USA > Vermont > Windham County > Londonderry > The history with genealogical sketches of Londonderry > Part 2
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
The earliest document found relating or referring to that particular tract now comprised in Londonderry, Vermont, is a petition now remaining in the office of the Secretary of State at Albany, N. Y.
This bears date October 12, 1765 and is signed by Jas. Rogers alone, though he sets forth, in the body of the petition, that he acts for himself and associates, and there is appended to the petition a list of the names of such associates.
Rogers based his petition upon the claim (as alleged therein) that by a previous grant they had,- or supposed they had,- some title to a tract of 26000 acres of land "lying on the east side of the water running from South Bay to Ticonderoga," which had, in the preceding spring, been granted by New York authority to other persons. This previous grant and also the grant of Kent, later made, are fully set forth upon the original parchments still preserved by descendants of Colonel Rogers.
Just what, if anything, was done on the ground by way of surveys or ex- ploration between the filing of this petition and June 29, 1766 does not definitely appear. Under the date last named, a draft of Grant or Charter was made setting boundaries to the township, then christened Kent. This grant was never formally executed or signed, but is still in existence and pre- served in a private library in New York City.
16
The History of Londonderry
It seems probable that this preliminary draft was submitted to Colonel Rogers, or was examined by him, for he filed another petition, signed by him as before, and bearing date the following day (June 30, 1766), in which he set forth that the boundary line on the east did not so run as to include all the land to Thomlinson west line and prayed for correction of such bound- ary. The discovery of this error in the original description of the easterly line of the proposed township may have been made through an actual survey, which some of the ancient documents indicate was made, or it may have been by reference to maps of the New Hampshire grant of Thomlinson.
Reference to the original draft of the Grant of Kent (which differs in some slight respects from the formal Grant later executed) indicates that the first petition was presented to Sir Henry Moore, governor of the Colony of New York, June 2, 1776; and also that the grant of land bounding on "the water running from South Bay to Ticonderoga," mentioned in Rogers' original petition, had been made by Governor Wentworth of New Hampshire. Notwithstanding the prayer for correcting the eastern boundary, the whole matter appears to have slumbered, so far as definite action was concerned, for some three and a half years, for some reason now unknown; and the Grant, when formally made, (Feb. 13, 1770) followed the description of boundaries set forth in the original petition, which resulted in leaving a triangular gore between Kent and Thomlinson with its apex at the north- westerly corner of the latter town.
When the Grant of Kent was formally issued it contained a reference to still another petition therein stated to have been "presented on the sixteenth day of January now last past" and to a "schedule or list" of Rogers' asso- ciates in whose behalf, as well as his own, the grant was sought and which contained the names given as grantees in the charter.
It is to be noted, however, that this list contains the names of only three, beside Rogers himself, who were among his "associates" on the original petition of 1765. All this gives fouionndat for the surmise, or the belief, that both were "straw lists" and that it was planned and intended from the first that the grant should enure wholly to the benefit of Rogers personally. Such belief is strengthened by the fact that, just one week after the date of the grant (Feb. 20, 1770) all these grantees, other than Rogers, joined in a deed conveying to him their several interests and title in and to the entire territory covered by the grant, which deed was duly recorded in the office of the Colonial Secretary at Albany. Thus Colonel Rogers became the sole owner of the township, of twenty-four thousand one hundred and fifty acres, save only the "Public Lots" described in the charter, and which were reserved for four specified purposes. By the terms of the charter all these lots were definitely located so as to form one compact body containing one thousand one hundred and fifty acres, and plotting the same upon the plan of survey of the township the tract is found to fall upon the rocky summit
17
Roger's Claims; Division of Township
and rugged sides of Glebe Mountain, which, probably, owes its name to this location of the "Glebe lands," one of the four tracts reserved.
Since the charter recites the fact that a survey of the township by the grantees had been made, this location of the reserved lots gives ground for belief that they were designedly so set out for the purpose of depriving the grantees of none of the desirable lands.
