USA > Vermont > Windsor County > Windsor > The birthplace of Vermont; a history of Windsor to 1781 > Part 31
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
Sessions concluded his letter by mentioning a recent visit to Windsor, where he met General Bayley and James Clay, and by making sundry recommendations for the future hand- ling of the accounts of the Rangers.
A letter addressed by Colonel William Williams to the New York Convention in response to military orders, showed that he also was loyal or at least provisionally loyal. His date line is "County of Cumberland, State of New York, Wilmington, April 13, 1777." He probably reflected pretty accurately the situation when he said:
"I find that in general the men are averse to go out under the State of New York, neither do I think it possible for me to raise any men. They are ready to go out under the notion of New Hampshire Grants, or a new state; but for my part I
12 Journal, N. Y. Prov. Cong., pp. 420-421.
364
THE BIRTHPLACE OF VERMONT
am willing to serve under York until the matter can be de- cided by the Continental Congress." 1
Although dwelling in a locality where there were more out- spoken New York sympathizers than in any other part of the Grants, Colonel William Williams seems to have had far less authority with his Lower Regiment than had Colonel Joseph Marsh with the Upper Regiment.
The ordinance directing the holding of elections under New York's Constitution specified the town house at Windsor as one of six polling places in Cumberland County.2 It also designated Doctor Paul Spooner, of Hertford (Hartland) as county sheriff. This office he refused to accept. Nor did Windsor open its town house for the New York elections. Although no minutes of Windsor's annual town meeting for the year 1777 have come to light, there is evidence that such a meeting convened on May 20. The following paper, filed with the clerk of the Cumberland County Committee, and forming a part of the Pingry Collection, shows that such a meeting was called and that Windsor declined to act under New York's election ordinance:
"At an Annual Town Meeting held at the Town house in Windsor on the twentieth Day of May past, after the Choice of a Moderator it was put to Vote whether the Town would proceed to Act acording to the Orders from the State of New York; Voted in the Negative by a great majority.
Ebn' Curtis, Town Clark.
To the Chearman of the County Committee." 3
While this vote came pretty near to unqualified secession, Ebenezer Hoisington made the situation even more plain by a letter which he presently sent to the County Committee. That committee, as the reader will remember, adjourned on November 9, 1776, to meet on the first Tuesday of June, 1777.
12 N. Y. Journal Prov. Cong., p. 431.
2 B. H. Hall's History of Eastern Vt., p. 219.
:1 Gov. & Coun., 368. It is possible that Windsor's town meeting sought to nullify other orders of the New York Convention, in addition to the election ordinance. See pages 361 and 362 in volume 1 of Governor and Council.
365
WINDSOR IN THE YEAR 1777
Hoisington's letter seems to have been written on the latter date, but there is no evidence to show that he presented it in person. Like Ebenezer Curtis's transcript, it has been pre- served among the County Committee's records. This is what Hoisington wrote:
"Whereas I the Subscriber am the member of the County Committee of Cumberland to represent the town of Windsor in Convention this third day of instant June, Do now in be- half of sd Town Enter my protest against any proceeding un- der the State of New York either directly or indirectly as to any Jurisdiction over sd town.
Ebenezer Hoisington."
Unless Hoisington exceeded his authority-and this seems hardly probable-Windsor had determined to place itself by written word in the secessionist column. The town of Towns- hend did likewise. Brattleborough, Hinsdale (Vernon), Put- ney, Westminster, Springfield, Weathersfield, Kent (London- derry), Hartford, and possibly Pomfret still remained loyal or partially loyal to New York. Other Cumberland towns, al- though not making written announcements, were generally for secession, and the ensuing sessions of the Cumberland County Committee were so poorly attended as to become al- most perfunctory.
