USA > Vermont > Records of the Governor and Council of the State of Vermont, Vol. V > Part 70
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
One thing more may be proper in this place to consider, viz. What State the people on the Grants were in when they were released from the government of Britain.
And first. Did they revert to a State of nature ? '
We answer. Not wholly so.1 For so sure as the coercive power of the King was rejected and ceased to operate, the people made a stand at the first legal stage, 1 viz. their town incorporations, 1 which they received from the King as little grants or charters of privileges by which they were united in little incorporated bodies with certain powers and privileges which were not held at the pleasure of the King,' (as those commissions were) but were perpetual.1. These the people by universal consent held sacred; and so long as they hold those grants, so long do they hold themselves subjects of government according to them: and as such must and do they act, and transact all their political affairs. Hence it is that the major part of one of those towns have a right to control the minor part.1 These are all the grants the people ever had from the King whereby they become united together and could hold against the King &c. Con- sequently they will remain so many distinct corporations until they agree
1 Red.
532
Additions and Corrections.
to unite in one aggregate body. But to this doctrine there has been an ob- jection raised by some, viz. That if the case is as here represented, every of those towns (if they please) may be a State by itself &c. . To which we answer. Supposing the consequence is just it will not destroy the proposition; and the objection might with as great propriety have been urged against the thirteen united States being distinct separate bodies, before they united or confederated together: for the two cases are ex- actly similar, except as to their extent. Moreover, so long as men have a regard to the safety of their persons and families, their liberties and properties, they will naturally associale and confederate together, so far as will best secure themselves; which is the whole design of govern- ment. And the same principle that influenced to hold sacred those town incorporations, will prompt them to unite still further. Necessity and interest are so influential in this matter that there is not the least danger. The only difficulty ever arising in this case is the manner and form of uniting, and mode of government.
Again, perhaps it will be objected by some, that the principles here laid down will apply as well to the towns within the Mason claim as to the towns on the Grants, and consequently they will have the same liberty &c.
To which it may be said, that there is at least this difference in their circumstances, viz. (1.) The people within the Mason claim, from their education, customs and manners, are of one notion and sentiment in re- spect to the principles and mode of government; and therefore are well united. (2.) They hold their landed property by the same tenure, but diverse from the Grants. (3.) The inhabitants first set- ( Marked in written tled on that claim, agreed in chusing them a King, marginal note, ยทยท Not true." (alias) a Kingly government, by petitioning for and receiving it. (4) They have acted together so long that they may claim any union by pre- scription, having enjoyed an uninterrupted connection in the exercise of government among themselves beyond the memory of man.
In all these circumstances the people on the Grants are different from those on the Mason claim.
But sufficient has been said here and in a former Letter signed Re publican,1 as to the right that New-York and New-Hampshire have to exercise jurisdiction over these Grants by virtue of those royal decrees and commissions. We pass on now to consider some other reasons as- signed in the foregoing letter, which we should not think worthy of no- tice, were it not that they are almost all of them palpable falsehoods and misrepresentations. made use of to excite the indignation of the highest power in America against this new rising State, and to bring the power of the United States upon them, without their having an opportunity of defending their cause, or even to know the accusations alledged against them, until the decisive sentence is passed-a measure not parallel except in the inquisition.
We shall therefore in the first place notice that clause in the let- ter to the State of Vermont, where it is said " that the sixteen towns are not connected with any State with with [literal] respect to their internal police, is an idle phantom a mere chimera without the least shadow of reason &c. - that the town of Boston in the Massachusetts, or Hartford in Connecticut might as well evince their not belonging to their respective States, as those sixteen towns their not being connected with New Hampshire, &c."
It is surprising that men who pretend to be wise politicians, by being educated under an arbitrary government, are so grossly ignorant of the
1 Note in writing, " printed at Danvers, 1778."
533
Additions and Corrections.
distinction there is between charter rights and the exercise of despotic power. Do they not know that every individual inhabitant, and conse- quently every town in the State of Connecticut by charter make up the Governor and Company of that Colony or State. And that by the same grant or charter they hold all their landed property, as much as any body of proprietors of a township or tract of land. And by the same charter they are made a body corporate and politic in name and fact. And in holding this charter sacred they hold themselves indissolubly connected together. Which bond of union must remain so long as the State exists. There never has been nor does there need to be any alter- ation of the mode of government in that State to comport with a state of independence, but the transposition of the name in which the execu- tive power is exercised from the King to the people.
