USA > Vermont > Vermont state papers; being a collection of records and documents, connected with the assumption and establishment of government by the people of Vermont; together with the first constitution, and the laws from the year 1779 to 1786, etc > Part 12
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 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65
That the several branches of the Legislature of the state of New-York, will concur in the necessary measures for protecting the loyal inhabitants of this state, residing in the counties of Albany, Charlotte, Cumberland. and Gloucester, in their persons and estates, and for compelling all per- sons, residing within this state, and refusing obedience to the government and legislature thereof, to yield that obedience and allegiance, which, by law and of right, they owe to this state.
And whereas, The said Senate and Assembly of this state of New-York, have also, by their resolution, requested me to issue my Proclamation, under the privy seal of this state, reciting their aforesaid declarations and resolutions, and strictly charging and commanding all manner of persons, in the name of the people of the state of New-York, to take due notice thereof, at their peril, and govern themselves accordingly.
,I DO THEREFORE hereby, in the name of the people of the state of New-York, publisli and proclaim the aforesaid declarations and reso- lutions ; and I do hereby, strictly charge and command all manner of persons within this state, at their peril, to take due notice of this Procla- mation, and of every article, clause, matter and thing therein recited and contained, and to govern themselves accordingly.
Given under my hand, and the privy seal of the State of New-York, " te at Poughkeepsie, in the County of Dutchess, the twenty-third day . . of February, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and seventy eight.
GEO. CLINTON.
GOD SAVE THE PEOPLE.
There is a semblance of fairness in these overtures, which might have misled a people, less discerning, and less jealous of their rights, than the people of Vermont. But they had too long been accustomed to a thorough investigation of every point in the controversy, not to perceive that the overtures held out no prospect of substantial relief; and were designed
1
85
CONTROVERSY WITH NEW-YORK.
to effect, by the arts of policy, what had, in vain, been attempted by threats and force. At every step of the controversy, they had gained ad- ditional strength to the conviction that the claims of New-York were utterly groundless. Acting under this conviction, they had announced their independence, and proceeded to organize a government. Thus si- tuated, they were not in a condition to listen patiently to overtures, ac- companied with an explicit avowal of the " rightful supremacy of New- York, over their persons and property, as disaffected subjects."
In August, 1778, the following answer to the foregoing Proclamation, was published by Ethan Allen. „It was, subsequently, incorporated into his " vindication of Vermont," published, under the sanction of the Gov- ernor and Council, in 1779 ; from which we have extracted it.
" This Proclamation,"", says Allen, " after mentioning a disaffection of many persons, inhabiting the north-east parts of the county of Albany, and certain parts of the counties of Charlotte, Cumberland and Glouces- ter, proceeds to affirm that these tracts of country were clearly.included within the ancient, original, true, and lately established bounds of the state of New-York.
That many, nay, almost the whole of the inhabitants in those counties, alias, the state of Vermont, are disaffected to the government of New- York, will not be disputed. This is a fact. But it is not a fact, that the ancient, original and true bounds of New-York, included those lands. The first intimation that ever saluted the ears of the public, asserting this doctrine, was, from a Proclamation of governor Tryon's, dated the 11th day of December, 1771, which begins thus : " Whereas, it is the ancient and incontestible rights of this colony, to extend to Connecticut river, as its eastern boundary." This assertion hath been answered, at large, in my treatise on the conduct of this government, towards the New Hamp- shire settlers ; to which I refer the reader, and at present observe, that as the quoted assertions in these Proclamations, are wholly without founda- tion, they need only to be as positively denied as they are asserted. The fact is, that the tract of land, 'which now comprehends the state of Ver- mont, was, universally, known to be in the government of New-Hamp- shire. Thus it was placed by all Geographers in their maps, 'till the year 1764, when the now English King, for certain political reasons, which I shall mention, extended the jurisdiction of New-York over the premises, by his special royal authority. At the time of the alteration of this jurisdiction, jealousies had fired the minds of King and Parliament against the growth and rising power of America, and at this time, they began to advance men and governments into power, with a political de- sign to crush the liberties of America. New-York had ever been their favorite government. They could almost vie with Great-Britain in the art of vassalaging common people, and in erasing every idea of liberty from the human mind, by making and keeping them poor and servile. This, Great-Britain well khew, and therefore fleeced a large territory from New-Hampshire, and added it to New-York, to depress the power
86
CONTROVERSY WITH NEW-YORK.
of the one, and enlarge and extend the other. A well concerted plan : but the green mountain boys disconcerted it, by throwing their weight into the scale of congress, which, thank GOD, has fairly preponderated. Thus may be seen the design, as well as date, of the original, ancient and true bounds' of the state of New-York being extended over the state of Ver- mont ; and for the same reason it was thus extended by Great-Britain, it will undoubtedly be curtailed by congress.