CHAPTER XXXVIII THE JUNE CONVENTION
THE draft of a declaration of independence which Nathan Clark, Ebenezer Hoisington, John Burnham, Jacob Burton, and Thomas Chittenden had submitted at Westminster on January 17, and which had been immediately accepted by the convention, ended with the provision that the privileges and immunities which were sought "shall be regulated in a bill of rights, and by a form of government, to be established at the next adjourned session of this convention." On the same day the Westminster Convention adjourned to the first Wednes- day of June to convene "at the Meeting-House in Windsor." Printed notice of this adjournment appeared in the Connecti- cut Courant, of Hartford, in the issue of April 14. The inten- tion obviously had been that at the June session the "bill of rights" or constitution for the New State should be adopted and a State government established. This expectation, to- gether with the favorable season of the year and the absence of movement by the British troops in the immediate vicinity of the New Hampshire Grants would be sufficient to account for the generous attendance at Windsor on the morning of June 4, 1777.
Jonas Fay's record book gives a list of seventy-two delegates present at the opening of the June convention. There his record, after setting forth that Captain Joseph Bowker was in the chair and that Lieutenant Martin Powell was chosen assis- tant clerk, stops short, never to be resumed. Of the seventy- two delegates, thirty-six1 were credited to twenty-two west- side towns and a like number to twenty-seven east-side towns. Ebenezer Hoisington again appears for Windsor, and on this occasion one finds in attendance for the first time several dele- gates from towns in Gloucester County. How true the list
1 This number is obtained by counting Captain Josiah Powers, the delegate from Neshobe (Brandon), and Captain Josiah Powers, the delegate from Whit- ing, as two individuals. Mr. E. P. Walton thinks that Whiting's delegate was Captain Jeremiah Powers.
366
367
THE JUNE CONVENTION
may be one cannot be sure. It differs from the list of those reported in the Connecticut Courant of June 30 as actually composing the convention and voting. In face of the New York leanings of the towns of Brattleborough and Kent (Lon- donderry) one cannot but be surprised and suspicious at find- ing Israel Smith listed as the delegate of the former and Edward Aiken as the delegate of the latter. Number of dele- gates and number of towns represented were, of course, of prime importance, and we may assume that such objectives, by hook or crook, had been pretty well attained. Doubtless, with the possible exception of days when military bodies had passed through or camped in Windsor-if there had been any such occasions-the town had never before received such an influx of visitors as on June 4, 1777. Where they all lodged is a question for study.1
In quality the personnel of the June convention showed improvement over its predecessors. While the old agitators, such as Heman and Ira Allen, Jonas Fay, Thomas Chittenden, Ebenezer Hoisington, Reuben Jones, and Leonard Spalding were there in force and probably in control, there were others present who may have questioned whether secession from New York was of greater importance than a successful issue in the war for American independence. We should expect that Captain Ebenezer Allen as Tinmouth's representative, Colonel Joseph Marsh, of Hartford, Colonel Peter Olcott, of Norwich, Simeon Hathaway, of Bennington, and several others were American patriots first and "New Staters" second. Then, too, we find present such a man as Benjamin Spencer, of Clar- endon, whose Loyalist tendencies soon manifested themselves. The results of the convention, however, indicate that unanim- ity finally was reached.
The important pieces of work before the convention, viz., the adoption of a bill of rights or constitution and the estab- lishment of State government were neither accomplished nor attempted. Doctor Thomas Young's advice had embraced the taking of certain preliminary steps which precluded pre- cipitancy. He had recommended that the assembly which
1 For the list of delegates see Early Vermont Conventions, fac simile of Jonas Fay's records, pp. 69-70; Vt. Hist. Soc. Coll., vol. I, pp. 48-49.
368
THE BIRTHPLACE OF VERMONT
should form the constitution ought to be chosen in the follow- ing way: "Invite all your freeholders and inhabitants to meet in their respective townships and choose members for a Gen- eral Convention to meet at an early day to choose Delegates for the General Congress, a Committee of Safety and to form a Constitution for your State." The members of the existing convention were well aware of the informality of its creation, the laxness of the rules by which it had been governed, and the absence of any uniformity in the instructions given or author- ity vested in the delegates by their respective constituents, and could well appreciate the desirability of starting afresh with a common understanding, a common and definite pur- pose, and a clean record of honestly elected delegates.
However disappointing it may have been to the members of the June convention to find that they were not to perform the more serious functions for which they had assembled, there were sundry other important items which occupied the con- vention for the better part of four days, and which must have been interesting to those delegates who paid attention to the proceedings and understood what was going on. And prob- ably all present did give their best attention, for the situation was grave and of concern to every settler.