In the same way and manner are the people in the Massachusetts held together and united viz. by grants and charters from the King con- taining both landed property and jurisdiction, which the King could not constitutionally alter, and which the people still hold sacred, and thereby hold themselves connected together as much as Connecticut. Now, wherein does New-Hampshire compare with these two States ? for take away the royal prerogative power which alone held them together, and what have they left ? Nothing but a number of little town incorpora- tions-there is not a shadow of a confederated State left -- Nothing but an empty name. New Hampshire as such never owned one inch of land or farthing of property, 1 neither could they ever so much as grant a town incorporation. nor had they right to a voice in that matter. In short, they never were a body politic in any legal sense whatever, and nothing more than a number of people subjected to the obedience of the King's servant in such way and manner as the commission prescribed: very similar to the old feudatory system in England. Now to compare the towns on the grants as being in like circumstances with Boston and Hartford, is not only " an idle phantom, a mere chimera," but an act of profound ignorance. As to the question " Were not those towns set- tled and cultivated under the government of New-Hampshire."
We answer-They were not. They were granted settled and cultiva- ted under the King of Great Britain, (by the agency of his servant the Governor of New-Hampshire) and entirely at his control, as much as the towns on the Grants west of Connecticut River: and as liable as they to be put under the immediate jurisdiction of any other person than the Governor of New-Hampshire, whenever the King should please to do it.
The next argument made use of is, that most of those towns sent dele- gates to the Convention in the State in 1775-Tis true they did'-and for the sole purpose of devising measures to defend against the tyrannical power of Britain which then began openly to set itself in hostile array against America. And by the arbitrary conduct of that Assembly in set- tling the mode of representation 1 (which they were never authorized to do) they disgusted many towns then connected' with the Province or state, so that they have never connected with them since,1 except to remonstrate against their proceedings, both to the Assembly and people at large.
But what of all this ? were we not then all under the jurisdiction of the King ? Yes: and long afterwards; for independence was then scarcely in idea. '
The next thing alledged is. that from the commencement of the pres- ent war they have applied to the State of New Hampshire for assistance and protection,1 and that New Hampshire at their own expense hath sup-
1 Red.
534
Additions and Corrections.
plied them with arms and ammunition to a very great amount as well as paid soldiers for their defence &c.
Here seems to be a magazine of stores played off at once-but if all was fact, we hardly believe it would amount to a consideration-For by the same reason every State upon the Continent would claim jurisdiction not only over the Grants, but over every other State, upon the score of de- fending them; so that it would be difficult to determine which had the best right-But when the matters are considered in their true light, they will appear but a mere fiction-The true state of the case is this. At the beginning of the war, when we were all connected, we did apply to New Hampshire for arms and ammunition; but to very little purpose : the expense of application was more than the value of what was ob- tained. Tis true they did advance a few barrels of powder, and a quan- tity of lead not equal to the powder, and some fire arms; for the whole of which ample security was given to the State at the time of receiving them, either to return or pay for them. And besides, these towns, not- withstanding the repeated solicitations to New Hampshire for supplies &c. were obliged to apply to other of the united States, and from them received very considerable supplies, on the same terms as those received from New-Hampshire, and without being claimed on that account as being under their jurisdiction, except by New-York. But what a vain pretence is this that it was done only to defend Us, when in fact the enemy were never known to have been within fifty miles of Connecti- cut-River, which is the utmost western limit which they claim in those letters. The defence yielded both by New-Hampshire and Us, was at Bennington, the Creek, Ticonderoga and Lake Champlain, &c. where the general cause was the immediate and principal object, and where most of the United States defended, and who notwithstanding we believe never thought of claiming jurisdiction on that account. Such pretences not only argue the weakness of their cause, but meanness of spirit, as it is well known that the people on these Grants have, ever since the commencement of the war, exerted themselves to their utmost in raising Soldiers and Militia to subserve the general cause of the Uni- ted States. This same plea Britain made 1 (viz.) that they had been at great expense in defending America in the last war, and therefore had a right to subjugate them, &c.
Furthermore, 'tis true (tho' not alledged) that the military officers' of the regiments in those towns received commissions from the Conven- tions of New-Hampshire,' obeyed orders from them, &c. before indepen- dence took place, and acted upon them in some measure afterwards. Which they did upon this principle (viz.) That we must do our part to maintain the American cause; and as we were not nor could be in a sit- uation to regulate our militia until we were settled in a regular state of civil government, it was thought best to continue in that respect as we were for the present, as it mattered not so much what state we acted under in that respect, as that we did our duty. And indeed no part of the state of New-Hampshire hath done equal to what these towns have in supplying men for the continental army, turning out on alarms, scouting, &c.
The next thing mentioned is, " that near one half of the people in those revolted towns! (as they are called) are averse to the proceedings of the majority, who threaten to confiscate their estates,1 if they do not join with them; and that they are about to apply to New-Hampshire for assist- ance; and that some have already applied," &c.
These assertions, as they are represented, are entirely false .- And in
1 Red.
1
535
Additions and Corrections.
order to set them in their true light, we are under the disagreeable ne- cessity of troubling the public with some facts, which we should not oth- erwise have done.
