USA > Vermont > The Vermont lease lands > Part 5
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
33
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
ing in 1749-50, at which time Wentworth initiated correspondence with New York respecting boundary lines and made his first grant by charter- ing the town of Bennington.27 Basically, this phase may be characterized as a period of germination of the issue. It was not a time of much land granting. Wentworth issued only sixteen charters.28 Of these, five have been found to have had earlier New England roots.29 And of the sixteen, only four towns had sufficient vitality to survive the war30; the other twelve charters each had one or more renewals or regrants fol- lowing 1760. On the New York side there was apparently no land grant- ing done in the first phase, with the exception of certain military and royal mandamus patents of no great extent. Indeed, always excepting the individual grants just mentioned, New York made no major grant between the old Walloomsack patent of 1739 and the Hendrick Schney- der patent to a tract of 10,000 acres, just to the south of the Walloom- sack area in 1763.
The principal activity prior to the war was correspondence directed at each other and to London by New Hampshire and New York au- thorities.31 Wentworth started the ball rolling in his letter to Governor Clinton of New York in November, 1749, in which he requested infor- mation on the boundaries of New York inasmuch as he proposed to commence granting lands.32 Prior to this letter the only "overt" act re- garding boundary lines had been that in 1740 when the Massachusetts- New Hampshire line was surveyed. The New Hampshire surveyors had extended that line westward to a point twenty miles east of the Hudson River, this point being a northerly extension of the line in process of stabilization between Connecticut and Massachusetts and New York.
The year 1750 saw a spirited exchange of letters between the two governors, terminated when Clinton demanded that the Bennington grant be withdrawn or he would be forced to make a representation on the matter to the Crown. This drew a reply from Wentworth that the grant could not be withdrawn and proposing that both provinces make
27. Special Master, p. 180.
28. Bennington, Halifax, Wilmington, Marlboro, Westminister, Rockingham, Stamford, Woodford, Townshend, Brattleboro, Dummerston (Fulham), Putney, Newfane, Chester, Guilford, Grafton (Tomlinson).
29. Supra, pp. 27-29.
30. Bennington, Halifax, Marlboro, Rockingham.
31. Special Master, Findings : 30-35, pp. 240-242.
32. E. B. O'Callaghan, ed., Documentary History of New York (Albany, 1850-51), IV, 331-334; N. H. S. P., X, 199-204, cited by Jones, p. 21.
34
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
representations. Wentworth acted on this plan without much delay, but New York procrastinated. Although Clinton received his Attorney- General's draft supported by remarks from Cadwallader Colden, then Surveyor-General, in 1751, the New York case was not forwarded to London until late in 1753, after London had informed that province of Wentworth's statement. Earlier in that year New York had an- nounced that anyone settling under New Hampshire grants would be subject to arrest and punishment. Thus the matter stood at the out- break of the war in 1754, Wentworth in the meantime having issued the fifteen additional charters.
The prosecution of the war occupied the attention of all concerned so that no more was done in the settlement of the issue than in the set- tlement of the lands.33
The British success in the French War, together with the war it- self, set the stage for the second and more spectacular phase of the land history of the Grants. Removal of the French and Indian threat from the north greatly enhanced the attractiveness of the region for both settlers and speculators ; accelerated economic activity in the colonies increased the desire and pressure for the utilization of additional wild lands ; the campaigning against Canada had vastly increased the num- ber of those acquainted with the area as well as those in the cities now more aware of it as an investment field.
Superimposed on all this natural change of conditions was the stimu- lus engendered by the decision in London to reimburse reduced officers and discharged soldiers of the British army by means of grants of land. This latter element was of particular consequence in New York. A large proportion of the military personnel eligible for such grants was discharged in New York, and that province keenly felt the pressure for land with which to satisfy the demands of the ex-soldiers. Fees attendant on the granting of lands developed alluring dimensions for the New York authorities. And those in New York City susceptible of interest in speculating found themselves literally surrounded by grantees of land, many of whom simply wished to realize on the grants and pro- ceed home to England. New England speculators would have been titil- lated by the greatly increased talk about the Grants resulting from the yarns of the colonial troops who had been through the region.
