USA > Vermont > The history of Vermont, from its discovery to its admission into the Union in 1791. By Hiland Hall > 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 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55
The historical evidence to show the contraction of New York, throughout its whole eastern extent on New England, is much more direct and explicit than that in favor of its enlargement to the west- ward. It has already been seen that the object of the grant of King Charles to the Duke of York, in 1664, was to cover the Dutch
.
1
47
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
colony of New Netherland ; that prior to the conquest of that colony by the English, its whole eastern extent had been limited by the Dutch, to less than twenty miles from the Hudson river ; that immediately after its conquest the king's commissioners who accom- panicd the expedition, agreed with commissioners from Connecticut, upon a twenty mile line from the river, as the eastern boundary of the duke's patent ; that this agreement had the sanction and approval of Col. Nichols, the duke's governor of the new province, who wrote to his master, that it was a favorable adjustment for him to be followed with the whole of New England ; that the king's commis- sioners a few months later declared the western boundary of Massa- chusetts, which was then understood to extend north to the French territory, to be a line twenty miles from the Hudson, and bounded there by the duke's grant ; that the change in the language of the commission to the governor, when, in 1686, the province became public, instead of private property, by the duke's accession to the throne, was in effect a disclaimer of the Connecticut river as a bound- ary ; that the official documents and correspondence of the crown officers in New York, down to about the year 1750, and of those in England, to a still later period, uniformly recognize the existence of a parallel line to the Hudson, as the eastern boundary of the pro- vince on New England, and are wholly inconsistent with the suppo- sition on the part of such officers that it reached castward to any part of Connecticut river.
The claim of New York to extend eastward beyond a twenty mile line from the Hudson, rests solely on the charter to the Duke of York, and must consequently reach to Connecticut river or stop at such twenty mile line. There is no ground whatever for any claim to an intermediate boundary. Any evidence therefore which shows New Hampshire to extend west of that river is also evidence that it is bounded west by the twenty mile line.
By the survey of the boundary line between New Hampshire and Massachusetts, as established by the decision of the crown in 1740, Fort Dummer situated on the west side of Connecticut river in the present township of Brattleboro, which had been built by Massachu- setts in 1724, and afterwards garrisoned and supported by that colony, was found to be without its limits, and, as was not doubted, within those of New Hampshire.
When the French and Indian war of 1744 commenced, the governor of Massachusetts complained to the English ministry of the hardship of requiring that colony to maintain a fort which was no longer within its territory, and the matter having been duly con-
48
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
sidered, an order of the king in council was thereupon made directing that it should thereafter be garrisoned and maintained by New Hampshire ; that the governor of that province, should move the assembly to make a proper provision for that service ; and further " that he should at the same time inform the assembly in his Majesty's name that in case they should refuse to comply with such proposal, his majesty would restore the fort and a proper district contiguous thereto to Massachusetts." 1 Gov. Wentworth at the next meeting of the assembly, in compliance with the king's order, recommended that they should make provision for the future maintenance of the fort. But the assembly, by a considerable majority, declined to make such provision, alleging, among other reasons, that the fort was at a great distance from their settlements and not necessary for their protection, but only for that of Massachusetts, which province would without doubt provide for its support. Upon this, Governor Wentworth dissolved the assembly, and immediately called another, to which in the most pressing terms, he recommended the same measure. A resolution was passed to provide for a garrison of a few men, which being deemed insufficient by the governor and council of Massachusetts, the maintenance of the fort was continued by the latter province.
In consequence of the neglect of the assembly of New Hampshire to make suitable provision for maintaining the fort in compliance with the king's order, the subject was brought before the board of trade, and their committee to whom the matter was referred, reported, on the 3d of August 1749, that New Hampshire ought to reimburse Massa- chusetts for maintaining the fort, and advised that the governor of New Hampshire should be directed to recommend to the assembly of his pro- vince, a permanent provision for it. New Hampshire, however, through the skill and adroitness of their agent in England as it is said, succeeded in evading both the support of the fort and the reimburse- ment of Massachusetts for its maintenance. But the repeated action of the king in council and the board of trade through a series of years, in which Fort Dummer and the territory contiguous to it on the west side of Connecticut river were declared to be within the province of New Hampshire, is conclusive proof, that neither the king nor the officers of his government who had the management of his colonial affairs, had yet as late as 1749, conceived the idea that New York had any claim to extend eastward to Connecticut river .?
