USA > Vermont > The Lake Champlain and Lake George valleys, Vol. I > Part 16
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
Within the present State of Vermont, Brattleboro did not remain lonesome, once the French wars had ended. Since the soldiers who had fought on the shores of Lake Champlain had been primarily of New England origin it was natural that the actual settlers should come from Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. The old war paths became the highways of migration. Many towns on the eastern side of the lake were chartered from 1761 to 1763, and set- tled within a few years. For example, Bridport was chartered in 1761 and permanently settled in 1768; Shoreham was chartered in 1761, and settled in 1766; Colchester was chartered in 1763, and set- tled in 1772.
When land grants were made to the early settlers there were con- ditions to meet. If a tract was secured from New Hampshire and the land was located in the present State of Vermont, the beneficiary was supposed to cultivate five acres out of every fifty within a period of five years. Pine trees fit for masts were reserved for the royal navy. After ten years a small annual rental was to be paid, together with one ear of Indian corn. In each township, five hundred acres were set aside for the Governor of New Hampshire; two hundred acres for the "Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts"; two hundred for the Church of England; two hundred for the first settled minister, and two hundred for a school. Bounties were fre- quently offered for the building of sawmills and gristmills. If lands were obtained from New York there also were restrictions. The
*Smith, H. P .: "History of Warren County."
I57
EARLY SETTLEMENTS
Queensbury Patent, granted in 1762, was used by Abraham Wing to make his settlement at Glens Falls. Under its provisions, all settlers would be compelled to pay quitrent, which was money paid by a ten- art as a substitute for performing certain feudal services. At this time, in order to persuade settlers to inhabit the wilderness, the state authorities promised to attempt to secure a number of years' exemp- tion from the payment of quitrent. Any gold or silver mines were to be reserved to the crown, as were also all pine trees fit for ship masts that were twenty-four inches or more in diameter, twelve inches above the ground. The settlers were also to plant and cultivate three out of every fifty acres suitable for farming within three years after the end of the war with France. None of these provisions were lived up to. As late as 1776, Abraham Wing related that his quitrent had never been collected. This was due not only to the lawlessness of the frontiersmen but also to the difficulty of the execution of these provisions. Collections were difficult to make, and hard for the settlers to pay. Although the Queensbury Patent was covered with large pine timber, it is doubtful whether the crown ever used any for its navy. The provision for such speedy cultivation of the land was also unworkable under the circumstances.
At this time, Vermont was known as the New Hampshire Grants. During the years of early settlement between the two wars the inhabi- tants insisted upon self-government, and resisted strenuously all attempts of the government of New York to control the territory. The early history of Vermont cannot be understood without a knowl- edge of this controversy, which was both complicated and long-stand- ing, not being settled until 1791, when the territory entered the Union as State number fourteen. The boundaries of the American colonies were generally vague and contradictory. Massachusetts, New Hamp- shire and New York were certainly not exceptions to this rule.
Massachusetts had always claimed that a large part of New Hampshire and Vermont belonged to her, and had made grants of land on both sides of the Connecticut River. Townships were laid out at an early date. It is not necessary for our purposes to inquire into the justice of the claims of Massachusetts, however, because in 1740 the crown decided the boundary dispute in favor of New Hamp- shire. The present northern line of Massachusetts was decided upon at that time, with the result that, when settlers started to pour into
158
LAKE CHAMPLAIN AND LAKE GEORGE VALLEYS
Vermont after the expulsion of the French, New York and New Hampshire were the only claimants that remained.
Originally, the claims of New York to the eastern shore of Lake Champlain rested upon the charter presented by Charles the Second of England to the Duke of York in 1664. This, however, was as vague and conflicting as most of the other charters in the colonies. New York, however, began to grant land within the present State of Vermont. As early as 1696, a Dutch clergyman from Albany, named Godfrey Dellius, purchased a large amount of land from the Mohawks, extending from Saratoga along both sides of the Hudson River and Wood Creek and along the eastern side of Lake Champlain twenty miles north of Crown Point. New York con- firmed his title only to change her mind three years later, but there apparently was no doubt in her mind but that she could dispose of the present State of Vermont as she saw fit. In 1732, Colonel John Henry Lydius purchased from the Mohawks a large tract of land including the whole of the present counties of Addison and Rutland, Massachu- setts confirming the deed. He sold most of it and some purchasers actually settled on it. His title was later found to be imperfect, but the settlers applied to, and had their rights affirmed by New York.
