The Vermont lease lands, Part 6

Author: Bogart, Walter Thompson
Publication date: 1950
Publisher: Montpelier, Vermont Historical Society
Number of Pages: 478


USA > Vermont > The Vermont lease lands > Part 6


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


New York's land granting was interrupted in 1771 by receipt of an order from the Board of Trade that no more grants should be made in the disputed area until further notice, and such notice did not appear before 1777.54 This London action was brought about by the impor- tunities of certain interests under Wentworth charters which led the British authorities to feel that the standing of various claims and the welfare of actual settlers should receive more study.


Thus, the story of the New York land grants east of Lake Cham- plain. It is not an edifying one, no more than the activity of Went- worth, and much less has been made of it in writings about Vermont. Much, if not all, of the uproar which developed could have been pre- vented if the New York governors had used more discretion.55 The pull-


52. The confirmations probably did not reach a greater number because of the necessity of paying New York fees which were beyond the capacity of some of the Wentworth proprietors. It is to be noticed that more towns applied for such con- firmation but stopped short of that step in the procedure at which the fees became due. Jones, App. J ; pp. 110-111, 121-122, 232-233.


53. These were: Meath, as compensation for Clarendon lands patented under the Lydius title; New Rutland, in place of the New Hampshire grant of Rutland which had been included in the Socialborough patent; Smithfield, in lieu of Shrews- bury and part of Pittsford; and Kellybrook, in lieu of Somerset. Jones, App. J; pp. 232-233.


54. There had been an earlier order in 1767 from London, suspending New York land granting in the area. Governor Moore had observed this order strictly, but upon his death, Colden proceeded to disregard it. Special Master, Findings : 50, p. 249; 52-54, p. 250; 55, p. 251.


55. Ibid., p. 92; Findings : 45, pp. 246-247; 47, p. 247; 48, pp. 248-249; 76, pp. 261-262; 78, p. 263; 79, pp. 264-265; 83, p. 267; 86, p. 270.


43


HISTORICAL BACKGROUND


ing and hauling of speculative interests largely accounts for what de- veloped. If the New York authorities had made a clear distinction be- tween the interest of settlers and that of absentee speculators, recogniz- ing the land claims of the former under Wentworth grants without any considerable fees, they could have avoided the headaches which de- veloped.56 It is most noticeable that the towns which procured New York grants were largely those in the Connecticut Valley which were the most settled towns.57 The only well settled areas which collided severely with New York, at first, were those in the southwest, and it was here that the New York attitude resulted in threatening the welfare of actual settlers.58 It was also here that the Allens and other New England specu- lative interests were able to recruit their first real support from the settlers.


Probably the greatest mistake made by New York was in the eject- ment suits of 1770. These were a series of actions brought in the New York courts against New England settlers on parcels of land which fell within New York grants. The New York courts refused to receive the Wentworth charters in evidence and found against the settlers. Natu- rally, the settlers generally were much disturbed because it left them all in a highly uncertain status. The suits derived their deep significance, however, when coupled with the incident in the preceding year in which the Albany sheriff had attempted to eject James Breakenridge from his farm.59 This lot was in Bennington and was also covered by the old Walloomsack patent which was revived in 1769 and partially surveyed. The incident served as a dramatic frame in which the settlers regarded the outcome of the ejectment suits. The action of the New York gov- ernor and council in 1770 in supporting the claim of the Spencer settlers under the Lydius grant of Durham as against the claimants under the Wentworth grant of Clarendon merely highlighted the attitude of New York toward the Wentworth claimants. While in this case New York supported actual settlers as against speculators, the critical aspect gen- erally was that this had been accomplished by validating Lydius titles


56. When Governor Tryon instituted his policy of half-fee payments for con- firmatory grants, support of the Allens and their party was seriously weakened, and numerous settlers expressed satisfaction with remaining under New York juris- diction. Jones, pp. 152, 180-181.


57. Special Master, pp. 73-75, 92; Findings : 22, p. 238; 25, p. 239.


58. Ibid., Findings : 81, pp. 265-266; 83, p. 267; 89, p. 271; 91, pp. 272-273; 92, p. 273.


59. Ibid., p. 100; Finding 60, pp. 252-253.


44


VERMONT LEASE LANDS


in preference to Wentworth titles; whereas, theretofore the Lydius grants had been regarded as the most worthless of any.60 It was this various activity around 1770 which engendered the agitation that led London to issue the order in 1771 prohibiting further land grants by New York.