1 For a copy of the order to support Fort Dummer, see Appendix No. 3.
2 Belknap, 285-6, 303, 305, 312. Hull's Eastern Vt., 28-32, 79. Mass. Archices, vol. 72, p. 698.
49
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
The same delusion of the English government on the subject - if it were a delusion - continued until a much later period, and, indeed, seems never to have been removed, of which the proofs are numerous.
In 1752, a question in relation to the legal effect of the establish- ment of the boundary between Massachusetts and New Hampshire, upon the title to certain lands situated north of the boundary line, and west of Connecticut river, was referred by the crown to the attorney and solicitor generals, the first of those offices then being held by Sir Dudley Ryder, and the second, by Mr. Murray, after- wards Lord Mansfield. From their report, which was dated August 14th of that year, the following is extracted :
" There are also about 60,000 acres of land situated on the west side of Connecticut river, which were purchased by private persons from the government of Connecticut, to which that land had been laid out by the government of the Massachusetts bay, as an equiva- lent for two or three townships which the Massachusetts bay pur- chased from the Connecticut government. This tract of land, by the determination of the boundary line in 1738, is become a part of New Hampshire, but the proprietors of it are subject to no coudi- tions of improvement, and the land lies waste and uncultivated." 1
Although the precise position of the boundary line of New York on Massachusetts and New Hampshire had not been actually ascer- tained and settled, like that with Connecticut, yet it appears. to have been well understood, in England, that, it was a continuous parallel line to the Hudson, extending from the northwest corner of Connecticut to Lake Champlain. That such was the understanding of the British government, is decisively shown by the authoritative map of Dr. Mitchell of the British and French American provinces, published in London in 1755. (See a copy of this map fronting the title page.)
It is a well engraved map about six feet in length and nearly the same in width, and is entitled on its face as follows, viz :
" A map of the British and French dominions in North America, with the roads, distances, limits and extent of the settlements, humbly inscribed to the Right Honorable the Earl of Halifax and the other Right Honorable the lords commissioners for trade and plantations, by their lordship's most obliged and humble servant.
JNO. MITCHELL."
' Doc. His. N. Y., vol. 4, 547-8. New Hampshire Records. Stevens's Papers, 1730 - 1775, p. 14, 17. Muss. Archives, vol. 20, p. 536.
7
50
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
On the map is engraved the following certificate :
" This map was undertaken with the approbation and at the re- quest of the lords commissioners for trade and plantations, and is chiefly composed from draughts, charts, and actual surveys of different parts of his majesty's colonies and plantations in America; great part of which have been lately taken by their lordship's orders and transmitted to this office by the governors of said colonies and others.
Plantation office, February 13, 1755. JOHN POWNAL, Secretary."
On this map the boundary between New Hampshire and New York, is a distinctly dotted line, running northerly from the north- west corner of Massachusetts to lake Champlain- New Hampshire extends northerly to Canada, and easterly from said line and Lake Champlain to the Atlantic Ocean, including the territory now occu- pied by both New Hampshire and Vermont. The name of the pro- vince -New Hampshire - is engraved in capitals in three lines across the Connecticut river, the letters N of New, H A of Hamp, and S H of Shire being placed to the west of the river, and the other letters on the east side.
