USA > Vermont > Windham County > Londonderry > The history with genealogical sketches of Londonderry > Part 3
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
These "pitched" farms were, many of them, of irregular shape as the pur- pose seemed to be to include as much as possible of the best lands and ex- clude the waste places and undesirable acres, regardless of the symmetry of their several plots and of the many ill shaped gores of greater or less area lying between the farms. Most of these were in the northerly or north- easterly part of the town and, upon the division in 1795, a few of them were found to be astride the divisional line, partly in Londonderry and partly in Windham.
In 1805 each town was plotted by James Mack, surveyor, and the original maps or charts by him made are still preserved. In the westerly and south- erly parts of the original township the territory is laid out and plotted with regularity in ranges and lots. while the farms in the earlier settled portions are outlined by very irregular lines not at all conforming to the lot and
25
Development of Settlement
range lines. This method of selecting their lands resulted in scattering the homes over a wider area than in the earlier settlement of many New Eng- land towns of even greater population according to their size. No necessity existed with them for close connection of dwellings as defense against the Indians and the bounds of neighborhood had then farther reach than in these later days.
An obstinate wilderness, privations and the beasts of the forest were the obstacles and trials that beset them and each was well qualified and pre- pared to meet these.
Most of their supplies of necessaries, save what they raised or made for themselves, were procured at "No. 4", (Charlestown, N. H.) and trans- ported along the blazed paths, at times on horseback and often in packs upon their own shoulders. The comforts of life were few with them and luxuries unknown.
Each home had its humming wheel and rattling loom from the product of which the deft fingers of wives and daughters fashioned the homespun gar- ments for the family. Of money they had little and the surplus products of their farms were but scanty.
The ashes from the felled forest trees afforded them "black salts of lye" and pearl ash which, being "packed" to the larger settlements at a distance, were bartered for necessaries which they could not produce at home. The tools with which their work was done were, for the most part, rude and clumsy and of household goods they had but scanty store.
For a time such corn and other grain as the farms produced for susten- ance of the people must have been transported to a distance to be ground, or prepared by hand process, for there was no gristmill in the town prior to 1774. The very necessities of life came but slowly and with difficulty to the struggling settlers.
The ready rifles protected the sheep fold and pig pen from prowling beasts and avenged the frequent marauding raids of bruin upon their patches of growing corn, at the same time affording occasional and welcome additions to the larder. Tradition has preserved the story of two incidents of this character in the early days of the town.
Deacon Edward Aiken, having observed that his corn field had been in- vaded by bears, sought out the place of the trespasser's entrance; placed his heavily loaded gun in position to command the path, and arranged a connection of sticks and strings with the trigger to the end that the ap- proaching animal should bring punishment upon himself. The report of the gun during the night led to an investigation in the light of the early morning when the body of a dead bear between the corn rows proved the precision of the Deacon's plans.
At another time, Mrs. Aiken, going out to the field where her husband was felling trees, observed their dog excited and intent upon some object in
26
The History of Londonderry
a tree not far from the path. Closer investigation disclosed a well grown bear which had taken refuge in the tree. Her call led the Deacon to the scene and a well directed shot from his gun brought down the bear.
Not every encounter with the bears, however, was so lacking in the ele- ment of danger, as was shown by the adventure of David Hazen some years later (about 1820).
Hazen's home was then on the westerly side of the present highway lead- ing past the Wright place, so-called, and in the small north pasture of the old Babbitt farm. He, with his son "Davie," then a young lad, were at work on the mountain side easterly from their home and near the old road that then passed along the side of the mountain some distance east of the present highway, gradually descending from the south. They had with them an axe and a gun, but no ammunition save the single charge in the gun. Seeing the bear in the clearing the father fired upon and wounded him. The bear being injured, though not disabled, they sought to drive him down the mountain into Daniel Harrington's clearing where they could secure assistance and ammunition for despatching him, the father carrying the gun and "Davie" the axe. Coming to a large rock the bear passed the lower side of it and the elder Hazen went around the upper side to prevent his going up the moun- tain. They met more closely than Hazen expected and the bear, rising on its haunches, seized him, whereupon he thrust both hands into the beast's open mouth and man and bear fell struggling to the ground. Responding to his father's urgent call, "Davie, be quick, be quick," the lad sunk the axe into the bear's back, and the older Hazen, being released, seized the axe in his mangled hands and dealt further blows upon the head of his now disabled enemy. Having made sure that bruin was dead, Hazen, unaided, walked to his home where his hands were dressed, while some neighbors brought the body of the bear to Daniel Harrington's house where it was dressed and hung up. It proved to be one of the largest bears ever killed in this vicinity. Hazen was so crippled in this affray that he was never able to use his hands for work thereafter, though he lived for many years, dying in Pennsylvania when upwards of ninety years of age.