So much has been made of New York land operations in the his- torical and pseudo-historical discussions of Vermont that their propor- tions have come to be somewhat inflated in the minds of Vermonters. The writer was led to believe, during early interviews in the course of this research, that the New York land grants had produced a con- siderable amount of confusion respecting property rights and hence would have been accountable for much lease land property having been obscured. This is clearly a much exaggerated view.


To begin with, it is found that the New York grants never pene- trated deeply into Vermont, so that at its greatest extent the New York operation must necessarily have been limited in its effect. Other fac- tors increase this. The land grants of New York were, to an even greater extent than those of Wentworth, in the hands of speculators. The major grants were directly to speculators, and a high proportion of the military patents soon found their way into speculative hands. New York specu- lators had even less success than the Wentworth grantees in securing settlement.


Some of the settlements which they did attempt were frustrated either by prior settlers or by the Allen men.61 Although the New York grants pretty well extended up the western margin of Vermont, most of them fell into a state of desuetude. It is found that active collisions between settlers or the Allen forces and the New York people occurred in limited, or localized, areas of the southwest quadrant of the state,


60. The Spencer case was not softened any for the contenders under Went- worth grants by the fact that the attorney for the Spencers, James Duane, took his fee in unoccupied acreage of the Durham grant. Duane had long been an outstand- ing New York speculator, a very active leader in the New York opposition to the Wentworth grants, and was something of a "villain in the piece" in the minds of many settlers. Jones, pp. 146-147, 317-318.


61. The most notable instance is the well-known episode at Otter Creek Falls in the vicinity of the present town of New Haven. Lieutenant Colonel John Reid had established some settlers there, but the Green Mountain Boys drove them off and burned their buildings. Another case is worthy of comment because it con- cerned a New York military patentee who had retained his land right instead of selling it to speculators. When he attempted to take control of his land, he found settlers on it who succeeded in resisting him and even refused, finally, to take leases from him. Special Master, Finding 85, p. 269.


45


HISTORICAL BACKGROUND


except for the New Haven affair. Bennington and the towns imme- diately north of it were the sites of the principal flurries, in connection with the New York Walloomsack and Princetown patents. Other than this section, the area in and around Rutland is the only one to attain such notoriety. And to a considerable extent the men of the Grants successfully resisted attempted incursions by New York patentees in these places.


Finally, it should not be forgotten that the agreement between New York and Vermont in 1790 which settled the long standing dispute and opened the way for Vermont admission to the Union, included the provision that in exchange for the payment by Vermont to New York of $30,000, all New York grants, other than those confirming Went- worth grants, were extinguished.62 After this, the only New York grants which could have been effective for our interest would have been places in which actual settlement under them was established, and these were without doubt of meager proportions. It is at least open to supposition that the lease lands could have been more extensively affected by the uncontested and hence unnoticed changes in proprietors' rights which were inserted in some of the New York grants confirming the Went- worth towns.


Despite these conclusions minimizing the direct effect of New York land grants on the fate of the lease lands, it has been thought necessary to present at such length the story of the New York activity because the policy of the New York governors produced a much more widespread and profound result in the Hampshire Grants, and in Vermont, than any stemming directly from their issuance of any particular patents. This policy may be divided into two parts for better consideration of it in this place.


The first part to be mentioned is their active insistence, from Colden on, of their authority and their issuance of land grants conflicting with existing settlements, which led to the well-known condition of ferment and turmoil in the Grants. The second aspect of the policy was their failure to create any systematic or effective establishment of govern- ment in the region. Writings on Vermont are prone to disregard, or to mention only incidentally, the lack of government in the Grants. But the fact is that over a considerable period of time, from 1750 when Went- worth's first charter was issued, until well into the years of the Revolu-


62. Statutes of the State of Vermont, Revised (1787), pp. 259-261; Special Master, Findings : 275, pp. 397-398; 276, pp. 399-401.