As to the acts of outlawry, mentioned in the Proclamation, they died a natural death, the first day of January, 1776, as may be seen from the act itself, here quoted : " And be it further enacted by the authority a- foresaid, that this act shall remain and continue in full force and effect, from the passing thereof, until the first day of January, which will be in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and seventy six."
The subjects of the state of Vermont, were under no apprehensions from these old lifeless acts. Nor do I conceive, that the present legisla- ture of the state of New-York have laid them under any obligation, in granting them a pardon. It was a matter which formerly respected gov- ernor Tryon, the old Legislature of New-York, and the green mountain boys ; and the party last mentioned, choose to settle that old quarrel with Mr. Tryon ; and resent it, that the Legislature of the state of New- York have, so late in the day, undertook to give an " Unconditional dis- charge and remission of all penalties and forfeitures incurred," under an act which had been long dead ; and which, when alive, served only to discover to the world, the wickedness and depravity of that legislative body which enacted them. In the lifetime of this act, I was called by the Yorkers an outlaw, and afterwards, by the British, was called a re- bel ; and I humbly conceive, that there was as much propriety in the one name as the other ; and I verily believe, that the King's commission- ers would now be as willing to pardon me for the sin of rebellion, provided I would, afterwards, be subject to Britain, as the Legislature above mentioned, provided I would be subject to New-York ; and, I must confess, I had as leave be a subject to the one as the other ; and, it is well known, I have had great experience with them both.
Next, I propose to consider that part of the Proclamation, called over- tures, which are contained in the three first articles. Article 1st. "'That all persons, actually possessing and improving lands, by title under grants from New-Hampshire or Massachusetts Bay, and not granted under New-York, shall be confirmed in their respective possessions."
This first article cannot be considered of any material consequence, in- asmuch as, among almost the whole possessions referred to in the article, there are but very few, if any, but what are covered with New-York grants.
The second article is as follows : " That all persons possessing and improving lands, not granted by either of the three governments, shall be confirmed in their, respective possessions, together with such additional quantity of vacant land, lying contiguous to each respective possession, as may be necessary to form the same into a convenient farmi, so as the quantity of land to be confirmed to each respective possession, shall not exceed three hundred acres."
87
CONTROVERSY WITH NEW-YORK.
Neither of these two first articles, called overtures, affect the contro- yersy, except in some very few instances ; inasmuch as all, or in a man- Der, all the possessions spoken of, were first granted by New Hampshire, except some few which were granted by Massachusetts-Bay ; and then, lastly, almost the whole of those possessions were re-granted by New- York. This being the case, what has been hitherto proposed, does not · reach the essence of the controversy, as the New-Yorkers very well know ; besides, it is not in the power of the government to confirm any of those possessions, which have been already granted, and therefore become the property of the grantees, as will be more fully discussed in its proper place. "I'proceed to the third article of the much boasted overtures.
.: " That where lands have been heretofore granted by New-Hampshire and Massachusetts-Bay, or either of them, and actually possessed in consequence thereof, and being so possessed, were afterwards granted by New-York ; such possession shall be confirmed,-the posterior grant under New- York, notwithstanding."
'Though it is absolutely out of the power of the said legislative authority, to confirm the possessions mentioned ; yet, to discover their want of ge- nerosity in their proposal, I shall, in the first place, consider what a trifling proportion of those possessions could be confirmed upon their own stating, inasmuch as the confirming clause in the article, only confirms the pos- sessor, who being so possessed at the time that the New-York grant was laid ; and has no respect to any additional possession carried on after the grant took place. The identical words are, " And being so possessed, were afterwards granted by New-York ;" viz. After such possession was actually made, and the possessor being so in possession, at the time the grant took place, such possession shall be confirmed ; but any later possession cannot be included in the condition of " being so possessed ;"' for, a later possession was no possession at all, at the time the condition of possession took place ; and, consequently, every possession which has been begun in the state of Vermont, since the lands were granted by New York, must be lost to the possessor, and fall into the hands of the New- York grantees, with all other uncultivated lands in the state ; and all our purchases of those lands from New-Hampshire and Massachusetts-Bay, fall to the ground, together with our possessions, which have been in- ereased an hundred fold.