In fact no use of the "Public Lots" provided by the terms of the grant, as such, was ever made; nor could they have been cleared or occupied to any advantage or useful purpose. Even as thus located, the settlers regarded the actual reservation and sequestration with scant respect, as appears by action taken at a town meeting in 1775, when it was voted to take land in "some other part of the town for the school lot." This action was not for the purpose of covering a better tract of land, but for the reason that, as laid originally, "it interferes with James Patterson," who had "pitched" his farm at the foot of the westerly slope of the mountain, extending it up some distance upon the higher ground.
While there is no record of any action by the committee then chosen to act upon the subject matter of that vote, the proceeding indicates quite clearly the voters' lack of respect for the formal reservation in the very parchment under which they, as well as Rogers then residing here, held their lands.
For only a comparatively brief time longer, however, did Colonel Rogers remain in town, as in 1777 his loyalist principles led him to leave his family here on the homestead farm and to join the forces of Gen. Burgoyne. No evidence of a full and formal confiscation of his lands can be found and, probably, no such strictly legal action was taken, though the estate was treated as having passed from him to the State as a result of his joining the British army.
In March, 1780, certain "inhabitants of Kent" presented petition to the Vermont Legislature, as appears from an old Assembly Journal, but the petition itself is not to be found in the State Papers in the office of the Secretary of State. This petition was referred to a committee that reported, through Ira Allen, chairman, March 15, 1780.
The report was accepted and, on the same day, the Assembly "Resolved that there be and hereby is granted by this Assembly unto such persons as the Governor and Council shall direct a township of land (formerly known by the name of Kent) lying and being in this state to be incorporated by the name of Londonderry, and the Governor and Council are hereby requested to make out a charter of incorporation as specified in the petition, under such conditions, reservations and restrictions as they shall judge proper for the benefit of this state." The charter "requested" in this resolution issued in due course and was signed by Governor Chittenden under date April 20, 1780.
18
The History of Londonderry
Londonderry, as thus established, comprised all of the territory of Kent, as then understood, but not all that was included in the original grant of the ancient town. It appears that in surveying or measuring out the boundaries of Kent the surveyor, one Mack began at the westerly end of the north line and measured easterly the prescribed number of chains, but that he did not reach the Thomlinson northwest corner. Running on the given course from the end of his measure of the north line to the south line of the township a strip of land across the entire easterly end of Kent, as granted, was not in- cluded in what he marked or termed Kent. This error, very likely, arose from permitting the chain to sag, or "lag," instead of being drawn taut each time. There was failure, too, to observe the rule that named and established monuments control the extent of the boundary line rather than the re- ported measuring of it.
The above explanation sufficed to give designation to the unmeasured strip, which was termed "Mack's Lag," later corrupted to "Mack's Leg," by which name it was and is locally known.
When Kent was granted (1770), Governor Wentworth had already granted townships on the north, east and west of the tract sought through petitions of Colonel Rogers and his associates, while New York authorities had granted to other parties lands now embraced in the northerly part of Jamaica, and it was intended to have the grant of Kent cover all the terri- tory lying between Thomlinson (Grafton) on the east and Winhall and Bromley (Peru) on the west and extending southerly from Andover, (which then included most of what is now Weston), about six miles to lands earlier granted to parties who never made any settlement upon them under the New York grants.
Some months later than the grant of Kent, New York authorities made grant of a long, narrow strip, called Virgin Hall, which abutted upon the west line of Kent and extended, between that town and Winhall and Bromley and so far north as to include a portion of the territory now the town of Weston. Later this strip, or gore-was carved up by Vermontauthor- ity; a part, with addition from Bromley, being erected into the town of Landgrove, leaving about 930 acres at its southerly end and a tract north of Landgrove which was still later attached to Weston.
