USA > Vermont > The history of Vermont, from its discovery to its admission into the Union in 1791. By Hiland Hall > Part 29
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
1 Minutes of Vermont Council. Pay Rolls in the office of the secretary of state, Montpelier. Swift's History of Addison County, chap. 8.
35
1 ¢
.
274
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
But notwithstanding this appearance of liberality, the resolutions in reality offered no security whatever to the claimants under New Hampshire. They were preceded by a preamble in which the grievances under which the disaffected inhabitants had suffered by the oppressive acts of the colonial government in relation to their land titles, were either directly or tacitly admitted. The resolutions then contained proposals that confirmatory grants upon the payment of specified patent fees, should be issued by New York to certain classes of settlers under New Hampshire ; but the language was so studied and so carefully guarded that the proposals only applied to a mere fractional part of the lands in controversy. The proposals did not purport to apply to any lands but such as were in the actual possession of claimants under New Hampshire. Of course all lands not yet occupied, however fairly or dearly they might have been pur- chased, would belong to the subsequent New York patentees. But the proffer to confirm the titles to lands, actually possessed, was limited to such as were so possessed at the time grants of them had been made by New York. Now, as most of the grants of New York had been made at an early day, and as settlements from that time up to 1778 had continued to be made under the previous grants of New Hamp- shire, notwithstanding such New York grants, the lands to which this proffer would apply, would be but a small portion of those in actual cultivation at the time of the passage of the resolutions. Not one- tenth, perhaps not one-twentieth part of the lands actually occupied under the New Hampshire title in 1778 came within the scope of these resolutions. The other nine-tenths, or nineteen-twentieths, being unprovided for, would of course, with all their improvements, be taken possession of by the New York claimants, whenever the jurisdiction of that state should be established. But this is not all. There was an inherent defect in the resolutions which rendered them utterly valueless, even in regard to the small portion of the lands to which they applied.
It was then a principle of law as well settled as at the present day, that a grant once made could not be recalled by the grantor. If the authority of New York to grant the lands were admitted, she had already parted with her title to them and had no power to regrant them to others. The confirmatory grants which she proposed to make to the New Hampshire occupants, would be of no avail to them as a defence to suits brought against them by the first grantees. The New York courts would declare them utterly null and void. This matter was well understood by the settlers. They had, indeed, been informed in the favorable report of the English board of trade, of
.
275
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
December, 1772, that it was out of the power of the crown, or of the government of New York, to annul the patents which had already issued, and in consequence the board had proposed to the king to recommend to New York to grant other lands to her former patentees in lieu of those which were possessed by purchasers under New Hampshire. The overtures of New York did not propose to make any such indemnity to the first grantees ; and they were rendered tlie more suspicious in this respect by the fact that the resolutions as ori- ginally reported, did contain a guarantee of such indemnity, which provision was stricken out in the assembly, by a large majority. This vote seemed to indicate that it was not the intention of the assembly to carry out in good faith even the limited propositions which they had thought good policy required them to make.
The insufficiency of these resolutions to meet the real matter in dispute, and their deceptive character were well understood by the claimants under New Hampshire, and were clearly exposed in news- paper publications and also in a pamphlet by Ethan Allen published the following summer. Their defects became so apparent to the public that it was thought expedient by the New York assembly to pass explanatory resolutions, in which after stating that their former resolves " had been misrepresented by some and misunderstood by others," and declaring that "it was impossible to establish any general principle for the determination of all disputes," arising under the conflicting grants, but that " each case must be determined according to its particular merits," proceeded to propose to submit each case "to such persons as the congress of the United States should elect or appoint for that purpose." This proposal, with another of no importance in relation to lands which had not been granted by New York, was made known by proclamation of the governor, dated October 31, 1778. But this, if carried into effect, would involve every individual settler in a lawsuit before a foreign tribunal, the cost of which, even if the result should be favorable, would be likely to prove his ruin ; and it was only regarded as an additional evidence of the continued insincerity and hostility of the New York government. In fact these explanatory resolves, as well as the original overtures of New York, instead of strengthening her interest in the new state, tended greatly to impair it, inasmuch as they showed very clearly that no security for the titles under New Hampshire was to be expected from that government, and that the only course for the inhabitants to take, in order to preserve their property, was to abide by and maintain their new state organization. This, by invalidating the New York patents, would at once cut the
276
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
gordian knot by which their titles were bound, and which it was now, more than ever, demonstrated that the New York government never would allow to be untied.
