USA > Vermont > The history of Vermont, from its discovery to its admission into the Union in 1791. By Hiland Hall > Part 17
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55
The New Hampshire settlers were freemen, intelligent, hardy and brave. They had, in general, expended their all in the purchase, in good faith, of the lands. which they occupied, and in transforming them into comfortable homes for themselves and families. Is it sur- prising that they should have resisted the attempts of the New York rulers to deprive them of their possessions ? Would it not, indeed, have been craven and unworthy of manly heroism to do otherwise ?
20
-------------------------------------
154
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
CHAPTER XIV.
CONDITION OF AFFAIRS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE GREEN MOUNTAIN ; SECOND APPEAL TO THE KING, AND FAVOR- ABLE REPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.
1772-1773.
Treatment of the settlers cast of the Green Mountain by the New York go- vernment - Counties of Cumberland and Gloucester formed -Smothered discontent with the New York government - Outbreaks at Windsor and Putney - Grant by Tryon of ten thousand acres of land in Hinsdale to Col. Howard - Breakenridge and Hawley in England - Favorable Re- port of the Board of Trade and Protest against it of Gov. Tryon - The terror inspired by the threats of the Green Mountain Boys a principal weapon of defense against their adversaries - Corporal punishment by whipping, a common mode of punishment in New York and other colonies prior to the revolution.
W HILE the controversy in relation to their land titles was produc- ing serious disturbances among the inhabitants on the west side of the Green mountain, those on the east side had remained compara- tively quiet. It has already been seen that Lieut. Gov. Colden's patents in 1765, for peculiar reasons, had been confined to lands on the west side of the mountain. The numerous complaints made to Sir Henry Moore, his successor, of the great injustice of Colden's interfering patents, the application of the settlers to the king for relief, and the order of the crown consequent thereon, forbidding any further grants, operated to protect the lands of the inhabitants on the east side from the grasp of the speculators. As late as March 4th, 1771, Alexander Colden, surveyor general of the province, cer- tified and doubtless truly, "that he had not made any return of the survey of any lands known to be held under the government of New Hampshire eastward of the ridge of the Green mountains," except of the rights allotted to Gov. Wentworth before mentioned. As these were not occupied, regranting of them did not injure the in- habitants. In fact, the formidable opposition occasioned by Colden's interfering grants made it for the interest of the New York govern- ment to strengthen itself with the crown and also at home, by con- ciliating the good will and obtaining the aid of the eastern settlers, in their controversy with those at the west, and that was the policy
155
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
early adopted by that government. The New Hampshire titles were confirmed to the original proprietors in several of the townships on Connecticut river, and in some instances with liberal deductions from the customary patent fees. As a further means of winning the favor of the eastern inhabitants, new counties were formed, creating a variety of offices to be filled by influential individuals. A county by the name of Cumberland was constituted by act of the assembly in July; 1766, embracing territory nearly identical with the present counties of Windsor and Windham. Among the officers immedi- ately appointed were a sheriff, a surrogate, a county clerk and a coroner, three judges of the court of common pleas, seven assistant judges of the same court and fifteen justices of the peace. This act of the assembly was repealed and annulled by the king, and his order was laid before the assembly by the governor the 2d of De- cember, 1767. The county consequently became extinct. It was however revived and reestablished by ordinance of the governor and council, bearing date February 10th, 1768.1 By ordinance of the governor and council adopted in March, 1770, another county was constituted, by the name of Gloucester, comprising all the territory north of Cumberland county and east of the Green mountain, of which Kingsland, now Washington in Orange county, was made the county seat. There were no inhabitants within many miles of the place, but a log hut, dignified with the name of a jail was erected in the wilderness and left without a keeper or tenant, but in which the courts were directed to be held. For this county the governor at once appointed a sheriff, a county clerk, four commissioners to ad- minister oaths, three judges of the court of common pleas, four as- sistant judges and nine justices of the peace. The population within the limits of the county was probably less than six-hundred, and it is difficult to conceive what motive there could have been for its formation, other than that of gratifying the taste of persons ambi- tious for office and titles. An attempt to hold the court of common pleas in February, 1771, proved abortive. The officers after travel-
1 Mr. B. H. Hall, in his History of Eastern Vermont (p. 2), treats the re- establishment of Cumberland county as the personal act of the king in con- sequence of " numerous applications and representations made to the crown." In point of fact the king knew nothing whatever of the ordinance. The New York governor and council were the sole actors. The charter of the county issued by the governor, like his land patents, was in the name of the king, but the king knew no more of it than he did of the patent of Socialborough and that to Col. Reid, both of which were issued by the go- vernor without the king's knowledge and in violation of his express order.