About this time the incident, in somewhat modified form, was preserved in a bit of doggerel verse passed by oral repetition from one to another, after the style of Indian legends and traditions, and a very old lady who once lived in the neighborhood furnished a version of it to the local paper, in which it was published in 1891. This consisted of sixteen alleged "verses" or stanzas whose rhyme and metre were as sadly crippled as were Hazen's hands.
Gradually the conditions improved; the homes increased in number, bridle paths and roads came into being, the grist-mill, saw-mill and black- smith shop made their appearance while the carding mill and fulling mill were built, lightening somewhat the housewife's work, and the forest slowly
27
Development of Settlement
gave way to cultivated fields. The post road and the tavern were estab- lished and, little by little those conveniences which we enjoy came to exist here.
In those early days no physician dwelt within many miles and in case of sickness they had to resort to the packages of leaves, barks, roots and herbs stored by the thoughtful housewife against such time of need.
There was no blacksmith shop in town until Samuel Arnold erected a rude forge near his home on "Arnold Hill," some twenty years after the first settlement in town. The building of highways came later and progressed but slowly. Blazed trails gave way to bridle paths from house to house and these were in turn converted into roads which would hardly be held worthy the name today, and were in great part destined to be abandoned as the town became settled and more convenient routes and grades were opened up. No records enable us to determine the definite location of many, or even most, of these roads of the earlier days, the majority of which are wholly obliter- ated. For the most part they were upon the higher, hilly courses rather than in the valleys and on lower ground where the main thoroughfares lie today. Many of the homes to which these earliest roads led were long since aban- doned and the ghostly white birches and gloomy, thick-growing spruces have taken possession of the once cultivated fields, again asserting the forest's original dominion. For many years not even a bridle path existed in the southern part of the township.
In 1781 there were three roads in town and there is no clear and definite evidence that there were more. We cannot locate the course of any of the three with certainty but in October of that year there was a road laid by the selectmen and a transcript of the survey of the same was recorded in the town clerk's office under date Dec. 27, 1782. This is the earliest record to be found in the town archives relative to location of a highway.
From the transcript of survey we learn that this road began at a "bridge over a stream called the South Branch of Williams River, two rods south of the north-east corner of the town," and that passing over its course a few rods less than two miles we would reach "the crotch of the roads," which must have been at some point in the present town of Windham, near the height of land as we now pass over the road from North Windham toward "Popple Dungeon." Continuing in the course of survey two hundred and six rods we reach "Middle Branch," which is the stream flowing toward Ches- ter from North Windham and is the present dividing line between London- derry and Windham. Here, according to the transcript, begins "the road leading through the notch of the mountain to Mr. James Pattersons" and continues, by sundry courses, one hundred twenty-four rods "to the road leading from Thomlinson (Grafton) by James McCormick's to Winhall."
In 1783, the next highway of which a record is found in the town clerk's office was laid from the point where this road of Oct. 1781 crossed Middle
28
The History of Londonderry
Branch and extended to the west line of the town, according to the survey, a distance of six miles and seventy rods. These two roads were evidently in- tended to be, and were in fact, the then main thoroughfares for, in 1787, when the transcript of survey of two other roads was recorded the starting point of each was on this main road which was referred to as "the Leading Road, from the north-east corner of the town to the west end thereof." These two later surveyed roads began at different points on this "Leading Road" and each extended to the north line of the town.