In the absence of any minutes of the session we can rely only on the subsequently published documents to tell what transpired. Of lasting effect was the decision as to the name to be given to the New State. On this point the delegates were told that the name New Connecticut had already been appropriated by a district on the Susquehanna River and that it would be unsatisfactory to have that name duplicated on the New Hampshire Grants. What better substitute could there be than that which had struck the fancy of their Phila- delphia mentor? He had, in fact, already named their district for them. What more natural course was there than to pay him the compliment of accepting his choice ? "Vermont" it then became by unanimous vote.1
1 Samuel Stevens, of Charlestown, seems to have received the news imper- fectly, for he entered in his diary on Saturday, June 7, that "this week the People of the Several Countis on the west side of the River Resolved themselves to be a State by the name of New Connecticutt."
369
THE JUNE CONVENTION
Simultaneously, it seems, with the selection of the new name, the delegates followed the custom of vowing brother- hood between themselves "by all the ties held sacred among men" and vowing resistance to Great Britain. They also ex- pressed the vain hope that there might be amity between New York and the New State, but did not mince matters in reciting anew the list of grievances which the settlers upon the Grants jealously nursed against the former Province of New York and the State into which that Province had been converted. These grievances the convention determined to restate for publication, so that strangers and neighbors alike might un- derstand the justification for secession. In fact, the omission to advertise these grievances at the time the declaration of independence had been announced was voted to be an acci- dent or mistake.
The grievances, or "complaints," as they were called, which filled fifteen paragraphs, may be considered as constituting the matured form of the "case" against New York. So vital were these points considered that they were again made use of when it came time to prepare the preamble for the State Constitution. It is well to enumerate them here so that the reader may see the whole sum and substance of a controversy which, fourteen years later, was adjusted by complete relin- quishment by New York of all her claims on the payment of the paltry sum of thirty thousand dollars.
The first count of the indictment was that Cadwallader Colden's "false representation" of the wishes of the settlers on the Grants had led to the establishment of the Connecticut River as the eastern boundary of New York. Second, that New York had charged two thousand three hundred dollars per township for a confirmation patent and had trebled the quit-rents. Third, that the New York judges had declared the New Hampshire Charters void. Fourth, that New York, in pursuance of court decisions, had issued writs of possession for lands and had backed up the sheriffs by armed forces. Fifth, that a New York statute provided a punishment of fine and imprisonment for refusing to assist a sheriff in executing a writ of possession. Sixth, that the governors of New York had issued grants for land within the New Hampshire Grants
370
THE BIRTHPLACE OF VERMONT
in violation of the Crown's orders of 1767. Seventh, that "they" have "threatened to excite the King's troops to de- stroy us." Eighth, that "they" have offered rewards for the apprehension of those who dared boldly to appear in defence of their just rights. Ninth, that "they" passed acts of out- lawry imposing the punishment of death on certain alleged offenders without benefit of trial. Tenth, that "they" still unjustly claimed the lands upon the Grants and thereby re- tarded settlement of the territory. Eleventh, that "they" have hired Scottish troops to drive "us" out of possession. Twelfth, that "they have sent savages on our frontiers to destroy us." Thirteenth, that "they" erected Cumberland and Gloucester counties and established courts therein after Great Britain had discountenanced such procedure. Four- teenth, that the New York State Convention had voted that all quit-rents due the King should be payable to the New York State government. Fifteenth, that the former government of New York had used every means to defraud the settlers on the Grants out of their property.
The indictment, thus composed partly of truth, partly of half-truths, partly of exaggerations, and partly of obsolete matter that had ceased to be material, closed with a brief statement of fruitless petitions for redress made to Great Britain and the legislative authority of New York, and a re- minder that "our local situation alone" was a sufficient rea- son for seeking independence. Although it was an effective campaign document, whether viewed as a rallying cry for the settlers on the Grants or as a bid for sympathy among the other States, it somewhat singularly made no attempt what- ever to capitalize those features of New York's Constitution which had given new and solid impetus to the revolt.