It is difficult to conceive that these New York overtures could have been proposed in good faith by the land claimants, by whom they were doubtless concocted, who from their familiarity with the subject, must have known that they would be valueless to those whom they proposed to relieve. They were considered by the Vermonters as an artful attempt of their old enemies, the land traders, by holding out terms of conciliation apparently liberal, to make a favorable impres- sion upon the public mind in other states, in order to strengthen the interest of New York in the general congress, which the govern- ment of that state desired should interfere in the controversy.1
It should be added that the legislature of New York, in March, 1778, had passed an act repealing the riot act of the colonial assem- bly of 1774, by which offenders on the New Hampshire Grants had been made subject to the punishment of death without trial ; but as the original act had been limited in its operation to two years, which had long expired, and as it was universally regarded as a dead letter, its repeal was deemed a matter of no importance whatever. And an act of the New York legislature passed at the same session, granting a pardon for past offences against that government was con- sidered as equally valueless.
At the first election under the constitution of the state, Thomas Chittenden was chosen governor by a large majority. He was born at Guilford, Conn., the 6th of January, 1730, but in early life became an inhabitant of Salisbury in that colony, where he resided until the spring of 1774. He then removed to Williston on the New Hampshire Grants, having become the purchaser of a consider- able tract of land in that township. This he was obliged to abandon, on the retreat of the American forces from Canada, in 1776. The next year he purchased a farm in Arlington, where he remained till sometime after the close of the war, when he returned again to Williston and resided there until his death, which took place August 25, 1797. He had been an influential inhabitant of Salisbury, had re- presented the town in the colonial assembly for six or seven years, and was colonel of a regiment of militia. He had been brought up a farmer and his education was quite limited; but he had availed
1 For the New York resolutions of February, 1778, see Slade, 82, and Doc. Hist. N. Y., 951. Resolutions of Oct. 1778, Conn. Courant, Dec. 15, 1778, and February 2, 1779. Allen's Animadversary Address, Aug., 1778. E. Allen's Vindication, 1779. This has both sets of resolutions, page 13 to 44.
277
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
himself of opportunities in later life to acquire considerable informa- tion upon public affairs. His perceptions were quick and keen, and his mind so comprehensive as to enable him to take a full view of any subject however complex, and apparently by intuition, to make a correct decision. He had great tact in penetrating into the designs and characters of men, and he early acquired the position of leader in civil affairs on the New Hampshire Grants, and in the new state ; and he continued through life to enjoy the confidence of the people in a very high degree. To his sagacity and almost unerring judg- ment must be attributed in a great measure, the successful progress and termination of the long and bitter controversy with the govern- ment of New York.
The legislature met at Windsor on Thursday, the 12th of March, when it was found that no person had received a majority of all the votes for either lieutenant governor or treasurer, and Col. Joseph Marsh of Hartford, was chosen by the assembly to the former office, and Ira Allen to the latter. The assembly divided the state into two counties by the range of the Green mountains, that on the west side being called Bennington, and that on the east, Cumberland. Each county was divided into half shires, for which special courts consisting of five judges each, were appointed, to continue in office until county officers could be elected as provided for by the con- stitution.
One of the most important measures of the session related to the disposition of tory lands. The council of safety had the previous year, as has been before stated, taken possession of the personal property of those who had gone over to the enemy, and disposed of it for the benefit of the state. But they had not meddled with their lands, otherwise than in some instances to lease them, for limited periods. It was now resolved (March 25th) by the assembly, that the whole subject of the confiscation of the estates of " inimical per- sons," and in relation to the claims of their creditors, should be referred to the determination of the governor and council, or to such persons as they should appoint. The governor and council thereupon ordered that the lieutenant governor and six members of the council who resided on the east side of the mountain, should be a court, with power " to confiscate and order the sale to be made of all such lands and estates as should, by sufficient evidence, appear to be for- feited in the county of Cumberland," and that the governor and members of the council residing west of the mountain should have the same authority in the county of Bennington, the proceeds of all sales to be paid into the treasury of the state. From minutes of the
278
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
court of confiscation for the county of Bennington, now in the office of the secretary of state, it appears that the court on the 23d of April, " after several adjournments from day to day," during which the evidence in each case was examined, adjudged that one hundred and sixty-two persons named by them, residing or having estates in the towns on the west side of the mountain, had by their " notorious treasonable acts committed against the state and the United States of America, forfeited their whole estate to the state," and ordered the same to be confiscated and sold. A large portion of these persons were doubtless without much property, and the cases of some others were probably reconsidered, but quite a number of them were pos- sessed of valuable lands which were sold. Estates were also confis- cated and sold in Cumberland county, though the records of the court for that county have not been found. The income derived from this source was very considerable, sufficient to cover, for some time, a great portion of the state expenditures. It is proper to say that measures for confiscating the property of tories were pursued in all the states, though as before remarked, Vermont is believed to have been the first of the number to commence it.1
The legislature, after a session at Windsor of two weeks, adjourned to meet at Bennington on Thursday, the 4th of the ensuing June.