The claims of New Hampshire to Vermont were not based on a charter but upon an order of the King that its territory extended west- ward to the Province of New York. The inhabitants of that State felt that the proper boundary line ran from Long Island Sound par- allel to the Hudson River to Lake Champlain, and offered historical facts to defend their position. In 1741, Benning Wentworth became Governor of New Hampshire. In 1749 he granted one township in the disputed territory, which was called Bennington in his honor, and communicated to Governor Clinton of New York his intentions of making grants of land in Vermont. Wentworth rapidly granted other lands, and by 1764 there were about one hundred and thirty of such townships.
By this time the situation had become quite complicated. Cad- wallader Colden was now the chief magistrate of New York. He was considered to be the most learned man in his colony and was rated only second to Franklin. Concerning his ability there can be no question. Although over seventy years of age, he applied himself vigorously to the boundary dispute. Colonial governors tended to be
159
EARLY SETTLEMENTS
extremely interested in granting lands because of the fees and other financial remunerations which improved their private fortunes. By 1760, most of the desirable land in New York had been handed out. To what extent Colden's zeal to wrest Vermont from Wentworth's control was fired by his desire to make more land grants than other- wise in order to collect more fees is a matter of speculation. At least the prospect of greater fees was not apt to make Colden less aggres- sive. The settlement of the boundary dispute was thus, in addition to political considerations, a matter of private gain to both governors. On December 28, 1763, the New York executive became so alarmed over the rapid settlement of Vermont by New Englanders that he issued a proclamation stating that his colony extended to the Con- necticut River, warning the settlers that any grants to that region from New Hampshire were illegal, and ordering the sheriff at Albany to prepare lists of the grantees' names that legal proceedings might be instituted. The settlers naturally became very much alarmed, and in his turn Wentworth issued a proclamation denying the claims of New York, particularly attacking the validity of the Duke of York's pat- ent, and setting forth the rights of New Hampshire. This restored the confidence of the colonists, and the migrations from New England continued as rapidly as before.
In the meantime, Colden had taken his case to the crown, and had worked with ability and determination to obtain a favorable verdict. One of his favorite arguments was that a decision in his behalf would increase the King's revenues, since the quitrent in New York was two shillings and sixpence sterling per hundred acres, whereas the similar figure in New Hampshire was but one shilling. There is little doubt but that this consideration was very important in the decision of the case, although it had nothing to do with settling boundary lines by historical evidence. Colden also complained against Wentworth's practice of reserving a farm for himself in each of the tracts he granted. Another important argument used by the New York execu- tive was entirely political in its nature. Colden was a thorough Tory, and an aristocrat, and was entirely opposed to democracy as we understand it today. He upheld the taxation of the colonists by Parliament and similar ideas. On the other hand, the people liv- ing in New England were generally opposed to the political philosophy of the Tory party, and were rather difficult for the mother country to
160
LAKE CHAMPLAIN AND LAKE GEORGE VALLEYS
control. King George the Third and his ministers of this period were very much interested in establishing an unlimited power over the Colonies. Naturally, when Colden asked them if it was wise policy to extend the authority of obstreperous New Hampshire at the expense of aristocratic New York there was but one answer. On July 20, 1764, the King issued an order giving the present State of Vermont to New York, and limiting the territory of New Hampshire to the bank of the Connecticut.