Little time was lost by either New Hampshire or New York in the
33. Special Master, Finding 35, pp. 41-42.
35
1408283
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
opening of the "land campaigns." The military campaigning ceased in 1760, and in the same year Wentworth resumed the issuance of town charters west of the river, with the grant of the town of Pownal.34 An odd and unexplained hiatus occurred then, as his next charter was not issued for more than a year. But the year 1761 saw him embark on an all-out schedule of sixty-three charters. The following year produced only nine, but 1763 brought forth thirty-seven, and he concluded his activity in 1764 with the granting of two towns. Jones assumes that he stopped then because of an order to this effect from the Board of Trade, induced by a complaint made by General Gage that his department of Trois Rivieres was suffering encroachments.35 This may be so, but it is open to question as the correct explanation in view of the fact that Wentworth had been more than casual in his disregard of other royal instructions anent land granting. Other explanations are at least plausi- ble.
A glance at the map of Vermont towns will show at once that Went- worth had pretty well covered the more desirable parts of the region with charters-all those sections which would have the most appeal for the sort of speculators who customarily composed his lists of grantees.36 The entire western margin was covered by charters to a depth of two to three tiers of towns with only two stretches excepted. The same was true of the west bank of the Connecticut, there being but two breaks on this edge. And most of the Winooski Valley was accounted for. Indeed, the open spaces remaining are sharply noticeable and lead to the guess that they are to be accounted for by the inadequacies of mapping and locating the towns. All that remained ungranted in the region was the central mountainous portion and the heavily forested and distant north- ern interior.37
34. It is interesting to note that Wentworth's program of grants was so ar- ranged that he had soon filled out the southwestern extremity of the region for which he was contesting with New York. His first grant was the town of Benning- ton, and following the war his first effort was Pownal. Thus he had covered by grant his point of closest approach to and contact with the New York authorities. Whether this was so planned by him as a maneuver to block off the New Yorkers is one of those much debated points in the long series of argumentative writings. It is equally probable that this corner of the region figured early in the game be- cause of the relative attractiveness of the land and its relative accessibility. It should not be forgotten that the Walloomsack and Schneyder patents, New York's earliest major grants in the region, likewise embraced the same area.
35. Jones, p. 43.
36. Special Master, Findings: 10, p. 228; 89, p. 271; 97, p. 281.
37. See App. I.
36
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
Still another possible consideration is that Wentworth had by this time grown old and tired. He had now held his office for 23 years. The Board of Trade had commenced to apply considerable pressure on him respecting his official duties. The year 1764 brought forth the long awaited definitive statement from the Privy Council on the boundary question, and in 1765 the old governor resigned his office. It may be wondered whether, with the granting of the towns of Corinth and Hub- bardton in 1764, he concluded that the game was no longer worth the candle. Further, it may be assumed that the increasing clamor against his grants, raised by Colden of New York and reinforced finally by the Council's boundary announcement, would have made his charters much less attractive as speculations.
Thus is concluded the New Hampshire aspect of the major land operations. Some correspondence continued into 1765 between Went- worth and the Board of Trade, which consisted for the most part of apologetics on Wentworth's part. It is of interest here only in that Went- worth failed to give the Board fully correct information about his grants and thus may have contributed to the confusion and uncertainty of mind in London in later occasional considerations of the contentions of the various land claimants. New Hampshire essentially bows out of the pic- ture at this point. Benning Wentworth's successor in office, his nephew, John Wentworth, made some mild gestures toward supporting in Lon- don the claims of his uncle's grantees and their settlers. But he never was energetic about it, nor effective.38
New Hampshire played only two further roles in the history of Ver- mont, neither of which directly added to the land grant confusion, but both of which had some influence in the final outcome, in the establish- ment of the separate state of Vermont-and thus the preservation of the New England system of towns and the consequent preservation and extension of the lease land system.