46


VERMONT LEASE LANDS


tionary War, no general governmental authority was in effect in the Grants.63 New Hampshire made no effort to administer the region. Wentworth's charters gave to the proprietors authority to levy a tax on themselves and their settlers until the town should be divided and or- ganized. The New Hampshire charters likewise placed on the proprietors responsibilities such as road development. It would have been assumed that the towns so granted would be subject to provincial law and royal authority through the province. No evidence could be found, however, that provincial officials ever appeared in the Grants.64 New York, as has been observed, was vigorous in its insistence on authority over the region. But New York's measures for making this mean something were few and not effective.65


New York did divide the region into four counties, two to the east of the mountains and two on the west, the latter of which were exten- sions of adjacent New York counties, but this amounted to little more than cartography.66 The counties were not staffed with officers, and even the attempt to establish judicial authority and hold court in the counties came to the disastrous end of the "Westminster massacre," which was in essence no more than physical resistance of a group of people in the Connecticut Valley to the sitting of the court and the subsequent effort of the New York sheriff to take the courthouse from them.67 Some con- stables and justices of the peace were appointed but were not supported on those occasions when the execution of their duties aroused the ire of their neighbors. In the west, this condition developed such acute difficulties that the New York Assembly finally passed a riot act in March, 1774, against such actions as opposition to or obstruction of an officer.68 This was aimed at the Allens and their crew, who were the vio- lent oppositionists, but it indicates the degree of the failure of New York authority. This act soon received a reply. An assembly of New


63. Special Master, pp. 93-94, 100-102, 105, 107, 112, 127-129; Findings : 45, p. 246; 71-73, pp. 258-259 ; 77, pp. 262-263; 83, p. 267; 84, p. 268; 91, pp. 272-273 ; 99, p. 285; 106, p. 289; 128, p. 306; 263, p. 391.


64. An exception to this may be seen in the rare visits of the Surveyors-Gen- eral who came to the Grants merely to check up on the King's rights to timber for masts for the Royal Navy.


65. Special Master, pp. 112-113.


66. Jones, pp. 255-256, 276; Collins, Vermont, map, p. 74; Special Master, Findings : 57, p. 251; 58, p. 252.


67. Special Master, Findings : 104, pp. 287-288 ; 105, p. 288.


68. New York, Colony Laws, 1774-75, pp. 33-38, cited by Jones, p. 327. Cf. Slade, State Papers, pp. 42-48; Special Master, Finding 91, pp. 272-273.


47


HISTORICAL BACKGROUND


Hampshire claimants at Manchester voted "that mere acceptance of a New York commission should constitute the recipient a public enemy."69


It must be admitted that New York had on its hands an onerous problem of government. It would have been difficult under the best con- ditions, even if the New Yorkers had appreciated their task. The large majority of the settlers in the Grants had come from other New England provinces and were accustomed to the government of that area, with its stress on town responsibility and locally selected officers. New York was a province of much more centralized government, including a much greater proportion of appointive officials. The task of fitting the people in the Grants into the New York organization thus presented difficulties, even without the more particular antagonisms which developed.


The more populated of the towns developed town government, but even this, no doubt, was primitive in response to the primitive social conditions prevailing.70 There was no agency in a position to knit the towns together into any larger jurisdiction. The first agency which can be so regarded was the pre-revolutionary series of committees of safety which developed in the Grants, as elsewhere in the colonies, and they were distinctly limited in their field of activity.71 The series of conven- tions which were held at various places in the Grants were the next manifestation of government.72 But it was not until the declaration of Vermont independence and the adoption in 1777 of the first state con- stitution that the region can be said to have had any general govern- ment.73


So we see a period of more than a quarter of a century during which the region was for practical purposes without the guiding or controlling influence of a general government, or any government except what each town may have devised. It was a period in which some settlement was occurring, at an increasing tempo, and in which avidity for land devel- oped sharply. It included one war and ended during another war, both of which subjected the region to campaigns and abuses, and it was the


69. Jones, p. 333; Special Master, Finding 92, p. 275.


70. Special Master, p. 107; Findings : 45, p. 246; 112, p. 293.


71. The lack of unity of thought in Vermont is illustrated by the existence, for a period of time, of two sets of committees of safety which were in opposition; one adhered to the New York people, and the other represented the leaders in the Grants. The latter finally demanded' that the former cease operations. Ibid., p. 110; Findings : 117, p. 297; 130, p. 310; 132, p. 313.


72. Ibid., pp. 104-111; Conclusion 9, p. 485.


73. Ibid., pp. 112-113; Conclusions 10, 11, p. 486.


48


VERMONT LEASE LANDS


period of the fifteen years of strife over conflicting land claims, cul- minating in the turmoil engendered by the Green Mountain Boys.