On the evening of the last day of May, four days before the legislature was to assemble, Col. Ethan Allen, who had been a prisoner with the enemy from the 25th of September, 1775, but who had just been exchanged for Col. Campbell of the British army, returned to Bennington, and the next day was one of great rejoicing. The people flocked into town to welcome him, and an old iron six- pounder, which in 1772, had been transported from the fort at East Hoosick, for defense against an apprehended invasion of Gov. Tryon of New York, at the head of a body of land claimants and British regulars, was brought out, and notwithstanding a great scarcity of powder, was fired fourteen times, "once for each of the thirteen United States, and once for young Vermont."
Allen, after his exchange, having visited the American camp at Valley Forge, Washington had written to the president of congress in regard to him as follows :
" I have been happy in the exchange and a visit from Lieut. Col. Allen. His fortitude and firmness seem to have placed him out of the reach of misfortune. There is an original something in him,
1 Ms. Journals of the Council, March 25, 1778. Minutes of Court of Con- Aiscution, March 25th and 26th, and April 23. Slade, p. 267.
279
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
that commands admiration ; and his long captivity and sufferings have only served to increase, if possible, his enthusiastic zeal. He appears very desirous of rendering his services to the states and of being employed ; and at the same time he does not discover any ambi- tion for high rank. Congress will herewith receive a letter from him, and I doubt not they will make such provision for him, as they may think proper and suitable." Upon the receipt of this and Allen's letter the congress, May 14th, resolved, " that a brevet com- mission of colonel be granted to Ethan Allen, in reward of his forti- tude, firmness and zeal in the cause of his country, manifested during the course of his long and cruel captivity, as well as on former occasions."
Allen had returned home to find his old friends as unreconciled as ever to British rule, and if possible, still more hostile to tories than they had previously been to Yorkers. They were at that time under great excitement about a tory by the name of David Redding who had been detected in acting as a spy for the enemy and in carrying off, for the use of the tories, a number of muskets from their place of deposit in Bennington. For these acts he had been brought to trial before the special court for the shire of Bennington for "inimical conduct," and having been found guilty, had, in ac- cordance with the demand of public opinion, been sentenced to be hung on the 4th of June, the day appointed for the meeting of the legis- lature. The governor and council assembling in the morning of that day an application was made to them for a new trial, on the ground of irregularity in the proceedings against him, and it appear- ing that he had been convicted by a jury of only six men, and the governor and council being of opinion that he ought to have been tried by a jury of twelve, granted him a reprieve until "Thursday next, at two o'clock in the afternoon," adding in their order ; "This council do not doubt in the least, but that the said Redding will have justice done him to the satisfaction of the public." The re- prieve had been granted too late to prevent the assembling of a large concourse of people to witness the execution of one whom they, as well as the court, had already condemned as a traitor and spy. When the multitude found that the execution was not to take place, they were clamorous over their disappointment, and there were some indications that another tribunal, since personified as " Judge Lynch," might take the matter in hand. Whereupon Col. Allen suddenly pressing through the crowd, mounted a stump and raising his hand, exclaiming in his loudest voice, " attention the whole," proceeded to announce the reasons which had produced the reprieve, advised the
280
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
multitude to depart peaceably to their homes and to return the day fixed for the execution in the act of the governor and council, add- ing with an oath, "you shall then see somebody hung, for if Red- ding is not hung, I will be hung myself." Upon this assurance, the uproar ceased and the crowd dispersed. Redding in accordance with Allen's prediction, was hung on the 11th of June, the day to which his execution had been postponed by the council, he having on the 9th been tried and convicted by a jury of twelve, Allen, by appointment of the governor and council, acting as attorney for the staté. 1
The government of Vermont now found itself involved in a new and very troublesome difficulty. Hitherto a good understanding had existed between the people of New Hampshire and those formerly included in her territory to the westward of Connecticut river. The government of that state had, in fact, in its official correspondence, repeatedly addressed those in authority, as officers of "the state of Vermont," had virtually acknowledged her inde- pendence, and was confidently expected to use its influence to have her independence acknowledged by congress. But this favorable prospect was soon clouded by the conduct of some people near Connecticut river in New Hampshire, who were ambitious to have a state formed, which should include such territory as would bring the seat of government to that river. At the first meeting of the assembly at Windsor, a committee from sixteen towns east of the river in New Hampshire, presented a petition representing that their towns " were not connected with any state with respect to their internal police," and praying that they might be admitted to con- stitute a part of the new state. They did not complain of serious grievances, either past or prospective. The argument used by them was, that New Hampshire had been originally granted as a province, to John Mason, and by his grant only extended sixty miles inland from the sea, that all the territory to the westward of the sixty mile line, had been annexed to it by virtue of royal commissions to the governors of the province, and that the royal authority having been overthrown, the people of the annexed territory were released from all obligations to continue in the New Hampshire government ; and were left at perfect liberty to determine what jurisdiction they would be under. But the authority of the crown to determine the extent and boundaries of his royal governments, by his orders and
1 Slade, 269. Council, June 4 and 9, 1778. Allen's Narrative of his Captivity.
281
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
commissions, had always been recognized and admitted in all the colonies, and it was obvious to all who were informed on the subject, that the territory between Mason's line and Connecticut river, was as legally a part of New Hampshire as that to the eastward of that line; and that the principles advocated by the petitioners would unsettle the boundaries of all the other colonies and states, and throw their governments into confusion and anarchy.