The first of these roles was for the most part purely passive. New Hampshire served as a rallying point for the resistance developing in the Grants against New York authority. There were some who were sincerely sympathetic to the view that the Grants would best be a part of the neighboring New England province; others played upon the theme of the New Hampshire source of their charters and land claims ; the New Hampshire authorities were an immediate point of appeal from the pressure of the New York authorities, even though Portsmouth
38. Special Master, Finding 94, p. 277.
37
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
officials actually did nothing constructive about the situation. This role of counter-foil is nicely indicated by the fact that those most vociferous in supporting the New Hampshire genesis of land rights in the Grants were for the most part those whose lands lay closest to New York.39
New Hampshire's final part in the piece came after the Vermonters had set up shop for themselves and were endeavoring to attain stability and recognition. It originated from the somewhat amusingly ambitious incident in Vermont's first year, in which the new government became expansionist minded and proposed to annex to itself a group of New Hampshire towns east of the Connecticut River. New Hampshire au- thorities were neither agreeable to nor amused by this enterprise. And the Vermont proposal was the first action in a series of moves which took on the force of an open breach between the two jurisdictions and culminated in New Hampshire's claim before Congress for all or part of the Vermont territory.40 This again put New Hampshire in the posi- tion of counter-foil to the New York insistence on retention of authority east of the Hudson and Lake Champlain and thus, unwittingly, aided the efforts of those Vermonters who were striving to maintain the state as a distinct and separate jurisdiction.
In some respects, the New York side of the contention is clearer and simpler than the Wentworth position; in other ways, it is more difficult to delineate. To begin with, the New York legalistic position was simple and consistent throughout. It relied continuously on a reitera- tion of its authority eastward to the Connecticut River on the basis of the boundary terms in the 1664 grant to the Duke of York.41 Colden, as surveyor-general, in his remarks of 1751 to Governor Clinton, and later as lieutenant governor, brought forth several additional justifications for New York primacy, even to include such arguments as the royal advantage in the higher New York rate of quit-rents.42 But such thoughts as these were regarded only as an extra element of strength. Essentially, New York rested its argument on the original grant of that province, and ultimately with success.
39. On the other hand, it appears all through the turmoil which culminated in the establishment of Vermont that New York's strongest support came from the towns in the Connecticut Valley. Ibid., Findings : 45, p. 246; 47, p. 247 ; 55, 56, p. 251; 61, p. 253; 62, pp. 254-255; 81, pp. 265-266; 84, p. 268; 89, p. 271; 99, p. 285; 137, p. 315.
40. Ibid., p. 142; Findings : 195, p. 347; 233, p. 371; 239, p. 373.
41. Ibid., p. 182; Findings : 36, p. 242; 37, p. 243.
42. Jones, p. 35.
38
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
Another aspect of the New York picture which is relatively simple is its record of lethargy in administering its eastern marches. For all of its insistence on its rights, in representation and proclamation, it gives a strong appearance of having been reluctant to support its argument with action. And this is largely true throughout the history of the epi- sode. Ethan Allen and his successors were noisy in their denunciations of New York efforts to subjugate the settlers in the Grants. Looked at more calmly, the New York record is remarkable, instead, for its lack of application of the power of government. Indeed, it is possible to impute to New York the original fault for the development of the New Hampshire-New York land collision. If New York had, early in its history, exerted the authority which it always claimed and had ad- ministered the eastern area on which it insisted, Benning Wentworth's charters could not have bloomed so lushly. In fact, it is probable that an effective New York administration of its outlying reaches would have been sufficient to have prevented him from starting on his course.43
At any rate, the fact remains that New York failed to administer the eastern lands, until it was too late to regain control. As has been noted, the province had made but one grant of land on the western margin of the disputed area prior to Wentworth's entering the scene. No effort had been made to grant, settle or develop the vast acreage, and no inter- est in doing so was apparent. It would seem, even, that the New York- ers were largely unaware of the Green Mountain country until Went- worth attracted their attention with his letter of 1749 to Clinton and the subsequent correspondence. Even then no great energy was dis- played. Clinton's dilatory handling of the matter of the representation to the Crown is typical.44 The province, it is true, had issued in 1752 its strongly worded proclamation against settlement west of the Connecti- cut River under either New Hampshire or Massachusetts grants, threat- ening such settlers with penalties. But there appears to have been slight effort to enforce its terms.