In October, 1781, Captain Edward Aiken, Moses Grimes, Hugh Mont- gomery, Robert Montgomery and Samuel Eyres, by petition addressed to Governor Chittenden and the General Assembly, prayed that the parcel of about 930 acres mentioned be granted to them. February 25, 1782, a grant of this parcel was made but, from the phraseology of the grant, it could hardly have been based upon that petition since it refers to a petition of . Captain Aiken "and his associates, six in number," and grants the land to Aiken and five others, none of whom save Captain Aiken were parties to the petition of Oct. 1781. This tract was, by terms of the grant, annexed to
19
Roger's Claims; Division of Township
Londonderry and made part of that town. Kent never reached to the boundaries of either Winhall or Bromley. As thus constituted and bounded, the town existed until 1795, though there were evidences of growing con- tention regarding its division.
The bulk of Glebe Mountain, with its ridges falling away to north and south, formed a somewhat formidable barrier between the residents in the easterly and westerly parts of the town rendering communication between them, especially gatherings for town meetings or for church attendance, a matter of difficulty. In fact this condition long delayed the erection of a building for public worship.
At a town meeting, March 10, 1794 (with no article in the warning on such subject), it was voted "that there be a Committee chosen to find a dividing line formed to divide the town into two towns" and a committee of three was chosen. What, if anything, this committee may have done in the matter intrusted to them no record discloses, but the agitation for a division, in October of the following year, caused a petition from fifty-five "inhabitants of the easterly part of Londonderry" to be presented to the General Assembly asking that the town be divided by a line parallel with its east and west lines and equi-distant therefrom.
The prayer of this petition was granted and the division made on the line so mentioned; the easterly portion, together with "Mack's Leg," being made the town of Windham.
The division line, toward its north end, passed along so far down the west slope of the mountain ridge that it proved an unsatisfactory location, as it left the new town of Windham saddled upon the mountain, with residents on the westerly side who were inconvenienced as much as before were any in matter of town gatherings. Later there was added to the new town "Anderson's Gore," as termed, being the triangular tract between ancient Kent and Thomlinson.
In making the division of Londonderry and the establishment of two towns where but one previously existed, despite the provision of the con- stitution that "each inhabited town in this State may, forever hereafter, hold elections therein and choose each one Representative to represent them in the House of Representatives," the legislature provided that these two towns should have but one representative so chosen. In the year fol- lowing the division certain inhabitants of Windham living in the north- westerly part of that town presented their petition asking that they be "annexed to the Township of Londonderry & that the dividing line between the said Townships of Londonderry & Windham may be established agree- ably to the divisional line between the two military Companies formerly belonging to the said Township of Londonderry." This petition was signed by six individuals and there was indorsed upon it, over signatures of seventeen inhabitants of the two towns, a request that the same be granted.
20
The History of Londonderry
This was dated Sept. 24, 1796 and filed Oct. 14. The Assembly Journal, or the filing on the original paper, shows that it was "Read & with remons- trance thereto & referred to a committee which reported that, having ex- amined both, the facts set up in the petition were true and the petition should be should be granted," but both petition and remonstrance were referred to the next legislature.
Hearings were had prior to May 31, 1797 and on that date a report was signed by Samuel Fletcher, for Committee, recommending that the petition be not granted. This came before the General Assembly Oct. 17, 1797, was "read and not agreed to," and it was then ordered that "the prayer of the original petition be granted." Apparently there were then before the Assembly two remonstrances as two such documents, bearing date respec- tively Oct. 6 and Oct. 7, one from Windham and one from Londonderry, each signed by a goodly number of inhabitants of the respective towns.
These two papers, as well as the original petition with committee's report thereon, are found in the State Papers in the office of the Secretary of State and careful reading of all indicates that those who signed the remonstrances must have misunderstood the purpose of the original petition and acted under the belief that it was purposed to undo the work of the former session so as to leave Londonderry undivided and Windham without existence. It seems strange, however, that any one could read such meaning in the language of the petition.
An Act was passed fixing the boundary line between the two towns and the same, under direction of the selectmen of the respective towns, was "run out" and definitely established in 1804 and is still recognized, begin- ning at the north line of Windham (Andover south line) where "Middle Branch," so-called, crosses the same and following up the course of that stream "to the foot of Glebe Mountain," thence in a straight course to the top of the mountain, and then following the "height of said mountain to the ancient south line of Londonderry."