------------
156
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
ing from Mooretown, now Bradford, during parts of two days in the woods on snow shoes, not being able to find the court house, gave up the search and returned. 1
But notwithstanding the marked distinction made by the New York government between the settlers on the two sides of the Green mountain, there always extensively existed among the inhabitants on the east side, a lurking, though partially smothered dissatisfaction with that government. So strong indeed, as occasionally to break out in open resistance to its authority. The requirement that the New Hampshire claimants should obtain, at a serious expense, and much trouble, confirmatory charters, in order to quiet their titles, was very generally thought to be an unnecessary hardship, only demanded for the sake of the fees of office, and the emoluments of the surveyor general, new surveys being insisted on. The New York system of organization and laws was also different from those to which they had been accustomed, and of a less democratic character. All county officers were appointed by a distant governor, and they in turn appointed inferior officers to perform duties which their town meetings and town officers had previously regulated and executed. The New York officers and courts were accused of corruption, and some of the officers were very unpopular. Some knowledge of the state of feeling which was very prevalent on the east side of the mountain, may be gathered from a statement made under oath by Simon Stevens, an intelligent friend of New York, then residing in Charlestown, and afterwards in Vermont. His affidavit was sworn to at New York, March 2. 1771, before Chief Justice Hors- manden. in which he says, " That by the law of New Hampshire, every township chooses annually selectmen, and a variety of other public officers, and are authorized to hold town meetings, all which are on the plan of the like regulations in the province of Massachusetts
' The following is from the record of the expedition entered by the clerk. " Feby. 25, 1771. Set out from Mooretown for Kingsland, traveled until night, there being no road and the snow very deep - we traveled on snow shoes or rackets. On the 26th we traveled some ways and held a council, when it was concluded it was best to open the court. As we saw no line it was not known whether in Kingsland or not. But we concluded we were far in the woods, we did not expect to see any house unless we marched three miles within Kingsland, and no one lived there when the court was ordered to be opened on the spot." It appears from the record that the persons present on this memorable occasion, were John Taplin, judge, John Taplin, Jun., sheriff. John Peters of the Quorum and John Peters, clerk, the two latter being doubtless but one person. See Doc. Hist. N. Y., vol. 4, p. 1033, and Deming's Vt. Officers, p. 119.
157
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
Bay. And that the public taxes are levied by warrant from the selectmen." He then adds, " that since his majesty's determination of the boundary in 1764, many of the townships within the province of New York to the eastward of the Green mountains, had continued to regulate themselves and to elect their town officers, and levy their town taxes in conformity to the New Hampshire patents, and the laws of that province, and not agreeable to the laws of New York, which have not been the rule of their conduct." This attachment to their favorite town republics, and dislike of the province and county government substituted by New York, extensively prevailed on the east as well as on the west side of the mountain, throughout the whole provincial period.