The court's decision temporarily settled the legal ownership of Vermont, but it certainly did not put an end to strife and confusion. The inhabitants of the New Hampshire grants had not been consulted in the matter. There had always been more or less jealousy between New Englanders and New Yorkers, and the settlers were primarily from Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. From any point of view, the change of jurisdiction was highly displeasing to them. The government of New York was quite aristocratic compared with that of the New England colonies. The people were not allowed to participate very freely, and nearly all the officers, even including overseers of the poor and of highways, were appointed directly or indirectly by the executive authority. This situation bore little resem- blance to the principle of the New England town meeting, where the men were accustomed to elect their inferior officers and legislate on their local affairs. Naturally, the Vermont settlers were opposed to the surrender of their democratic political institutions. In addition to the clash in political philosophy and practice, there was also an impor- tant cleavage in the economic institutions of the two peoples. Throughout New England, the farmers were independent, but such was not the situation in New York. Here the inhabitants were mostly tenants, living on lands belonging to the aristocratic patroons. These New York farmers had few rights and their position was regarded as degrading by their New England brethren. There were also religious, racial and cultural differences between New Englanders and New Yorkers which certainly did not tend to make the people of Vermont overjoyed at the transfer to Colden's jurisdiction. In general, there existed the familiar conflict between aristocracy and democracy.
In spite of all the differences that there were between the inhabi- tants of the New Hampshire grants and New Yorkers, however, the change in authority might have occasioned little opposition if Colden had proceeded with diplomacy and in a spirit of compromise; but such
161
EARLY SETTLEMENTS
was not to be. In spite of the fact that the settlers had acted in good faith and had paid New Hampshire for their lands, the Governor began at once to make grants, entirely ignoring the claims of the inhabitants. He treated Wentworth's grants as nullities, even though several thousand settlers occupied the territory by that time. Many of the grantees, receiving land from Colden, were land speculators from New York City, who were naturally tempted to pay the small fees to the Governor in order to secure at a very small price rich farm lands cleared and improved by the New Englanders. Some of the settlers decided to pay Colden's fees in order to keep their property, but many of them refused to buy their land a second time. Trouble was bound to come. The Vermonters were determined not to be dis- possessed of their farms, and Colden was just as insistent that their claims should be outlawed.
The inhabitants decided to send agents to see the King, who fin- ally issued a new proclamation on July 24, 1767, ordering New York to stop issuing patents in the disputed territory "until His Majesty's further pleasure should be known concerning the same." Neverthe- less, this order did not confirm the rights of the settlers nor did it nullify the New York grants. The remedy was purely temporary and the ownership of the land remained a matter of dispute. By that time the chief executive of New York was Sir Henry Moore, and he obeyed the King's proclamation. He died, however, on September II, 1769, and Colden succeeded him. This politician, as rabid about land as ever, found a way to place a different interpretation on the King's order which would permit him to make grants to land not included in Wentworth's patents. The result was that the King's injunction was disregarded by Colden.
Meanwhile, New York surveyors were running lines over the fields of the settlers. Numerous ejectment suits were filed against the inhabitants in the Supreme Court in Albany, where judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs in all cases. Direct action was the sole recourse left to the settlers. Committees of safety were organized, and finally the Green Mountain Boys were organized under the lead- ership of that famous Vermonter, Ethan Allen. So great was his zeal in protecting the residents of the New Hampshire grants against the encroachments of the New York authorities that the latter set a price on his head. Needless to say, however, he was never captured. Regardless of the secrecy with which sheriffs left Albany, they were
C & G-11
162
LAKE CHAMPLAIN AND LAKE GEORGE VALLEYS
unable to surprise the settlers, who were always able to collect forces formidable enough to resist the New York posses. Both ridicule and violence were used by the Green Mountain Boys. As a rule, the origi- nal action taken by the Vermonters was quite mild, the more brutal and sometimes bloody affairs coming only as a last resort to protect their property. The early history of Vermont is filled with stories of this controversy.
If a New York sheriff persisted in his efforts to eject settlers from their farms, he was, according to Allen, "severely chastised with twigs of the wilderness." This sounds like a delicate and harmless form of punishment, but Allen's twigs were in reality blue beech rods such as the farmers used to rule their oxen. When applied to the backs of New Yorkers they scarcely felt like twigs, and constituted a form of punishment humorously described by the Vermonters as the "beech seal." It is true that this mode of chastisement was not often used, yet there is no question but that fear of these "twigs" tended to dis- courage New Yorkers setting foot in the disputed territory.