In the Connecticut Courant of June 30, in which these com- plaints were printed, together with the names of seventy-two delegates who were present and who with one exception voted to "proceed to form" a new State under the name of Ver- mont, we find that three men whom Jonas Fay had recorded as delegates were not mentioned. These were Leonard Spald- ing, of Dummerston, Edward Aiken, of Kent (Londonderry), and Andrew Spear, of Reading. In their places, according to
371
THE JUNE CONVENTION
the Courant's list, were Joshua Webb, of Westminster, and one "Capt. William Curtis." To read the Courant's list cor- rectly by towns, one must read across the two columns of names instead of reading the first column throughout before beginning with the second. By the former method the name of Captain William Curtis follows that of Ebenezer Hoising- ton and precedes the names of the two Hertford (Hartland) delegates. Curtis-if that was his name-was therefore brought in as a Windsor delegate, and probably was none other than Ebenezer Curtis; but the "Capt. William" suggests also the possibility that the full name of the new delegate may have been Captain William Dean. With the addition of Webb and "Curtis" and the name of "Amaziah Woodworth," who was not mentioned by Fay, the list equals in number those origi- nally recorded by Jonas Fay as present at the initial roll-call. The Courant's statement that they were "all convened at the town house in Windsor" shows that Windsor's town house and meeting house were one and the same building.1
This convention directed the jail-keeper at Westminster to hold prisoners at the convention's orders, directed the County Committees of Cumberland and Gloucester and all New York commissioners appointed to seize the estates of "enemical" persons to desist from further activities, and directed the Committees of Safety "acting under the authority of this State" to seize the persons and estates of "enemical" persons. The latter committees were empowered to examine and pun- ish "suspected enemies"-with death, if need be-and keep the properties of such prisoners "for the use of this State." During the convention's recess the orders of the president or vice-president "of this State" with his council were to be supreme.2 With these touches and with the absence of any limitations to the word "enemical" was begun the reign of terror which lasted until long after the organization of State government under the Constitution.
The convention took special care to order that copies of the resolution of Congress of May 15, 1776 should be sent to the several towns, so as to give to those who were in doubt the
1 For the Connecticut Courant's record, see 1 Gov. & Coun., pp. 54-57.
2 1 Gov. & Coun., pp. 60-61.
372
THE BIRTHPLACE OF VERMONT
hint that the Continental Congress actually favored indepen- dent statehood for the Grants. The convention, having fixed June 23, 1777, as the day when each town should elect dele- gates to a constitutional convention, directed that such dele- gates should meet "at the meeting-house in Windsor, within said State, on the second day of July next," first, to choose delegates to attend the general Congress; second, to choose a Committee of Safety, and, third, "to form a Constitution." By reference to Doctor Thomas Young's letter it will be seen how implicitly his instructions were followed.
Ira Allen's History of Vermont asserts that the June con- vention appointed a committee of four to wait on the com- mander of Fort Ticonderoga and consult as to defences. Allen also mentions the appointment of a committee to make a draft of a constitution.1 Mr. E. P. Walton, out of the kind- ness of his heart, has conjectured as to the membership of the latter committee,2 but since Doctor Young had already thought- fully supplied a ready-made constitution, the work of such a committee could not have been exacting. The session seems to have ended on June 7 with a proclamation for a day of fasting and prayer.3 Among other prescribed supplications the people of the Grants were recommended to implore God to "direct in our election of members for establishing govern- ment," thus showing a belief that they had not yet achieved that end. Ira Allen's statement that the convention adjourned to July4 is open to question because it would appear that the existing convention had performed all its functions and had finally dissolved in the expectation that the work of State formation would be taken up by a newly elected body.
At the time that the large and distinguished June conven- tion was performing with efficiency at Windsor, the old Cum- berland County Committee was tottering on its last legs at Westminster. A dozen men, representing the towns of West- minster, Putney, Brattleborough, Hinsdale (Vernon), Hartford, Springfield, Weathersfield, Kent (Londonderry), and possibly Pomfret are recorded as present. In the list we find John Dana, of Pomfret, who was also recorded as present at Wind-
1 Allen's History of Vermont, p. 92. 2 1 Gov. & Coun., p. 58, note.
3 Id., pp. 59-60.
4 Allen's History of Vermont, p. 92.
373
THE JUNE CONVENTION
sor at the same time. For two days, June 4 and 5, the com- mittee sat without accomplishing anything of public conse- quence, and then adjourned to June 17. A session from June 17 to 18 merely marked time, with only seven members present.