The legislature was at first inclined to reject the petition, but it was pressed with great earnestness; and some members from towns in Vermont, near Connecticut river, threatening to withdraw from the legislature and unite with the people east of the river and form a new state, it was at length resolved to refer the consideration of the petition to the freemen of the several towns, who should instruct their representatives in regard to it, the decision to be postponed to the next meeting of the assembly. During the recess the party in favor of the New Hampshire proposals were extremely diligent and active in securing a majority of the members, and when the legislature again assembled in June it was found that thirty-seven of the forty-nine towns represented had decided in favor of the union with the New Hampshire towns. An act was accordingly passed, authorizing the sixteen petitioning towns east of Connecticut river, to elect and send members to the assembly ; and it was resolved that other towns on that side of the river, might also be admitted into the union, on producing a vote of a majority of the inhabitants, or on their sending representatives to the assembly.
In order to obtain the consent of the legislature to this union, it had been represented that the inhabitants of the towns which applied for it were almost unanimous in its favor, and that New Hampshire as a state would not object to the connexion. Neither of these representations turned out to be correct. Meshech Weare, presi- dent of New Hampshire, in August following, addressed a letter to Gov. Chittenden complaining of the conduct of Vermont in admit- ting those towns into its jurisdiction, informing him that a large minority in them were opposed to the union with Vermont, and that they claimed the aid and protection of New Hampshire. He averred that those towns had been settled and cultivated under grants from the government of New Hampshire, that they were within the boundaries of the state prior to the present revolution, that most of them had sent delegates to the convention of the state in the year 1775; had applied to that state for assistance and protection, and had received it at a very great expense; that the statement that · " the sixteen towns were not connected with any state with respect
36
282
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
to their internal police was an idle phantom, a mere chimera without the least shadow of reason for its support." And he added " that Boston in Massachusetts and Hartford in Connecticut, might as rationally declare themselves unconnected with their respective states, as those sixteen towns their not being connected with New Hampshire." President Weare also wrote to the New Hampshire delegates in congress, informing them of what had been done, and asking them to take the advice of the members, and to endeavor to obtain the aid of that body in the matter. The governor and council of Vermont, being aware that an application would be made to congress, sent Col. Ethan Allen in the month of September to Philadelphia, to ascertain in what light their proceedings were viewed by that body.
Col. Allen made a written report on the subject of his mission to the newly elected legislature which assembled at Windsor in Octo- ber, the substance of which was, that papers had been read in congress from both New Hampshire and New York, against Ver- mont, and that in his opinion, New York alone would never be able to muster sufficient force in congress to prevent the establishment of the new state; but that the union with the New Hampshire towns was viewed with general disapprobation, and that unless the state receded immediately from such union, the whole power of the con- federacy of the United States would be exerted to annihilate the state of Vermont and vindicate the right of New Hampshire. Only ten of the sixteen New Hampshire towns were represented in the assembly. These however insisted that in order to have the benefit of the laws and the protection of the state it was necessary that they should either be erected into a new county or annexed to the conti- guous county to the westward of them ; and this was certainly but reasonable, if they were to remain under the jurisdiction of the state. After long and earnest debate a vote was taken in the assem- bly, by which it was determined that no change should be made in the old counties, and that no new county should be formed. This was virtually a declaration against the continuance of the union, and was so received by the minority who made a written protest against the proceeding ; and the representatives from the New Hampshire towns, together with fifteen members from some of the towns along the west side of the river, withdrew from the assembly. This left that body with barely a quorum, but the session was continued until the necessary public business was completed.
The members who had withdrawn from the assembly met together and gave a formal invitation to the towns on both sides of the river
283
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
to meet and unite in a convention at Cornish in New Hampshire on the 9th of December 1778. The proceedings of this convention, in which only eight towns on the Vermont side of the river were repre- sented, indicated very clearly that the main object of those concerned in it, was to form a state whose capital should be on Connecticut river; for they not only manifested a willingness to unite with Ver- mont as had been before attempted, but voted that they would " consent that the whole of the Grants" (Vermont) should connect with New Hampshire and become with them one entire state," either of which would be likely to effect the desired object. They appoint- ed a committee to confer with the New Hampshire legislature on the subject.
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.