Not until 1804 was the restriction relative to representation in the legis- lature removed and then, for the first time, Londonderry, as now known, stood endowed with full rights and powers of a Vermont town.
Thus, after all these changes and the lapse of years, was Londonderry made a distinct territorial and political entity, as known to the present generation.
Few, if any, of her sister towns have had more of vicissitude and trouble- some experience embraced in their early history or so much of diversity in the sources of individual titles to different parts of the territory within their boundaries.
First Coming of White Men; Slow Development of Settlement
THE earliest recorded visit of white men to this immediate territory appears to have been in May, 1748, when Captain Melvin with a party of scouts, having crossed the mountain range, presumably at "Peru Notch," on their return to Fort Dummer followed down West River (Wantastiquet) upon the bank of which, May 31, they were surprised by a party of Indians that had followed them. In the fight which then took place six of the whites were slain and one other mortally wounded.
The point where this occurred was located by Hall, in his HISTORY OF EASTERN VERMONT, in Londonderry, but discoveries later made, notably the finding of a small pocket compass, in the possession of Hon. Hoyt H. Wheeler at the time of his decease and believed to be the one carried by Captain Melvin and lost by him on this expedition, seem to definitely fix the place farther down the river, on the small meadow just above the rail- road station at Jamaica. From the Journal or record of Captain Melvin, still preserved, it is apparent that the route of this party was down "Flood Brook" to West River about a mile above the village of South Londonderry, and thence down the river to Fort Dummer.
It is hardly probable that anything was done in way of permanent or actual settlement of the township prior to the date of the grant to Colonel Rogers and associates in 1770, though tradition says that Rogers, with a party of young men from Londonderry, N. H. explored the region in 1769 and that they, or some of them, then began work of hewing out homes here in the wilderness; one McMurphy erecting the first log cabin on the hill between the two present villages, on what was long known as "the Brooks Farm," later owned by John F. Johnson, and Robert Montgomery begin- ning his clearing on land now a part of "the Collins Farm" at the "Middle- of-the-town." In this party, it is said, were James, John and Robert Miller, James McCormick, Hugh Montgomery, James Patterson, John Woodburn, and some others. Very likely the traditionary date of this occurrence is too early by a year, at least, and that, whenever it did happen, the party re- turned to their homes in New Hampshire of the following winter.
Prior to this time a wilderness of forest covered the area and if civilized man had trodden its soil it had been as a wayfarer or temporary visitor. No evidence of any occupation of this territory by the uncivilized savages exist or have ever been discovered indicating that they ever made any point
22
The History of Londonderry
within its boundaries a home or camp for any length of time. There can be little or no doubt, however, that they hunted and perhaps fought within our borders as, on rare occasions, arrow heads or spear heads have been found in the soil.
Whether the date of the exploration by Colonel Rogers and this party be 1769 or later, the fact remains that these men were among the first comers and the real founders of the town.
It is also said by tradition long current among our oldest townsmen that no family or party braved the Green Mountain winter within these borders until the winter of 1772. The reliability of this tradition is considerably shaken, or rather is destroyed, by an existing record of census taken by New York authority in 1771, as follows:
A list and account of ye Inh. of ye townsh. of Andover, Kent and Bromley in ye Co. of Cumb .-
Males under 16 4 above 16 und. 60 9
60 and upwards I Females und. 16 8 above 6
28
Names of the heads of Families in the Townships of Andover, Kent and Bromley are Amos Babcock, Shubael Geer, Wm. Utley, Thomas Hill, Stephen Caswell. No. of heads of Families 5.
I certify that the above account contains the true number of Inhab- itants in Andover, Kent & Bromley Distinguished by their age and sex and that the above is a true list of the head of each Family according to my best knowledge and I apprehend that I know all the inhabitants of those places.
March 28, 1771.
SHUBAEL GEER.
Of the five men named in this report it is practically certain that Wm. Utley resided in that part of Bromley which was later attached to Land- grove. Hon. Hoyt H. Wheeler, in his lifetime one of the best versed men in matters of our local history, upon his careful investigation of the subject, placed the residence of Babcock and Geer in Andover and that of Hill and Caswell in Kent. It is established that Babcock and Geer were in fact in Andover and, the report plainly indicating that a part of the inhabitants reported were of Kent, it may well be held that Judge Wheeler's conclusion was correct. No records or memoranda give us further information concern- ing either Hill or Caswell.