In June 1770, a large body of men from Windsor, who com- plained of the New York jurisdiction and denied the authority of that government to constitute the county of Cumberland, declaring " its formation a sham," repaired to Chester where the court of common pleas was to be held, and by their violent proceedings prevented it from transacting business, and seized an obnoxious attorney, whom they carried to Windsor where they held him under keepers for several days. The state of feeling in the county was such that there was little prospect of his obtaining compensation for the injury. Nor do the rioters appear to have been dealt with crimi- nally for their conduct. In fact the principal leaders seem to have been afterwards appeased and reconciled to the New York govern- ment by appointments to office and by becoming favored petitioners for land patents. Out-breaks of a similar though of less formidable character against the New York authority, occurred in Putney, and in some other towns.1
Although the New Hampshire claimants on the east side of the mountain were not in general disturbed by interfering patents from New York, yet there was not wanting an example of sufficient im- portance to call their attention to the oppressive conduct of that government toward their brethren on the other side. On the 23d of November, 1771, Gov. Tryon issued to Col. Thomas Howard a patent for ten thousand acres of land in Hinsdale, now Vernon, and the patentee soon afterwards repaired to that town to take possession. The land had first been granted at an early day by Massachusetts, which grant was afterwards, in 1753, confirmed by charter of New
1 New York Assembly Journals and Council Minutes. Doc. HIist. N. Y., vol. 4, p. 694. Inder, titles, Cumberland and Gloucester. Hall's Eastern Vt., p. 1-6, 142, 161-168, 172-173. Ira Allen's Vt., 22. Deming's Vt. Offi- cers, p. 119.
.
158
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
Hampshire, and was some of the richest and best land on Connecticut river, much of which had been occupied and cultivated for many years. This patent was the occasion of much excitement and com- ment, not only in the immediate vicinity of its location, but in the neighboring colonies of Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The Essex Gazette of Dec. 24, 1771, published at Salem, contains let- ters from Putney, dated the 11th and 14th of that month, giving an account of the grant and of Col. Howard's visit to that section of the country, in which all parties connected with the transaction are very severely handled. One of the letters states that the writer had had a conversation with Howard at the house of Judge Wells, and that Howard told him " he had a mandamus from the king for ten thousand acres of land to be laid out in the province of New York, where it had not been granted before by that province. IIe, upon information at York of the value of the town of Hinsdale, made a pitch of said place by plan, obtaining a charter under the province seal of the same, signed by Gov. Tryon." "Immediately upon which," the letter adds, " he comes here with two livery ser- vants, his attendants, tells Hinsdale people of it, makes them an offer, viz., to lease the lands to them they now enjoy for five years for one penny sterling per acre, another five years for one shilling per acre, and at the expiration of said time to come to a new agree- ment. Hinsdale people have got the same now under consideration, they are in great perplexity, not knowing what to do; many of them are wealthy men, but persons of no liberal education, and I am afraid they will do something prejudicial to themselves on that account." These terms, which would have furnished an income to the patentee of over two hundred dollars annually for the first five years, and of about two thousand five hundred each year for the last, and at the end of that time leave him the owner of the land with all its inter- mediate improvements, do not appear to have been accepted ; for an application was afterwards made to the crown for relief against the patent. Gov. Tryou when complained of for this unjust and oppres- sive grant to his friend Howard, sought to excuse himself on the ground that the grant was made in obedience to the mandamus of the crown, arguing that having the king's command to grant that quantity of unpatented land, Colonel Howard had the right to select it wherever he pleased within the province, and that he was obliged to issue his patent for it, although it was already occupied under previous charters from Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and notwithstanding the king's prohibitory order forbidding him to make any grants whatever within that territory. But this plea,
159
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
which was really frivolous, was unsatisfactory to the English board of trade, wlio severely condemned his conduct in making it. Though Gov. Tryon, after the loud complaints made against him, expressed some regret for the act, yet he does not appear to have had any proper sense of its injustice, for in a letter to Lord Dartmouth in defence of his conduct, he denies the legality of the settlers' title under both the Massachusetts and New Hampshire charters, and adds " that the offer Col. Howard made to the occupants when he became acquainted with their circumstances, was too generous to leave room for complaint."! It does not appear that Col. Howard was ever able to derive any benefit from his patent.