This map was used by the British and American commissioners, in settling the limits of the United States at the treaty of peace in 1783, and upon it was marked by them the boundary line then agreed upon, and it has always been regarded as possessing the very highest authority. Mr. Smith in his history of New York, published in 1757, speaking of it, in reference to the boundaries of the British and French American territory, calls it " the most authentic map extant." 1
Another map partaking of an official character is strongly indica- tive of the understanding of the English government in regard to the boundary in question. Under the treaty of Aix La Chapelle, of 1748, commissioners were appointed by France and England to adjust the disputed boundaries of their American possessions. A report of the English commissioners entitled, " Memorials of the English and French commissioners concerning Nova Scotia or Acadia," published in London in 1755, contains a map of the English colonies upon which the divisional line between New York and New Hampshire is designated precisly as in that of Dr. Mitchell,
1 Exec. Doc. 25 Cong., vol. 11, No. 451, p. 124, 77-8, and 112- 13. Smith's N. Y., ed. 1757, p. 136, note ; and Hist. Society Ed., vol. 1, p. 226. Mitchell's map is found in the N. Y. State Library at Albany, and in other libraries.
51
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
the province of New Hampshire embracing the whole territory now included in both that state and Vermont. .
Besides these there were numerous other maps published in England prior to the order of the king in council of July 20, 1764, severing the present territory of Vermont from New York, on which the eastern boundary of New York is marked. Not a single map has been found which extends the province castward to Connecticut river, and all concur in separating it from New England by a line running from Long island sound parallel to the Hudson. Of the maps bearing an earlier date than those of Dr. Mitchell, and of the treaty commissioners, on which the twenty mile line from the Hudson is made the castern boundary of New York, and the western boundary of New England, a few will be mentioned.
In Morden's Geography of the World, published in London in 1688, at page 606 is a map of " New England and New York," which has a dotted line for the boundary between the two, beginning on Long Island sound with " Rye" on one side of it and "Greenwich " on the other, extending north beyond Albany, but not having Lake Champlain upon it.
A large quarto " Geography of the Earth, London 1709" (the name of the author not given), contains a map of North America, on which New England is separated from New York by a line run- ning near the Hudson to Lake Champlain and along that lake to Canada.
In Oldmixon's " British Empire in America," London, 1741, is a map of " New England, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania," on which, for the eastern boundary of New York is a dotted line, about one-third of the distance from the Hudson to the Connecticut river, running from Long island sound nearly to the top of the map in latitude about forty-three degrees and a half north. In the body of the work (vol. 1, p. 238), the boundaries of New York are given thus : "On the south it is bounded by Long island and on the east by New England. Hudson river divides it from the Jerseys and a line drawn between Rye and Greenwich separates it from New Eng- land. Thus the whole province on the continent is not above twenty miles over, but is one hundred and twenty miles in length."
In the volume of the Gentlemen's Magazine for 1754, is a small map of " the British American Plantations," which only extends north to latitude forty-three degrees, on which the boundary line between New York and New England is a dotted line parallel to the Hudson, and reaching from Long island sound to the top of the map. The same magazine for each of the years, 1755, 57, 62, and
52
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
63, contains maps of the British colonies, on all of which New Hampshire is distinctly marked as extending westward to, lake, Champlain and to a line reaching northward from Long island to that lake.
From the year 1755 the English maps on which the limits of the several American colonies are designated, become very numerous, and all of them until several years after the king's order of July 1764, correspond with that of Dr. Mitchell in giving lake Champlain and the twenty mile line from the Hudson as the boundary between New York and New Hampshire.
That the officers of the king's goverment in England well under- stood that New Hampshire extended west to the line designated on Mitchell's and other maps of the period, is also shown by their uni- form language whenever they speak of the extent of the province.
Thus, in the report of the lords of trade to the king, of the 25th of May, 1757, in which they recommend the authoritative establish- ment of a twenty mile line from the Hudson as the boundary between New York and Massachusetts, they describe it as running northerly to a point twenty miles east of Hudson's river " on that line which divides the province of New Hampshire and the Massachusetts bay," indicating very clearly, that New Hampshire extended as far west as the northern termination of the proposed line. And even Mr. De Lancey, lieutenant governor of New York, writing afterwards to the board of trade, speaks of the proposed line as reaching northerly to the line of New Hampshire.