One of them began at "a hemlock tree on the side of the road," led to William Cox's house, then, by four courses, a few rods over a mile to "the place that the bridge stood on West River in Rogers' improvements," thence by eight courses, 299 rods, "to Ebenezer Patterson's barn," and one hundred rods farther "to the north line of the town."
When we consider that the hemlock tree, Cox's house, Rogers' bridge and Patterson's barn all disappeared long years ago leaving nothing to now in- dicate their location, or even the fact that they ever existed, the impossi- bility of following the course of the road is apparent. This bridge referred to doubtless crossed West River at some place within the tract pitched by Colonel Rogers for his homestead and on the meadows lying below the Weston south line, on the Wyman farm or the Deacon Dodge place, and was, without doubt, the first bridge built across that stream within the town's limits, for Colonel Rogers ceased his making of improvements here as early as 1777, when he left Kent and joined the King's forces with which he served until the close of the Revolutionary War.
For the first time, Kent seems to have taken active part with the "Grants" in proceedings looking to a separation from New York and a repudiation of the claims of that Province, and establishing an independent State, at the adjourned session of the General Convention at Dorset, Sept. 25, 1776, when the town sent Edward Aiken and Colonel James Rogers as delegates. Previous to this only one town from the east side had been repre- sented in any General Convention.
The town of Townshend was represented by Captain Samuel Fletcher and Joshua Fish at the Convention which assembled at Dorset on the 24th of July, 1776, and adjourned to the 25th of September following. At this Con- vention, on the 25th of July, 1776, a committee was chosen "to treat with the Inhabitants of the New Hampshire Grants on the East side of the range of Green Mountains relative to their associating with this Body."
Captain Heman Allen, Colonel William Marsh and Doctor Jonas Fay, in conjunction with Captain Samuel Fletcher and Joshua Fish constituted this committee and Doctor Fay, Colonel Thomas Chittenden and Lieutenant Ira Allen were directed to prepare instructions for them. As a result of the labors of the committee, at the adjourned meeting in September there were eleven towns, including Kent, from the east of the mountains represented.
29
Development of Settlement
In this meeting Colonel Rogers was a member of the committee appointed or chosen "to form a plan for future proceedings and report to this conven- tion as soon as may be."
The report of this committee was, on the 26th of September, accepted by vote of the convention, and was clearly in favor of proceedings to establish a separate State. There is no record that indicates any dissent on the part of Rogers to this action, but it is the last time, as well as the first, that he ap- pears to have been identified with any of the movements in favor of separa- tion and his subsequent conduct leads to the conclusion that he was not in sympathy with such action.
This convention adjourned, on the 28th of September, to the 30th of the following month at the Court House in Westminister, after voting that no person be allowed to act in choosing Committees of Safety "but those that sign the Association from this Convention and acknowledge the authority of the Committees of Safety," and providing for notifying the several towns. Colonel Rogers' absence from all the later deliberations indicates that he, probably, declined to sign such "Association" and to recognize the author- ity of the "Committee of Safety," though Edward Aiken, the other delegate from Kent, evidently did so for he was appointed to notify Kent and Chester of the action taken and was present as a member from Kent at Westminster October 30. The following day the Convention adjourned to the third day of January, 1777, at the same place, but at that meeting Kent was not represented and therefore did not participate in the declaration of the independence of the New Hampshire Grants under the name of New Connecticut. The Convention again adjourned, this time to the first Wednesday of the following June, at Windsor, at which session the name of the new state was changed from New Connecticut to Vermont. That Kent had a voice in this is quite certain, as the name of Edward Aiken ap- pears in the list of members present.
Two lists of the members exist, each giving the same number (72). One is the record of the Convention and the other a list published in the Con- necticut Courant, June 30, 1777, in connection with the proceedings of the Convention. The former, which would seem the better authority, names Lieutenant Leonard Spaulding of Dummerston, Edward Aiken of Kent and Andrew Spear of Reading, none of whom appear in the latter, which con- tains in their place, to make out the full number, Amaziah Woodworth, Joshua Webb and Captain William Curtis.
