vol. 1. p. 125, that the list published in the Documentary History of New York was "in the account communicated by this savage Justice Munro, to the Governor of New York," I felt bound to take notice of it, and give the statement, together with suggestions for the reader to consider. Ethan Allen's account strengthens this so called "Munro's list" rather than the other. On the whole the theory in Gov. Hall's Early History, that tico parties pursued Munroe, is the best sustained ; and the balance of proof is that the Bennington party [the Magazine list] were the actual rescuers. The claim for the Bennington party in the Rural Magazine, uncontradicted by the Arlington party, I think, with Gov. Hall, is conclusive of this point. Though the Bradleys, Jesse Sawyer and Justice Sherwood, in the Arlington list, were energetic men, they could not have surpassed Clark, the Saffords and the two Messrs. Hopkins of the Bennington list, who, it is quite probable, might have intercepted Munro before the Arlington company came up. The praise of good intention is due equally to each party.
P. 237, 16th line from the bottom. the imperfectly printed date should be August 13.
P. 243 .- In the reference. fourth line from the bottom, to Appendix G. the "No. 1" should have been omitted. When that was written, it was expected that the documents on the second Union of New Hamp- shire towns would be given in this volume as Appendix G, No. 2. These documents will appear in another volume.
Fight at Shelburne, p. 245 .- The fight was, evidently from the Council and Assembly records, on the 12th of March 1778. The crop of wheat contended for must therefore have been grown iu 1777 [instead of 1776,] and Capt. Sawyer must have gone to Shelburne in Jan. 1778 [instead of 1777.] The erroneous years in the text, 1776 and 1777, were gathered from Lyman Thayer's account in the It. Historical Magazine, vol. 1. p. 859. In Rev. Geo. F. Sutton's account, in the same volume, p. 877, the dates are correct.
P. 262 .- The printers have transposed in the text the reference fig- ures to the notes at the bottom of the page.
1 Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Heroes of 1776, p. 164.
Additions and Corrections. 529
Colonel Eleazer and the tory William Patterson, p. 299 .- In the first line instead of "Col. William Patterson" read Col. Eleazer Patterson. This bad blunder (originating in an attempt to supply from memory an omission in the copy,) makes the note on William Patterson a libel upon Gov. Clinton, inasmuch as the Governor did not commission the tory William as a colonel. Leaving out that statement as to the governor, the note is a good one for the tory William Patterson. Col. Eleazer Patter- son was for awhile a zealous 'Yorker,' but never a tory. From the fact that Col. Patterson's residence in Vernon is marked on Gen. Whitelaw's map of Vermont, 1821, the editor infers that the colonel was a worthy and highly respected citizen of the state for many years, and probably until his death .- See p. 397.
36
GENERAL INDEX.
GENERAL INDEX.
A.
Abbott, John, 148. Abbott, Timothy, 150, 508.
Acknowledgments and Explana- tions, vi.
Act authorizing this volume, V.
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.