In the 1750 correspondence between Wentworth and Clinton there was an implied agreement that each province would submit its represen- tation to England and that until the Crown announced a finding, both
43. This lack of aggressiveness had also characterized New York's stand respecting its eastern territory to the southward in the disputes with Connecticut and Massachusetts, as was admitted by Colden as early as 1738 (Documents Re- lating to the Colonial History of New York [Albany, 1856-83], VI, 121, cited by Jones, p. 31), and a later commission expressed the same view.
44. Supra, pp. 32-34.
39
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
would refrain from any further land grants in the area at issue. New York's easy-going complaisance appears here as well, for, although Went- worth disregarded this state of truce and proceeded to the chartering of his towns, New York desisted from further grants for a long while. After cessation of hostilities in the French War, New York proceeded to make some grants of military and mandamus patents, and the Schney- der patent of 10,000 acres was issued by Colden in 1763.45
But it was not until after the Order in Council of 1764 that New York became actively engaged toward the east. Jones, in his studied de- fense of the New York side of the whole affair, adduces this as illus- trative of the good faith of the New York authorities as compared with the Wentworth .ethics. However, it can just as readily be considered as no more than another illustration of the New York failure to exercise an active authority over the territory to which it laid claim. The latter view is preferred by the present writer. No evidence has appeared that New York even attempted to prevent the New Hampshire grants from becoming effective; no policing of the area was done, even toward pre- serving the status quo until the Privy Council should act. And at its greatest activity, New York land granting was limited in scope; the western fringe, along Lake Champlain, and portions of the Winooski Valley represent the principal New York penetration toward the east.46
New York was equally ineffective in its infrequent and abortive efforts to deal with the settlers in the later stages of the affair. A show of force was developed just sufficient to anger the settlers who were opposed to New York control, without being sufficient to impress them with any need to submit to the authority of government, or to accom- plish New York intentions. New York surveyors were halted in their work by the men of the New Hampshire Grants and sent back home ; ejectment actions were faced down by groups of the settlers ; some New York grantees and their settlers were forced out by the Allen people with impunity ; and New York's attempt to establish judicial courts in the eastern counties of Windham and Windsor were frustrated by the settlers. The military was never used by New York, and the police authority only sparingly and ineffectually.47 Despite the sound and fury of Allen's denunciations of New York and the fretting of other settlers,
45. Jones, p. 46, n. 48.
46. Special Master, Findings : 89, p. 271; 99, p. 285; 352, p. 462.
47. Special Master, pp. 93-94, 100-102, 105, 112, 128-129; Findings: 71, p. 258 ; 73, p. 259; 77, pp. 262-263; 84, p. 268; 91, pp. 272-273; 94, p. 278; 97, pp. 281- 283; 128, p. 306; 263, p. 391.
40
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
the quarrel which ended in the separation of Vermont was of the dimen- sions of a squabble. So far as the records show, two lives were lost48 and not too much lesser physical injury incurred. It would appear in- deed that the Green Mountain Boys may be credited with far more man-handling and property damage to New York adherents than can be traced to any enforcement activity by the New York authorities.