When Messrs. Breakenridge and Hawley, agents of the New Hampshire claimants, reached England in the winter of 1772-3, they found the subject of their mission had already been considered by the board of trade, and that they had made a report to the king in council, bearing date Dec. 3, 1772, proposing terms for the adjust- ment of the controversy, as favorable to their constituents as they could expect to obtain. They, therefore, soon returned home. The report was not, however, confirmed by order of the king in council till the ensuing April, when it was transmitted by the Earl of Dart- mouth to Gov. Tryon, with a recommendation that it should be carried into effect. The report, as has been before seen, censured in the strongest language the avaricious and oppressive conduct of the New York governors in regranting the lands in controversy, and proposed terms for accommodating the disputes. The most material . of those terms were, in substance, that all actual settlers should be quieted in the possession of the lands they occupied, without regard to the origin of their titles ; and that the charters of the New Hampshire townships which had not been occupied by claimants under New York should be confirmed to the original proprietors and those claiming under them, without reference to any subsequent New York patents of the land ; and that such subsequent patentees should be indemnified for their losses by grants of other lands. . The report was not in the nature of an order or command, but was a proposition to the New York government, which being deemed just and equitable by the king in council, it was hoped would be assented to and carried into execution by that government. This hope was, however, fallacious. The plan, if adopted, would annul most of the New York patents and send the patentees in search of
1 Albany Records, Land Patents, vol. 16. Col. IIist. N. Y .. vol. 8, pp. 321, 346, 381. New York Narrative. E. Allen's Narratirc, 1774. Hall's Eastern Vermont, pp. 171, 172. Duane's MS. Plea before Congress, p. 17.
160
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
other lands, and it could not be expected to meet their approbation. Governor Tryon, who was one of them and a fair representative of the others, protested against the proposed plan in a letter of great length, and in the most earnest and vehement terms, declaring it to be in a high degree unjust to the New York claimants and alto- gether impracticable. He proposed as a substitute that all the New Hampshire charters should be declared void and all New York patents valid. This favorable report of the board of trade, with its approval by the king, soon became known to the settlers and increased their confidence in the ultimate success of their cause.1
The territory in controversy had now acquired the distinctive name of The New Hampshire Grants, the claimants under the charters of that province, being familiarly designated as " Hamp- shire men," and their opponents as " Yorkers." The active defenders of the New Hampshire title were beginning to be known as " Green Mountain Boys," though they continued by the New York govern- ment, to be usually styled "the Bennington mob." They had become well satisfied that the only means of preserving their posses- sions from the grasp of the New York claimants was to prevent their acquiring a foot hold in their territory by the occupation of lands under their patents, and to the accomplishment of that object, their subsequent efforts were mainly directed. Their position was such that not only bravery, but also great discretion was required. They were under the dominion of Great Britain, whose king they acknowledged as their sovereign, and to whom they had appealed for relief against the oppressions of his subordinate government of New York. Their appeal had been favorably received, and by the inter- position of the crown they had strong expectations of eventual pro- tection. If they had been disposed, they were too weak to brave the power of the king, though they felt able to compete successfully with that of New York. But by opposing the subordinate govern- ment they were in danger of incurring the serious displeasure of its superior, and of thereby forfeiting all hope of a successful terniina- tion of the controversy. They saw that excessive injuries to the persons, or wanton destruction of the property of their adversaries, would be likely to excite against them the displeasure of the king and his ministry. Sound policy therefore required that the resist- ance to the New York government should assume as mild a form as
' For the report of the board of trade, Lord Dartmouth's letter and Tryon's reply, see Col. IIist., vol. 8, p. 330, 359, 360, and Doc. Hist., vol. 4, p. 803, 827, 831. See also Slade, p. 33. Ira Allen's Vt., p. 47, 48. E. Allen's Nar. of 1774, p. 167, 174.
161
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
was possible. In order that it should be effectual a system of terror- ism, if it may be so called, seems to have been early adopted and steadily pursued.