Some of the residents of the town may have been inclined, like Colonel Rogers and in sympathy with him, to recognize New York authority though there is no evidence that any of them shared his Tory views and principles.
At a meeting of the "County Committee" at Westminister in June, 1777, Kent was represented by James McCormick whose credentials were as follows:
30
The History of Londonderry
KENT, June 2, 1777
These are to Sertify that the Bearer, James McCormick, was Legally Chosen by the inhabitants of Sd town to Represent them at West- minster the 3 of this Instant at a Preposed Meeting of the County Committee by Vartue of New York authority.
EDWARD AIKEN, Town Clerk.
This meeting was adjourned from time to time during the remaining part of that year, but at none of the meetings after the first does it appear that McCormick was in attendance. There remains no record of the meeting or meetings at which delegates were chosen to represent Kent in any of these Conventions, or of any action of the town in relation to the matter.
The fact that very few towns were represented at these adjourned meet- ings, though all were notified and urged to attend, shows the growing sentiment in favor of a complete separation from New York.
Not far from this time, probably on the occasion of Burgoyne's advance, in the summer of 1777, Colonel Rogers joined the King's troops, though his family remained in Kent. Soon after his flight, his property, consisting chiefly of lands in the town then unsold, was taken in charge by the Com- mittee of Safety in behalf of the State.
On the 3d of October, 1777, Captain John Simonds was put in charge of the same, under authority of the Committee, by the terms of an order as follows:
STATE OF VERMONT
To Captain JOHN SIMONDS :
In Council of Safety 3d Oct. 1777.
SIR - You are hereby authorized and impowered to Let or Lease all of the Estate of Colonel James Rogers late of Kent, (now with the King's Troops) both real and personal and all Real Estate (except so much as humanity requires for the Comfortable Support of the family left Behind) you will Sell at public Vendue and Return the Money Raised on such Sail (after the Cost is paid) to the Treasurer of this State. The improved Land you will Let or Lease to some proper person or persons as you shall judge will best serve the purpose of supporting the Family & the Benefit of this State, not exceeding the Term of Two years.
You will return to this Council an account of all the Estate boath real & personal that you shall seize. You will Take the Advice of the Committee of the town of KENT with regard to what part will be suf- ficient to support the family. You are to obey the orders of this Council from time to time, relative to said Estate and settle your accts. with them or their Successors, or some person or persons appointed for that purpose & you are to do it on oath.
BY ORDER OF THE COUNCIL
THOMAS CHITTENDEN, Prest.
Attest Joseph Fay, Sec'y.
3I
Development of Settlement
Just what was done, if anything, by Captain Simonds by virtue of this authority is uncertain as records of deeds or leases from him are sought in vain.
In October, 1779, he was called upon by the Council to make settlement with the Treasurer of the State, but we have no knowledge as to whether he made a settlement,- nor what the settlement, if made, disclosed he had done.
At some time subsequent to the flight of Colonel Rogers it seems Thomas Chandler (Jr.) made, or pretended to make, some conveyance of lands in Kent, but in October, 1779, the Council were inquired of as to what author- ity he had for so doing and, upon receipt of their reply, the House resolved that those lands were not legally sold.
Evidently this pretended sale or lease was made in the interest of Colonel Rogers. One conveyance or lease so made by Chandler was to Daniel Marsh, and the House joined with the Council, Oct. 22, 1779, in so far rec- ognizing this bargain as to permit Marsh to receive the products of the land for that year, the same to be expended on the premises.
At the same session, pursuant to a resolution of the General Assembly providing for the support of Mrs. Rogers and family, the Council voted that she be put in possession of certain property and estate mentioned in the resolution, which included the farm whereon she then lived, with farm- ing tools and household utensils.
This action in behalf of Mrs. Rogers and family resulted from the report of a committee which had been appointed "to Enquire of Mr. Megreegers," ("Messrs McGregores" in the Assembly Journal) "concerning the estate of Colonel James Rogers."
At this time Mrs. Rogers had become disabled, from losing the use of her limbs, and doubtless the persons inquired of by the committee were her relatives who were acting in her interests, as she was a daughter of Rev- erend David McGregor of Londonderry, N. H. and none of that name were then resident in the vicinity of her home in Kent.