23
Development of Settlement
It is plain that they were within the borders of Kent in the winter of 1770-1771, but whence they came, where they lived while here and whither they went are alike unknown. Undoubtedly they were strangers to Col. Rogers and his title and, on his coming with his party to settle, removed from town; otherwise it would hardly be probable that neither of their names would appear in our records of the times, scanty though they be, or in any of the local traditions. Their coming, though first in point of time, was entirely barren of results as affecting the establishment and develop- ment of the town.
In the spring of 1772 Rogers' party returned, reinforced by other sturdy pioneers, among whom was Deacon Edward Aiken who afterwards became one of the prominent men among the fathers of the town and in the sur- rounding territory. Some accounts of the early settlement fix the date of opening this forest as late as 1774 but this date, certainly too late by at least two years, is doubtless, given from the fact that in that year the first title deeds were executed to any of the settlers who had located their farms. Even at that time not all of the men who had taken up, or "pitched" their lots and entered upon them received any deed or evidence of title from Rogers, the then owner, though some already settled received deeds in suc- ceeding years from him.
The township was not settled and cultivated in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in the charter nor, as the whole situation seems to have been, was it probably ever expected it would be.
From year to year, however, the number of settlers increased by acces- sions from Londonderry, N. H. and vicinity, together with a few from other localities, but the growth in population was slow.
Kent was probably surveyed and plotted, in part at least, as early as 1774, though no map or plot of that date is known to be in existence. One Samuel Gall, surveyor, ran the north line of the town, at least, in that year and deeds executed soon after, and among the earliest found in our records, refer to lots and ranges and to definite corners of such lots.
Andover was granted some years earlier than Kent (1761) and before Rogers' coming to Kent some of Andover's grantees had made settlement in that town, two families having been there established at the taking of the census in March 1771. It is highly probable that the boundaries of Andover and its division into lots had all been surveyed and plotted before the settlement of Kent. If so, this running of Kent's north line must have been in Rogers' interest and, doubtless, a part of the then general survey and division of the town's area.
The plans or maps of lots both in Londonderry and Windham now pre- served were made in 1805, after the definite location of the divisional line. An examination of the plans or maps then made clearly indicates that the lot lines and ranges were determined by reference to some former survey
24
The History of Londonderry
which existed before the division of the ancient town, as several lots are so marked as to show them running across, or resting astride, the dividing line between the two towns.
If this supposition be correct it affords a method of determining somewhat definitely what farms were "pitched" prior to 1774, for it will be observed that in the earliest settled portion of the town the farm lines overlap and cut across the lot and range lines at all sorts of angles. Most of the farms that show this peculiar feature we know were located prior to 1774 and it is believed that this is true of all of them.
The hardships, privations and trials of those who first entered upon the work of here establishing homes and organizing a town, when measured by what we now deem the comforts and even necessities of life, were many and severe.
While their experiences, in all probability, were no more trying and their hardships no greater than those of the pioneers in all the New England towns, yet, in the very nature of things, they appeal more strongly to those particularly interested in this local history. Their toil, sacrifice and hard- ships became, in a sense, a part of the township, its material being as well as its social, educational and religious life. Unbridged streams and a pathless wood greeted them, while an unbroken forest awaited the stroke of their axes. Weary journeys on foot or horseback, usually the former, brought them to the scene of their labor. Neither road nor bridle-path led to the sites of the homes they were to build and their coming was through stretches of virgin forest long before they reached the borders of Kent. None brought his wife or child until a later date, for there was then no place to afford them shelter. Each selected the location most satisfactory to him in its promise of fertility and fitness for home-building; staked out or "pitched" his farm, and, later, secured title thereto from Colonel Rogers, the sole proprietor. No deeds were given, as tradition states, until after the settlers had established their homes and brought their families here.
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.