Such conditions cannot but have led to irregularities respecting land. Surveying, recording of land records, proper divisions into severalty of town grants, correct location and size of parcels of land, the presence of squatters, all would have been well nigh impossible of control or adequate administration. And these natural conditions were aggravated by the presence of elements, such as the Allens, who displayed some irresponsibility about the niceties of land titles. Stubbornness on the part of settlers in maintaining their locations would have been enhanced both by the rigors of establishing a home in the wilderness and by the necessity of their presenting a united front to the danger of eject- ment by the New Yorkers. It would be small wonder if the identity of some lease lands became lost or clouded under such conditions.


Moreover, these early conditions had an effect long after they ceased. It will be seen presently that the early years of the Vermont state government reflected them. Even today much property in Ver- mont lies under title records so obscure as to be startling to people from other sections of the United States.


For fourteen years, following 1778, Vermont constituted a separate independent republic for all practical purposes.74 This assertion would be viewed with a critical eye by some. The status of the region, as well as the merits of the men who dominated it during that period, have been the subject of much contentious writing and oratory. There are those who champion the position that Vermont was in all respects a full- fledged and rightful member of the family of nations, surrounded by greedy neighbors exerting themselves to steal away the birthright of liberty from the men of the Grants. Others have denounced the infant Vermont as a rebel which had without justification set itself apart to the injury of decent and innocent parties. The leaders in the move have likewise been both eulogized as wise and sturdy sons of liberty and heaped with opprobrium as knaves intent only on improving their own fortunes. In short, the position of Vermont and its leaders was in much the same ill-established status as that of the American colonies, on a larger scale, during the Revolution.75


The merits of the case are not of interest in this study. The back-


74. Ibid., pp. 122, 127, 221; Findings : 147, pp. 319-320; 213, p. 360; 259, pp. 387-388; Conclusions 10, 11, p. 486.


75. Ibid., Chapter VII.


49


HISTORICAL BACKGROUND


ground has been demonstrated. But the very fact of the divergent views and the diverse stresses which they created are of interest because of their influence in the further political and social development of the region. Briefly, the pressures exerted on the Vermonters76 contributed to continuing turbulence and ill-defined administration of government and resulted in further possibilities of confusion for the lease lands.


Bearing in mind that no judgment is offered as to the rights and wrongs of the matter, it must be admitted that the men who undertook to strike out on their own and maintain their own establishment of gov- ernment were subjected to intense and varying forces which precluded a calm, well-ordered and systematic development of their position or their state. New York State exerted constant pressure for a resumption of its position of authority. At times New Hampshire and Massachusetts laid claim unsuccessfully to portions of the area. Congress was for the most part unwilling to look with favor on Vermont and at times took steps indicative of a positive adverse attitude, as when it advised the Vermont leaders against making any land grants pending a determina- tion of Vermont's future.77 To complete the circle, the British stood to the north, with the Champlain Valley an inviting route for their cam- paigns.


The internal situation was not much more cheerful. There was fear of the British and uncertainty of the intentions of the Colonies, there was little wealth or money and not too much food. And there was a significant lack of unity in support of those who had assumed leader- ship.78 As elsewhere in America, the Grants had its British sympathizers, but here the situation of opposition was more complicated because the Grants also contained settlers who were unsympathetic to the establish- ment of a separate state and some who, though they might accept that idea, were not favorably inclined to the group which had engineered the movement and taken control of it. In at least one instance it was thought necessary by this leadership to subdue such internal opposition forci- bly.79 Those in control appear also to have resorted to some little con-


76. Ibid., pp. 116, 122, 129, 146; Findings : 134, p. 314; 147, pp. 320-321; 169, p. 333; 170, p. 334; 243, p. 376.


77. Slade, State Papers, pp. 112, 117; Hall, Early History of Vermont, p. 299. 78. Special Master, pp. 113, 114, 115, 127 ; Findings : 125, p. 303; 127, p. 305; 129, p. 309; 133, p. 314; 137, p. 315; 143, p. 319; 161, p. 329; 163, pp. 330-331; 165, p. 331; 167, p. 332; 178, p. 338; 180, p. 339; 182, p. 339; 183, 184, p. 340; 186, 189, p. 341; 234, p. 371; 235, p. 372; 237, p. 373; 241, p. 375.