On one occasion, Sheriff Ten Eyck set out with a posse of seven hundred and fifty men to dispossess James Breckenridge of Benning- ton. Before he arrived at his destination, however, three hundred settlers had assembled, forming an ambush along the side of the road by which the New Yorkers were advancing. The sheriff and his men marched unsuspectingly into the trap. The Vermonters then made their presence known with the result that Ten Eyck wisely recalled that his presence was needed in Albany, and withdrew without a shot being fired.
Not all New Yorkers, however, were as easily vanquished as Ten Eyck. One of the most aggressive of the settlers holding grants from Colden was John Munro, of Shaftsbury, a justice of the peace for the county of Albany. On one occasion he determined to capture Remem- ber Baker, who was one of the leading spirits in opposition to the claims of New York. The justice accordingly set out with a party of ten or twelve, and surrounded Baker's home before day- light, March 21, 1772. The Vermonter naturally resisted arrest and a desperate conflict ensued. Baker was seriously wounded and his wife and son injured before the arrest was finally made, when he was bound and placed on a sleigh which promptly was driven off toward Albany. The Green Mountain Boys rallied to his aid, however, and a party of them managed to intercept Munro and free the bleeding prisoner.
163
EARLY SETTLEMENTS
Soon the justice complained that "rioters" surrounded his house every night, molesting him in various ways. The threats of the Green Mountain Boys kept him quiet after 1772, until he joined Burgoyne's army in 1777.
One of the best known controversies was concerned with the efforts of Colonel John Reid to make a settlement on Otter Creek. He had obtained a grant of land from New York, his patent containing seven thousand acres in the townships of New Haven and Panton, territory that had been granted by New Hampshire in 1761. The soil was already occupied by New Englanders when Reid secured his title in 1771. They had cleared the land, built roads, and erected a sawmill. In spite of this, Reid and his tenants dispossessed them forcibly, and prevented them from regaining their lands and buildings. Ethan Allen then interested himself in the matter and, accompanied by a party of Green Mountain Boys, made his way to Otter Creek. Arriving here, he drove Reid's tenants away, burning their log houses, breaking the stones of the gristmill the intruders had erected, and restoring the New Eng- landers to their claims. Reid returned, however, bringing with him a party of Scotch settlers. The New Hampshire families were then dispossessed a second time, the gristmill was repaired, and the Scotch- men remained in control until the Green Mountain Boys heard the news. Ethan Allen, Seth Warner, and Remember Baker then set out grimly toward the Otter. The innocent Scotch settlers were now expelled, their homes burned, their crops destroyed, and the millstones were broken into small pieces and thrown into the river. Once more the New Hampshire settlers had successfully resisted the encroach- ments of New York claimants, and a blockhouse was soon erected to defend their rights.
At first the entire territory now comprising Vermont was included in Albany County. Later, in 1772, when this huge political unit was divided, most of the territory included in this research was contained in Charlotte County. The county seat was at first located at Fort Edward (the home of Patrick Smith), but later at Skenesborough. Needless to say, however, regardless of political divisions created by the gov- ernment of New York, and the efforts of the latter colony to control them, the settlers in Vermont were actually independent. They behaved more or less as they pleased and New York's control was purely nominal, although the bitter controversy continued undimin- ished. The New York Assembly voted rewards for the capture, not
164
LAKE CHAMPLAIN AND LAKE GEORGE VALLEYS
only of Ethan Allen, but also of Seth Warner, Remember Baker, and others. These leaders of the Green Mountain Boys were also declared guilty of felony and punishable with death without trial if they refused to surrender themselves, but the only result of this policy was to strengthen the settlers in opposition to the encroachments of New York.