Lord Hillsborough, the English secretary for the colonies, in his official correspondence with the governors of New York, uses lan- guage of a similar character. Thus, in addressing Lieut. Gov. Col- den, under date of December 9, 1769, he says : " I think fit to send you a copy of his majesty's order in council of the 24th of July 1767, forbidding any grants to be made of the lands annexed to New York, by his majesty's determination of the boundary line, between that colony and New Hampshire," and he uses similar language in a despatch to Governor Moore under date of Feb. 25, 1768. So in a letter to Governor Tryon of December 4, 1771, he says : "I have long lamented the disorders which have prevailed on the lands heretofore considered as a part of New Hampshire but which were annexed to New York by his majesty's order in council of the 20th of July, 1764." And again, in another letter to Governor Tryon, of the 18th of April, 1772, he speaks of " that country which has been annexed to New York, by the determination of the boundary line " with New Hampshire.
53
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
So Lord Dartmouth, after he became colonial secretary, writing to Gov. Tryon, Nov. 4th, 1772, speaks of " the wisdom of the royal instructions by which you [Gov. Tryon] were forbid to make any grants within the district annexed to New York by the determina- tion of the boundary with New Hampshire." And in the repre- sentation of the board of trade to the king of the 3d of December, 1772, the first object of consideration is stated to be, " the propriety or impropriety of reannexing to New Hampshire the lands west of Connecticut river." 1
It also appears to have been understood in New York that New Hampshire, prior to the king's order of July, 1764, extended westerly to the twenty mile line, and to lake Champlain. Sir William Johnson, long a member of the New York council, and superintendent of Indian affairs, having been requested to point out a suitable place in the province for the location of a grant of land to which his friend, Commissary Gen. Leake, was entitled from the king, wrote him, under date of August 16, 1765, on the subject, saying, " for my part I know of no better at present than that part of New Hampshire lately made part of this province."2
From all which, it seems very clear that, if New York, prior to the determination of the king in council of July, 1764, extended eastward to Connecticut river, it was not only unknown to the pub- lic in England and America, but also to the government officials in both countries.
1 Smith's N. Y., vol. 2, p. 305. Col. Hist. N. Y., vol. 7, pp. 224, 334; vol. 8, pp. 12, 193, 285, 295, 318.
2 Doc. Hist. N. Y., vol. 2, p. 821.
54
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
CHAPTER VI.
THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF NEW YORK ON NEW HAMPSHIRE.
1749 - 1765.
The origin of the claim of New York to reach to Connecticut river, to the northward of the colony of Connecticut, in 1749, and its history -The king's order in 1764, making that river the boundary with New Hamp- shire - Lands chartered by Governor Wentworth, of New Hampshire - Claim of the New York government, that the grants of the governor of New Hampshire were void, and the granting of the lands anew to others.
F OR more than three quarters of a century after the conquest of New Netherland by the English, the boundary adjustment then made between the king's commissioners and those of the colony of Connecticut, had been considered and treated as applicable to the whole eastern boundary of New York, and during all that time nothing had been heard of any claim of that province to reach east- ward to Connecticut river, to the northward of that colony. It was not until some years after the determination of the crown, made in- 1740, fixing upon the present northern line of Massachusetts as its boundary with New Hampshire, that it appears to have occurred to the rulers of New York to set up a claim under the old charter to the Duke of York, to extend eastward to that river. The rise and progress of the claim will now be considered.
Under date of Nov. 17, 1749, Gov. Wentworth of New Hampshire, wrote to Gov. Clinton of New York, that he had it in command from his majesty to make grants of unimproved lands within his govern- ment to such persons as would oblige themselves to improve the same; that applications were making for some townships to be laid out in the western part of it, and that wishing to avoid as far as he could interfering with the government of Gov. Clinton, he enclosed a copy of his own commission from the king, and desired to be informed " how far north of Albany and how many miles east of Hudson's river to the northward of Massachusetts line his (Gov. Clinton's) government by his majesty's commission extended."