The truth is, in some of those towns there are a few who do not agree in opinion with the major part; but in those we dare challenge any cred- itable person to say that ever there was the least threatening by the major part to confiscate their estates,1 or even to injure them either in their per- sons or properties in any way whatsoever on that account. And noth- ing short of malice and envy could influence any person to make such report.
As to those who have applied for relief, &c. we know of none, except one Col. John Hurd, formerly of Haverhill, at Cohos, (who, to the great joy of the people, has removed out of that part of the country, a mutual disaffection having arisen between him and the people) who has made application to the Assembly of New-Hampshire, and from them obtained a summons or order to notify a certain gentleman living in said Haver- hill, to appear before said Assembly, to answer to certain defamatory charges some time or other laid in by him against said Hurd-also one Nathaniel Hovey, lately living in Enfield, (who is well known to have been a litigious person from his youth up, and consenting to be a tool for said Hurd, to assist him in holling some lands which he claims in said Enfield) who occasioned such disturbance in the town, that they warned him to depart-and after some time (he not obeying the order) the constable, by warrant from the select-men, proceeded to remove him and family towards his last settlement, &c. for which transactions we understand he has been incessantly applying to New-Hampshire for as- sistance as best sniting his circumstances.
These we are well assured, are all the applications that have been made, and the only motion that we know of that kind. These are the terrible things which are painted in such high colours, as tho' they all originated from the joining of those towns with the Grants on the west side of the river; when they are nothing more than mere party disputes, which would have arisen it there never had been such an union. And we suppose that the Council and Assembly of New-Hampshire have in this way had their information of all those extraordinary things men- tioned in their letters (including the affair of Col. Bedel?) that are in so solemn a manner transmitted to Congress for a foundation of their pass- ing some decisive sentence against us; which would (according to Col. Allen's report) have immediately taken place, had it not been for his interposition &c. And as we have no place in Congress, we are obliged in this way to appeal to the public to defend ourselves against such un-
1 Red.
2 The suggestion or rather assertion in President Weare's letter, " that Col. Bedel by influence of money and his cominand has occasioned a great share in the disorders of those towns " is as destitute of founda- tion as most other articles contained in it. And the information " that very little service has been done by him " and " the desire of the more sober solid people to have him removed " was doubtless from some dis- affected persons who apprehend the defence of this frontier, and (per- haps) of the large quantities of continental stores collecting in this quar- ter will be of very little service, and who wish to have all defence re- moved that they and the inhabitants may lie open to the depredations of the enemy from Canada, who have (without doubt) been kept from rav- aging this frontier, only by their knowledge of Col. Bedel's regiment's being stationed here.
536
Additions and Corrections.
fair and injurious conduct of our adversaries, who have in that respect an advantage in their hands.
Again. We take notice in those letters of their referring to arms to decide the dispute, when at the same time there is not the least hint that the people on the Grants ever meant to defend their right in that way. Nay they expect to support them by fair reasonings founded upon principles of justice and righteousness in an open and public manner, giving their adversaries the opportunity of a fair and impartial trial in any tribunal that may have cognizance of the cause. Whether this fre- quent recourse to arms is to surprise Congress into an hasty determina- tion by an ex parte hearing or to terrify and affrighten us to a submis- sion, or whether it is for want of justice, argument, and reason to sup- port their claim, or all of them, we submit to the impartial public to determine.
We would here observe further, as to the circumstances of New- Hampshire, that since these disputes have arisen, but little1 (if any) more than half the number of inhabited towns,1 within the limits they claim ju- risdiction over, are represented in their assembly,1 or mean to be, under their present mode of acting; and this is the great instituted power that claims such extensive jurisdiction even over a greater extent of inhab- ited and unrepresented territory, than what is represented. Moreover, this partial assembly, when they issued orders for a convention of delegates 1 from all the towns in the state (as they claim it to be) to assemble and form a plan of government for the State, would not trust it with them to prescribe how it should be established, but determined 1 themselves that when the Convention should agree upon and publish a plan of govern- ment, it should not take place, unless three fourths of the Inhabitants in the State should agree to it.1 Thereby retaining power in five or six towns in the easterly part of the State (by reason of its numbers) to negative near one hundred and fifty other towns. This convention have already existed about six months without agreeing upon any plan, and have adjourned for another six months for consideration; and when they shall have fin- ished their business, or come to an end is uncertain.
Under such conduct, what people that have any regard for themselves or posterity, will submit to their government ? Surely none that can do otherwise. And yet they pretend to appear among the confederated States, as having full and compleat right to control these extensive Grants.
Much more might be said (if needful) relative to their conduct in dis- regarding and rejecting the complaints and remonstrances of the people against their arbitrary proceedings, ever since they set up their present mode of government; and yet they have the confidence to represent in Congress, that "every condescending measure that could be invented, has been tried from the beginning of the schism, and rejected," when in fact they have never given up the least point complained of from first to last. The foregoing facts will evidently appear, whenever they may be called in question, by written and other authentic vouchers.