In 1772 a plan was formed by the leaders of the Green Mountain Boys, together with William Gilliland and Colonel Philip Skene, to secure the creation of a new royal colony, but the outbreak of the Revolution came before anything final was accomplished. Skene went to London, where he was given considerable encouragement. He was told to secure petitions from the settlers of the territory, and was made governor of the fortresses of Ticonderoga and Crown Point, with the understanding that he would also be the Governor of the new colony when organized. At that time events were shaping rapidly and ominously toward rebellion in the American colonies, and when Skene did return to the Grants, instead of being the Governor of the new province, he was made a prisoner by the people whom he expected to govern.
With the outbreak of war, the rivalry between New Yorkers and New Englanders was subordinated to the struggle with the mother country. There were several factors which tended to make the Ver- monters particularly attached to the cause of freedom. They were naturally sympathetic toward the cause in which their fellow New Englanders had become involved; they hated the King for his atti- tude toward their land claims; they were anxious to detach them- selves from the control of the Tory aristocracy of New York even if such jurisdiction was purely nominal; and they were aroused by the massacre of two citizens by the King's New York officers at West- minster. In 1777, the people on the Grants formally declared their independence. A constitution was also made which was democratic in its character and which was modeled after the basic law of Pennsyl- vania. Thomas Chittenden was chosen the first Governor.
In 1780, New Hampshire and New York attempted to settle the controversy which still continued in spite of the fact that Vermonters and New Yorkers were fighting shoulder to shoulder against a com- mon enemy. New Hampshire and New York tried to divide the dis- puted territory among themselves with the ridges of the Green Moun- tains for a boundary, but the Vermonters were not content merely to
165
EARLY SETTLEMENTS
exchange one ruler for another, and substitute the governors of those two states for George III of England. Vermont encroached on both New York and New Hampshire and annexed territory. Sixteen towns belonging to the latter State petitioned Vermont for annexation in order that they might have their seat of government on the Connecti- cut River. The Legislature was at first inclined to refuse but finally gave in when some Vermont towns on the river threatened to secede and unite with the sixteen New Hampshire towns to form another State. Later the Assembly changed its mind and declared the union null and void, but not before considerable ill feeling had developed on the part of New Hampshire. Later, another attempt was made to form a new State in the valley of the Connecticut, but it ended in the annexation of New Hampshire towns to Vermont on their application.
Also, at about the same time a petition was presented by settlers living in New York State east of the Hudson for union with the Green Mountain republic. These people were so out of patience with New York for its failure or inability to protect them from the invasions of the British that they finally made terms with the Legislature of Ver- mont. Thus while her neighbors were attempting to divide her terri- tory between themselves, Vermont was aggressively taking some of their lands. Both New York and New Hampshire were aroused and gathered troops to protect their rights. General Peter Gansevoort led a force of New Yorkers to Hoosic on the border line where war was a distinct possibility. Both sides wished to avoid bloodshed, how- ever, and George Washington intervened in the interest of peace. By 1783 the danger of war between the states had almost disappeared.
As will be discussed later, an attempt was made by the British in the last years of the Revolution to take advantage of the land disputes, detach Vermont from the patriot cause, and organize the people of the Grants as a British province having considerable home rule. Needless to say, such attempts were not successful because, much as the settlers hated New York, they hated England more. In general, during the Revolution, colonial soldiers seemed fond of demonstrat- ing that they could quarrel among themselves and fight the enemy at the same time. It is certain that New Yorkers and Vermonters were no exception to this rule.
After the war, as before, Vermont was nominally claimed by New York, but the Grants were practically independent. From March, 1784 on, there was no active opposition to the jurisdiction of the
166
LAKE CHAMPLAIN AND LAKE GEORGE VALLEYS
government of Vermont on the part of the Empire State. Attempts were made to have the national Congress settle the issue. When Vermonters argued for admission as State number fourteen, New
Gen. LAFAYETTE June 29. 1825.
(Courtesy of Burlington Chamber of Commerce)
CORNER STONE OF THE OLD COLLEGE BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT, LAID BY GENERAL LAFAYETTE IN 1825
Yorkers denied the right of the national legislature to thus interfere in her domestic affairs and pointed out the dangers of allowing every dissatisfied section to break away from the old states. Congress, however, decided that it was wise not to antagonize either side in the dispute and repeatedly postponed action. In the meantime, Vermont
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.