These overtures have hitherto been considered only in a grammatical and logical sense, allowing them their own construction. I now proceed to consider them in a law sense. A legislative authority, within its own jurisdiction, may confirm a possession on vacant land, by making a grant of the same to the possessor. But, for the legislative authority of the state of New-York, to pretend, as they do in their Proclamation, to vacate any grants made by their own authority, in favor of any possession, and to confirm such possessions, by nullifying and defeating their own grants, is the height of folly and stupidity : for, the lands being once granted, the property passeth to the grantee ; who is become the sole proprietor of the same ; and he is as independent of that legislative authority, which granted it, as any person may be supposed to be, who purchaseth a farm of land of me by deed of conveyance : and it is as much out of the power
88
CONTROVERSY WITH NEW-YORK.
of that Legislature to vacate a grant made by them, or the same authority, in favor of any possessor, as it is out of my power to vacate my deed of conveyance in favor of some second person. It is contrary to common sense to suppose, that the property of the subject is at the arbitrary dis- posal of the Legislature : ifit was, they might give a grant to day, and vacate it to-morrow, and so on, ad infinitum. This would destroy the very nature and existance of personal property, as the whole would de- pend on the sovereign will and last act of the Legislature. But the truth of the matter is, the first conveyance will, and ought to hold good ; and this defeats all subsequent conveyances.
From what has been said on this subject, it appears, that the overtures in the Proclamation set forth, are either romantic, or calculated to deceive woods people, who, in general, may not be supposed to understand law, or the power of a legislative authority.
1 have further to evince my arguments on this subject, by the concur- ring opinion of the Lords of the Board of Trade, on complaint made to them from those very persons, possessing the land we are speaking of. That clause of their report which is similar to what I have argued, is in these words : "Such subsequent grants made by the government of New York, however unwarrantable, cannot be set aside by any authority from his Majesty, in case the grantees shall insist on their title."
Thus it appears, in a trial (of the same case we are treating of) before the board of trade, that the King, under whose authority the government of New-York had, in an oppressive manner, granted tliose very lands, could not, by his royal authority, vacate or set aside the grants : yet, the present legislative authority of the state of New-York, proclaim to the world, and pledge the faith of government, that they will do it. But enough has been said on the impossibility of it, as well as on the ungene- rousness of the proposal : and as to the quit-rents, the general assembly of the state of Vermont will determine their expediency, and probably release them all.
What has been observed, answers every part of the proclamation worth notice, as the five last articles had an entire reference to the three first ; though it may be worth observing, that the time of compliance with those overtures are run out ; and it is my opinion, that but few of the sub- jects of the state of Vermont have closed with them. The main induce- ment I had in answering them was, to draw a full and convincing proof from the same, that the shortest, best, and most eligible, I had alınost - said, the only possible, way of vacating those New-York interfering grants, is, to maintain inviolable the supremacy of the legislative author- ity of the independent state of Vermont. This, at one stroke, overturns every New-York scheme, which may be calculated for our ruin; makes us free men, confirms our property, " and puts it fairly in our power to help ourselves" to the enjoyment of the great blessings of a free, uncor- rupted and virtuous civil government.
Bennington, August 9,1778.
89
CONTROVERSY WITH NEW-HAMPSHIRE.
Hitherto, we have viewed the people of Vermont, only in their rela- tion to the government of New-York ; and, from a feeble infancy, have seen them gradually advance to the maturity of manhood, and commence a career in the character of an independent State.
The declaration of their independence, however, furnished occasion for new difficulties.
%. The original territory of New-Hampshire, consisted of sundry grants from the Council of New-England* to John Mason, made between the years 1621 and 1635 ; and was bounded on the west, by a line sixty miles ' from the sea. The territory between the Mason grant, as it was called, and Connecticut river, was, subsequently, granted, in virtue of royal commissions to the governors of New-Hampshire.
VERMONT had no sooner organized a government, than a strong dispo- sition was manifested by many of the inhabitants, on the territory last mentioned, to dissolve their connexion with New-Hampshire, and unite with the people of Vermont. To justify the separation, it was contend- ed " that all the lands, west of the Mason line, being royal grants, had been held in subjection to the government of New-Hampshire by force of the royal commissions, which were vacated by the assumed independ- ence of the American Colonies; and, therefore, the inhabitants of those grants had'reverted to'a state of nature," and were at liberty to form a separate government, or connect themselves with such as would consent to a union.t
Accordingly, on the 12th of March, 1778, a petition from sixteen townst on the east side of Connecticut river, was presented to the Legis- lature of Vermont, praying to be admitted into its union.