This letter being laid before the New York council by Gov. Clin- ton, they advised him to acquaint Gov. Wentworth " that this pro- vince is bounded eastward by Connecticut river - the letters patent from King Charles the second to the Duke of York expressly grant-
55
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
ing all the lands from the west side of Connecticut river to the east side of Delaware bay."
This advice of the New York council being communicated to Gov. Wentworth, several letters subsequently passed between the two governors, the one claiming to the Connecticut river, and the other to a twenty mile line from the Hudson, and it was finally agreed to refer the matter to the decision of the king, and mutually to exchange the representations they should make to the crown on the subject.1
The letter of Gov. Clinton to Gov. Wentworth, of April 9, 1750, communicating the foregoing advice of the New York council, was so far as can be discovered, the first announcement ever made in behalf of the government of New York, that any part of that pro- vince to the northward of Connecticut extended eastward to Con- necticut river.
It is evident from the correspondence, that the claim was entirely new to Gov. Wentworth; that when informed of it he was taken completely by surprise. The claim to extend eastward to the Connecticut river had never been made, except against the colony of Connecticut, and that not seriously persisted in ; the twenty mile line having been agreed upon and accepted in behalf of the Duke of York in 1664, within three months after the conquest of the country Is the Dutch. After having lain dormant for nearly a century it is not matter of great wonder that Gov. Wentworth had never heard of it, and should have been at a loss what to say in regard to it.
from
It is quite apparent also, that the claim was but a recent idea in New York. In July following the receipt of Gov. Wentworth's first letter, the subject of the claim of New Hampshire was referred by the governor and council to the attorney general. That office had then been held by Richard Bradley for over twenty-five years, and he ought to have known something of the claim, if it had been long in existence. And yet it was evidently new to him ; his report concluding as follows, viz :
"I am very sensible, may it please your excellency, that the above representation, relating to the eastern bounds of this government, is very imperfect, being framed only on the few papers and materials I have been able to collect, at this time ; relating to a matter, which I must confess myself much unacquainted with. But hope these few hints, may be of some use in the affair, and doubt not but his majesty's surveyor general, who I suppose is much better acquainted
1 See the correspondence at length in Doc. History of N. Y., vol. 4, p. 531-537, and in Slade's Vt. State Papers, p. 9-13.
56
EARLY HISTORY OF VERMONT.
with the bounds of this government, than I can pretend to be, will give your excellency much further light relating to them." But Mr. Colden, his majesty's surveyor general, having some twelve years previous, described the bounds of New York in great detail, without making any mention of Connecticut river, was not then ready to shed " further light " on the ancient existence of a new and more extended boundary. On the contrary when the attorney general's report was referred to him, he contented himself with stating, in substance, that the soil of the two governments, being vested in the crown, the king might fix the boundaries as he pleased ; and with offering some suggestions, showing why, in his opinion, it would be for the interest and convenience of those who should inhabit the territory, to be connected with the province of New York. Some years later, however, on a nearer view of the personal advantages that might accrue to himself, by establishing the fact of the early extension of the province to Connecticut river, he made up his mind to advocate it, with great zeal.
Not long after the foregoing report of Attorney General Bradley, the boundary question came before the New York council, on the petition of the proprietor of Livingston's manor, who complained of intrusions of Massachusetts people on his lands; and the council thereupon, adopted a labored report in which it was declared, that the Connecticut river to the northward of the colony of Connecticut had always been the eastern boundary of New York. This report in March, 1753, was transmitted to the governor of Massachusetts, and was, so far as can be ascertained, the first notice given to that province of the existence of such claim.
When the New York assembly met in June following, their atten- tion was called to the subject of the Massachusetts intrusions, and a joint committee of the two houses having reported that they were " humbly of opinion that the ancient Dutch records lodged in the secretary's office of the colony might give them some light into the eastern boundaries of the colony," an act was thereupon passed appointing commissioners to examine such records, and to prepare a representation of "all such matters and things as should come to their knowledge relating to the eastern boundaries of the colony, and of the encroachments made thereon by the neighboring colonies" 1 The representation was accordingly made in November following,
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.