Violence, which was resorted to, when deemed necessary, was always accompanied by threats of much greater for any repetition of the offense, and the threats were made in such an earnest and defiant manner as to produce the belief that they were likely to be executed. The minutes of the New York council are full of the complaints of patentees and surveyors that their lives were in dan- ger from the armed bands of the Green Mountain Boys, and they furnish abundant evidence of the terror which their threatenings inspired, and of their great efficacy in deterring invasions of the disputed territory. And yet, during the whole controversy not a single life was taken, not a person was permanently maimed. and there is no evidence that a gun was ever aimed and discharged at any one. Surveyors and claimants were not unfrequently told that their lives would be taken if they attempted certain forbidden things and that armed men were prowling in the woods to shoot them. Shots were sometimes fired by way of intimidation, of which the case of Justice Munro is an instance. Guns were frequently dis- charged about his residence, and sometimes into the roof of his house to frighten him away, and though he might any day have been taken and punished in any manner his opponents chose. he was, from policy, if not from humanity, suffered to remain in fear of his life until he chose to retire. The mysterious quaintness with which the threatnings of the Green Mountain Boys were sometimes clothed, served to increase the terror they were otherwise calculated to inspire. One of the penalties to which those suspected of being friendly to the Yorkers, were told they were exposed, was that of being " viewed." Precisely what that meant was not defined. It was understood to import that the conduct of the suspected party would be examined by a committee of the settlers, and that if found delin- quent he would be dealt with as they might direct, even to the punishment by the beech seal. That was defined by Allen to be a chastisement of the New York claimants " with the twigs of the wilderness, the growth of the land they coveted." It was termed a seal in allusion to the great seal of New Hampshire, affixed to the grants made by the governor of that province, on which there was a fancied representation of a tree, of which the beech rod well laid on the naked backs of the Yorkers and their adherents, was humorously considered a confirmation.
.
21
162
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
This mode of punishment by the beech seal, though much talked of and abundantly threatened, was not often executed. There are in fact not more than two or three well authenticated instances in which it appears to have been inflicted, one or two in the earlier part of the controversy, and the other on Benjamin Hough, a New York justice, at a later period, of which an account will hereafter be given. The fear of it, however, added much to the strength of the New Hampshire men in the controversy, and was a cause of weak- ness in their opponents.
In judging of the conduct of the Green Mountain Boys in inflicting corporal punishment upon their adversaries, it should be borne in mind that such punishment was then in common use throughout the colonies, and was looked upon in a very different light from what it would be at the present day. The colony of New York was by no means an exception to that practice. It was there adopted early and continued late. In the description of New Amsterdam by Montanus in 1671 he says " on the river side stood the gallows and whipping post," and in his picture view of the city they occupy quite a promi- nent position. Until after the commencement of the revolution there was an officer of the city of New York denominated " the public whipper," whose duty it was to inflict such corporal punishment as the proper tribunals directed. By an act of the New York assembly in 1744, for any offence under grand larcency, the mayor and aldermen at the quarter sessions were authorized to inflict " such corporal punishment (not extending to life and limb) as they in their discre- tion should think proper," the sentence, in the language of the act, to be put in execution " by the public whipper of said city." Two justices in other parts of the province had the same power, and their sentence was to be executed by the constable. By an act passed December 11, 1762, " a person obtaining goods in the city of New York by false pretences," might be punished in the same discretion- ary manner, the sentence as in the former case was to be executed " by the public whipper." Both these acts were in force at the time of the application of the said beech seal upon the Yorkers, and the courts of New York had like power to inflict corporal punishment for other and higher crimes. Punishment by whipping was in use in New York and the other states during the revolutionary period and for many years afterwards, and was indeed continued in the army and navy of the country until far into the present century. This mode of punishment being sanctioned by the universal practice of the period when it was inflicted by the New Hampshire claimants, is not, therefore, of itself, evidence of any peculiar want of civilization or
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.