While the Committee of Safety and the State thus assumed full control and management of the estate, even asserting the right of so disposing of it as they might will and retaining all avails arising from its lease or sale, it nowhere appears that there was any confiscation of the property of Colonel Rogers in the full and true sense.
Though his course and conduct were readily susceptible of proof and were such as to warrant the forfeiture of his lands, there was no proceeding in any court, nor formal hearing anywhere, for the determination of facts upon which confiscation might be based.
The Committee and the State seem to have reached out the strong hand and seized what they would without strict or due regard to legal rules.
32
The History of Londonderry
Indeed, it appeared later that this lack of strict legal procedure was the cause of Colonel Rogers' failure to secure from the Crown, after the close of the Revolutionary War, any reimbursement or compensatory grant for the lands he had been deprived of through Vermont's action; which fact was recognized and acted upon by the State Legislature when, later, upon petition of the son and executor of Colonel Rogers, it directed the return of the then unsold lands.
In February, 1779, some of the inhabitants of the town presented their petition to the General Assembly for the confirmation of "bargains" in lands that had been made by Colonel Rogers. It appears that these "bar- gains" were recognized by the Assembly though they voted that "no deeds be executed until the proper lines of the town be ascertained."
The title to much of the land in town, especially the improved land, was thus in a condition of confusion and uncertainty and, in March, 1780, a resolution of the General Assembly gave directions as to disposing of the lands by a Charter of the town, and on the Ioth of June following the Council chose Colonel Samuel Fletcher, Deacon Edward Aiken and Major Joseph Tyler as a Committee to receive the Charter and to dispose of the lands. The Charter naming these three men as the grantees, however, ante- dates this action as it purports to have been made April 20, 1780. This Charter gives the name of Londonderry to the town thereby established and gives definite boundaries to the same.
These boundaries are not identical with those given in Rogers' original petition or the New York grant of Kent, the latter including considerable land which was southerly of the "Londonderry" south line and now forms a part of Jamaica.
This Committee made many conveyances of land during several succeed- ing years and their deeds, so far as the "record title" shows, are the founda- tion upon which record title to many of the farms now rest.
Lacking a formal confiscation of Rogers' estate which would stand the strict test of legality, it would seem that such record title as exists would need support of a possessory title under the statute to complement it. This Committee's control and disposal of this property was undisturbed until 1795 when James Rogers, of "Upper Canada," a son of Colonel Rogers, applied to the State Legislature for a return of the lands formerly belonging to his father which were then unsold by the Committee, on the ground that the same had not been legally confiscated and the "Commissioners of American Claims" would not allow compensation for these lands, "except such part thereof as had been legally confiscated or absolutely sold previous to the treaty of peace betwixt Great Britain and the United States of America."
The legislature thereupon passed an act authorizing and directing the Committee, (Messrs. Fletcher, Aiken and Tyler) to convey the unsold lands
33
Development of Settlement
according to the prayer of the petition, on condition that he pay one thousand dollars into the treasury of the State and execute a quit-claim deed of all the lands in Londonderry which had been sold by the Committee prior to the passing of that act.
He complied with these conditions and the Committee by their deed un- der authority of the same act conveyed to him, for himself and other heirs of his father, the lands then unsold.
In 1797 he petitioned the legislature that the Committee be authorized to account to him for the avails of lands by them sold, except such part thereof as they had paid into the State treasury. An act was passed for that purpose, conditioned that he pay the Committee for their services in attending to the sales by them made, then supposed to be not more than about four hundred dollars.
He gave his bond, with surety, in the sum of eight hundred dollars con- ditioned for the payment of four hundred dollars by Nov. 5, 1799, but upon settlement with the Committee their bill was found to be one thousand dollars, and they had paid into the State treasury from their sales some- thing over three thousand dollars. Rogers paid them the one thousand dollars for their services and upon his petition to the General Assembly in October, 1799, an act was passed directing the treasurer of the State to give up the bond to be cancelled.
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.