79. Slade, op. cit., pp. 176-177, 184, 185, 198-234, passim; Collins, Vermont, pp. 123-125.


50


VERMONT LEASE LANDS


fiscation of "tory" property. For purposes of rhetoric, Ira Allen and his colleagues lumped all the variants of their opposition under the label of tories. But this was so evident a stratagem that these incidents pro- duced untoward reactions in the Congress and, no doubt, contributed some to delaying favorable action respecting Vermont's admission to the Union.


Only those aspects of the period of immediate concern here will be reviewed. It has earlier been remarked that the new government em- barked at once on a program of land granting.80 This continued at a rapid rate so that within a three-year period most of the state had been filled in with town grants or individual grants. Within ten years or less land granting remained only as an occasional incident, consisting of fill- ing out spots found to have been left open by earlier survey estimates, regrants, and changes in town lines to accommodate various parcels of land. (The biggest years in the list of post-revolutionary charters were 1781 and 1782.) So it may be seen that this activity was carried out hurriedly and before it was possible to have developed any accurate knowledge of the ground, either in respect to those portions covered by Wentworth grants or the open portions then being chartered.


A condition which probably stirred up some opposition within the Grants to the new government was that the land operations were to a considerable extent in the hands of men known for their speculative in- terest. Ira Allen was commissioned to do surveying, and this did not lessen the suspicions of some. Thomas Chittenden, the governor of the new state, without question, performed largely as its chief executive during those stormy years and may well deserve all the eulogies which Vermont writers have inscribed in his honor. But it is evident that he was, to put it mildly, somewhat free-handed in his disposition of state lands.81 Other men of prominence then are known to have been inti- mately involved in land distribution.


A significant segment of the personnel dominating the region came from the ranks of those who had fostered the acute stages of the quar- rel with New York and had the reckless audacity and determination which spurred them on to accomplishing the separation from New York.


80. Supra, p. 2.


81. On at least one occasion he was even subjected to official criticism. See Vermont, Secretary of State, MSS State Papers, vol. 18, p. 71, for records of the Assembly for Oct. 20 and 23, 1788. Hereafter cited as MSS State Papers. He, himself, was a proprietor in at least 42 towns granted by the Vermont legislature. Woodard, Town Proprietors, p. 160; Slade, State Papers, pp. 535-536.


51


HISTORICAL BACKGROUND


It could not be expected that those men would be inclined to carry out their own land granting activity in any cautious or highly organized way, nor to exemplify for the frontier settlers of the Grants a spirit of re- spect for systematic administration of land holdings.


Another type of influence must be included. This was the relatively primitive conditions of government and administration which were an inevitable concomitant of the circumstances under which the govern- ment was erected. There was in the Grants a critically small propor- tion of people with any high degree of education and even fewer folk with any experience or other preparation which would have acquainted them with the intricacies of operating a state government. It is a well- known fact that such a condition was general throughout the American colonies when they decided to take over from the British the responsibili- ties of government. But Vermont was far and away in a more acute situation from lack of such personnel than other parts of the colonies. The men of the Grants were small frontier farmers, men who, for the most part, had faced the rigorous task of opening the wilderness for want of better opportunities in the colonies from which they came. Men with any appreciable wealth were rare indeed; there were no wealthy, educated, leisured Washingtons, Jeffersons, Adamses, Hamil- tons ; no extensive libraries in Monticellos or Beacon Hill houses. More- over, these people had not recently had the direct contacts with pro- vincial governments which had, in other colonial places, at least given some of the people an opportunity to observe the functioning of govern- ment. They had not been sitting as members of colonial assemblies, nor had they been rendering critical judgment on executive or judicial au- thorities as had the Sam Adamses of the colonies. Rather, they had either been more or less passively isolated from governmental affairs, as in the Connecticut Valley towns, or engaged in tumultuous opposi- tion to governmental authority. This is not intended as adverse criti- cism; it speaks well, contrariwise, for their courage, tenacity and in- genuity that they were able to surmount such obstacles. But it does mean, for the purpose of this study, that one cannot expect to find smooth, polished acts of legislation nor well organized and comprehen- sive administration or records thereof. Furthermore, it means that un- der the then existing crisis conditions, the chance was even smaller for there to be calm, studied and well digested programs of government.




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.