It may be questioned whether the dispute over the territory would ever have become a serious issue or led to its later development except for the rise to power of Cadwallader Colden, who became Lieutenant- Governor of New York in 1761 and from time to time exercised the gubernatorial power in the absence of a governor. It is more than pos- sible to speculate that without his insistent championing of the New York cause, the region might well have fallen to New Hampshire by default.49 True it is that the later New York governors, Dunmore and Tryon, made much of the matter. But that was after Colden had spon- sored it into a position of prominence as a policy and had gradually acquired adherents to his cause who became interested as speculators, of whom James Duane was perhaps the most notable. By that time, of course, the pressure for land had increased greatly, a factor which was an influence on the later governors, and Tryon at least appears to have had a keen interest in fees. But the record indicates that Colden's was the effort exerted at the critical periods. The majority of the really large patents was issued by Colden, and in less than a year after the receipt of the Order in Council he had granted some 174,000 acres in the dis- puted area. He is credited with having granted approximately 1,000,000 acres altogether.50
The aspect of the New York side of the affair which is more in- volved and difficult of delineation than the New Hampshire counter- part is the matter of actual grants of land, including the location, ex- tent and grantees. And this is necessarily so because of the differences between the two provinces in their principles and procedures respecting
48. They were William French and Daniel Houghton, who died of wounds received during a riot against the Cumberland County court at Westminster in 1775. Such rioting was not new and was more a demonstration against the British than associated with the land title controversy. Jones, p. 268.
49. This view is taken by Jones, p. 65, who also quotes Hiland Hall, Early History of Vermont (Albany, 1868), p. 462, to the same effect.
50. Edward D. Collins, A History of Vermont (Boston, 1903), App. pt. III, Table A, p. 296. Hereafter cited as Collins, Vermont. Hiland Hall, "New York Land Grants in Vermont," Vermont Historical Society, Collections (Montpelier, 1870), I, 158-159.
41
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
land holdings. New Hampshire carried on the New England tradition of town grants, and Wentworth applied this in the western land, with no more than a half-dozen exceptions in which he made smaller grants to individuals. Consequently, his grants are represented by the collection of town charters which he issued, totalling 128. This is not to imply that all is clear as to the particular land involved. Something has already been said regarding disagreements on the total number of his charters and the careless location of the grants on the land, and more will be brought out later. But the general proportions and outline of his opera- tion are simple in comparison with the New York grants.
The latter province adhered to the method of individual land grants and ownership. A very few patents were issued for great tracts to a group of grantees, small in number compared to a New England list of proprietors. These included the old Walloomsack patent and the Schneyder patent, already discussed, as well as the Princetown patent issued in 1765 by Colden to Duane and others of his friends, and that of Socialborough, a large tract including the Wentworth town of Rut- land. The military and royal mandamus patents, while individually smaller, collectively made up 300,000 acres of the 2,500,000 acres granted by New York in the Vermont territory.51 These latter patents total to an imposing number of grants and were strung out over a number of years so that they are difficult to identify and arrange. It must be borne in mind, too, that the New Yorkers had even less than the New Hamp- shire authorities in the way of survey data and were considerably ham- pered in trying to gain more accurate knowledge by the settlers' pro- clivity for chasing off the New York surveyors. The majority of these New York grants located the land only in a general way in relation to some known natural feature such as a river valley, and it was presumed that the grantee would see to the particular survey. This vagueness of land location is well indicated in that at least some of the patents speci- fied that the acreage must be so surveyed as to comprise a compact tract and should not be extended just along the valley meadow lands-each tract must include its quota of hill and dale. It may readily be seen that from such ill-defined grants, the opportunity of collision with prior settlers was greatly increased.
One further activity of New York must be noted as it provided its share of later confusion. This was the program which was carried on
51. Jones, p. 278; Collins, op. cit., App. pt. III, Table A, p. 296.
42
VERMONT LEASE LANDS
over a number of years of issuing New York confirmations of Went- worth grants. Altogether nineteen such towns were confirmed.52 Two possible effects on the lease lands lay in this program. In the first place, some confirmation charters included radical changes in the list of pro- prietors, including New York land interests, and lease land acreage could well have been used to accommodate such interests, remembering always that New York did not practice reservation of such public rights. The second factor making for confusion was the group of "in lieu" grants. In at least four instances proprietors under Wentworth grants petitioned New York for confirming charters and were favorably re- ceived by New York. But it was found that the Wentworth grants had in the meantime been otherwise encumbered. So a solution was reached by awarding the proprietors the grant of a new and different town "in lieu" of their previous Wentworth town.53
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.