We shall now offer some reasons of the propriety of the Grants being a distinct State, upon principles of prudence and equity.
And, 1st. As to their local situation-the lands near Connecticut-River, between the mountains heights on each side, that are suitable for culti- vation, in a general way are about thirty-six or forty miles wide. and about one hundred and fifty miles in length from Massachusetts North line (as they now exercise jurisdiction) to Canada South line, as settled in 1764; through which Connecticut-River runs so as about equally
4 Red.
537
Additions and Corrections.
divides it lengthwise, and therefore the River's being made a dividing line between two States, divides a country that Providence has wisely calculated to belong together, and so situated that the inhabitants living thereon may, by being united, manage their political affairs with con- venience; and so calculated by proper intervales through the western mountains or heights, that the passes to and from the inhabitants on the Grants west of the Green Mountains (so called) are convenient.
2. The connections and commerce of the people' on each side of the river, are, and always will be, so interwoven and connected 1 with each other, that it would be very disadvantageous to be in two different juris- dictions.
3. The inhabitants (almost to a man) emigrated from the Massachu- setts-Bay and Connecticut, but chiefly from Connecticut; whereby their manners, customs and habits are conformable to each other, and their prin- ciples and sentiments the same in regard to religion and civil govern- ment; but very different from the people of the States of New-York and New-Hampshire: which different principles by education and cus -. tom are become so habitual and hereditary, that it is beyond the power of man to eradicate them, and therefore will cause a jarring discord be- tween them so long as they are continued together.
4. The Grants (exclusive of those in the northeast part which lie more contiguous to the center of New-Hampshire) will make a respect- able State by themselves, and the other two States not be injured thereby, especially New-York; and as to New-Hampshire, it will be much larger than it ever was until since the last war, and more than twice as large in extent of territory as the State of Rhode-Island.
5. The people inhabiting these lands, having undergone the hard- ships and fatigues of settling this once howling wilderness, and the suf- ferings and losses occasioned by the war; and having exerted them- selves to their utmost (in the grand American cause) with their breth- ren of the United States, ought not after all to be divided and appor- tioned to and between New-York and New-Hampshire, merely to serve themselves of us, for their political and interested purposes-and all be- cause they will establish that arbitrary line of 1764.
6. These Grants 1 are so situated that they will always be an important frontier to the United States 1 (so long as Canada continues under the con- trol of Great-Britain) and by being a distinct State, will be in a much better capacity to act their part as such, than by being the out-skirts of other States.
7. In the carly settlement of this country, the Reverend Doctor Wheelock's charity school, founded on the most noble and benevolent basis, and incorporated with a University by a grant or patent from the King of Great-Britain, was introduced and settled in this part of the country; which we esteem an inestimable benefit and advantage to this new State, as well as to the Continent; and which the inhabitants of this State are disposed to patronize to their utmost-but on the contrary, if it falls into the State of New-Hampshire, it will be in a State which has heretofore (as such) shewn a very cool disposition towards it, and prob- ably will continue the same neglect of it, and principally (perhaps) on account of its situation.
8. The people on the Grants are well agreed and united in their plan of government already adopted, whereas New-Hampshire have not as yet agreed on any, and there is very little prospect (by accounts) that they will soon. And as to New-York constitution or plan of govern-
1 . Red.
538
Additions and Corrections.
ment, if there was no other objection, that alone would be a sufficient bar in the way of connecting them.
9. The great distance most of the towns would be at from their sev- eral seats of government, in case they were connected with New-York and New-Hampshire, is a powerful reason why they should not belong to them, if there was nothing else to be offered on the head.
10. Therefore, on the whole of the foregoing facts and observations, we are fully persuaded (and believe every impartial judge will be. also) that the people on the Grants, considered in every point of view, have a natural, legal and equitable right to unite together and form themselves into a distinct State or Government, in the manner they have done, and that the: are all on both sides of the river, upon the same political foundation, and have an equal right to act in the affair: for certainly if the line settled in 1764 is established for New-Hampshire, it is also for New-York: and if it is void as to New-York, it is also void as to New- Hampshire: but sufficient has been already offered to shew that it is void as to both.
And as we are determined to be and remain together, and not be split up and divided merely to serve the interested and designing purposes of New-York and New-Hampshire, or any others; and to convince all that our motives do not arise (as has been represented) from ambitious and schismatical principles: but on the contrary, that they are only to obtain the privileges and benefits of civil government in common with our American brethren, and to put an end to all disputes on account of our being a distinct State, &c. We would recommend that the follow- ing terms and proposals be made to the Assembly of New Hampshire, viz.
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.