A session of the Committee of Cumberland County on June 26 at Brattleborough called out a dozen committeemen, viz., James Clay and Lucius Wilson, of Putney, Michael Gilson, of Westminster, Obadiah Wells and John Sargent, of Brattle- borough, Luke Knoulton, of Newfane, Hilkiah Grout, of Weathersfield, and Colonel Eleazar Paterson and Amos Tute, of Hinsdale (Vernon). A sub-committee of three, consisting of James Clay, Colonel Paterson, and Major Grout, was chosen to draft a "Representation of the Broken State of the Inhabi- tance of the County of Cumberland and Assign Some Rea- sons why the County Committee Did not Proceed agreable To the Resolves of the Convention of the State of New York in respect to their Choosing Governor and Deligates to Send to Convention." The sub-committee's reported draft, which the other committeemen accepted, is so full of the history of the month that we are fortunate in having it preserved among the Pingry Papers.1
It recites that the committeemen from eight towns as- sembled on June 4 and, after deliberating on the importance of the New York election and the disordered condition of Cumberland County, adjourned to June 17. On reassem- bling they found that the sheriff had resigned his commis- sion and refused to act in reference to the elections. Most illuminating of the recitals of the report is that the county committee "being terrifyed with threats from the people who are Setting up a new State here, they thought it Imprudent to proceed to any Business and adjourned to meet at Brattle- borough." County committeemen from six towns having now gathered together in the comparative security of Brattlebor- ough, where also were "a number of men who are appointed by Several towns to make their Disapprobation to the Pro- ceedings of the Late Convention at Windsor publickly Known in some proper manner," the report proceeds to add the com- mittee's own "Disapprobation" of the Windsor Convention.
1 1 Gov. & Coun., pp. 365-366.
374
THE BIRTHPLACE OF VERMONT
"The Convention held at Windsor on the fourth day of June," the report says, "have taken into their Possession the Prison of this County" and have forbidden committees to act under the authority of New York; prisoners who might have been liberated under New York's "Resolves" still languish in prison, and the public peace is so much disturbed that the recruiting of soldiers is hindered. The report further asserts the belief that there will be an end to co-operating in the general de- fence of America unless the spirit of disorder is promptly sup- pressed, that the fomenters of the New State idea have little property, that they seek their own private advantage instead of "the public weal of America," and that they will not abate their activities without the intervention of the Continental Congress until "obliged so to Do it by the sword."
The County Committee adjourned on June 27 after hav- ing given to Colonel Paterson and Major Grout credentials to present the report to the convention or Assembly of New York.
Of Gloucester County we have less information but what we have is definite and decisive. Owing to General Bayley's pre-eminence the situation was far simpler there than in Cum- berland. When he gave way the whole of Gloucester was lost to New York. An extract from his letter addressed to the New York Convention under date of June 14, 1777, follows.
"Gentlemen: I acknowledge the receipt of an ordinance from you for the election of governor, lieutenant governor and senators and representatives for the State of New York. . . . The sheriff and committee gave the proper orders, but I am apt to think our people will not choose any members to sit in the state of New York. The people before they saw the constitution, were not willing to trouble themselves about a separation from the state of New York, but now almost to a man they are violent for it." 1
A letter from Colonel Alexander Webster dated June 21, 1777,2 and one from Colonel John Williams dated two days
1 H. Hall's Early History of Vermont, pp. 249-250. Bayley was referring, of course, to New York's Constitution.
Journ. N. Y. Prov. Cong., vol. II, p. 465.
375
THE JUNE CONVENTION
later1 indicate that the portion of Charlotte County which lay within the New Hampshire Grants had pretty generally fallen in with the New State movement.
Fortunately, the record of Windsor's town meeting on the day appointed for holding elections of delegates to the Con- stitutional Convention has been preserved intact. It shows Captain William Dean, the ex-convict, as the leader of the town under the new regime, and Ebenezer Hoisington, the old champion of the New State movement, as still in high favor. The complete minutes of the meeting are given here- with.
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.