The Legislature was greatly embarrassed by this application ; and, finally, referred the decision of the question to the people ; as appears by the following extract from the journals.
"Wednesday March 18th 1778.
Voted that the proposals and preliminaries exhibited to this house, by a committee, representing a number of towns on the New Hampshire grants, east of Connecticut river, relative to forming a union between said grants and this State, be laid before the people of this State, at large, for their consideration and determination."
. Several of the principal nobility of Great Britain ; to whom, by the name of the Council of New - England, had been granted " all the land in America, lying between the degree of 40 and 48, north latitude," by the name of New England -I Belknap, 301.
t Belknap's history, of N. H.
: Cornish, Orlord,
Lebanon Piermont,
Dresden,
Haverhill,
Lyman, Apthorp, Enfield,
Cardigan, Landaff,
Gunthwaite,
Lime, Bath,
Cavaao,
Morristown .- Belknap's history.
MI
90
CONTROVERSY WITH NEW-HAMPSHIRE.
"-" At the following session, in June, it appeared that a majority of the towns had voted for the union. . Accordingly, the General Assembly ad- mitted into union, the sixteen towns, as appears by the following extract from the journals.
"Thursday June 11th, 1778.
. Voted that the union take place-thirty seven in the affirmative, and twelve in the negative."
" Having thus effected their purpose, the sixteen towns announced to the government of New-Hampshire, that they had withdrawn from their jurisdiction, and wished to have a divisional line established, and a. friendly correspondence kept up."*
Justly alarmed and incensed at these proceedings, the government of New-Hampshire made the following communications on the subject, to the delegates of that state, in Congress, and to the Governor of Vermont.
From President WEARE, to the New-Hampshire Delegates at Congress. EXETER, AUGUST 19, 1778.
GENTLEMEN,
By order of the council and assembly of this state, I am to inform you, that the pretended state of Vermont, not content with the limits of the New-Hampshire grants (so called) on the western side of Connecticut river, have extended their pretended jurisdiction over the river, and taken into union (as they phrase it) sixteen towns on the east side of Connec- ticut river, part of this state, and who can have no more pretence for their defection than any other towns in this state ; the circumstances of which you are well acquainted with ; and great pains are taking to persuade other towns to follow their example.
By the best information I have from that country, nearly one half of the people, in the revolted towns, are averse to the proceedings of the majority, who threaten to confiscate their estates, if they do not join with them ; and I am very much afraid that the affair will end in the shedding of blood. Justices of the peace have been appointed and sworn into office in those towns, under the pretended authority of said Vermont ; and persons sent to represent them there. I must not omit to let you know, that Col. Timothy Bedel, who has received great sums of money from congress, and their generals, under pretence of keeping some com- panies, last winter, and now a regiment, for the defence of that northern frontier, or to be in readiness for marching into Canada, (though very little service has been done, as I am informed) by influence of the money and his command, has occasioned a great share in the disorders in those towns. . 'Tis wished by the more sober, solid people in that quarter, he could be removed for some other command, if he must be kept in pay and employed.
.
* Williams.
91
CONTROVERSY WITH NEW-HAMPSHIRE.
: I am directed to desire you, on the receipt of this, to advise with some of the members of congress on this affair, and proceed, as you may judge expedient ; and, after advising as aforesaid, to endeavour to obtain aid of congress, if you think they can, with propriety, take up the matter. Indeed, unless congress interfere, (whose admonitions, I believe, will be · obeyed) I know not what consequences will follow. It is very probable the sword will decide it, as the minority, in those towns, are claiming protection from this state, and they think themselves bound, by every tie, to afford it ; and you know that every condescending measure has been used from the beginning of the schism, and rejected.
From President WEARE, to Governor CHITTENDEN.
SIR, EXETER, AUGUST 22, 1778.
Although I have had information that the people, settled on the New- Hampshire grants, (so called) west of Connecticut river, had formed a plan for their future government, and elected you their first magistrate ; ., yet, as they have not been admitted into the confederacy of the United States, as a separate, distinct body, I have omitted to address you, in your magistratical style, and not out of disrespect to you, or the people over whom you preside ; which, in these circumstances, I doubt not, your cendour will excuse, and that you will attend to the important subject of this address.
A paper has been laid before the general assembly, attested by Tho- mas Chandler, jun. as secretary of the state of Vermont, dated June 11, 1778, purporting a resolution of the general assembly of the state of Ver- mont, to receive into union with said state, sixteen towns on the east side of Connecticut river ; and leave, or rathier an invitation, to any towns, contiguous to those sixteen, to enter into the same union.
On which I am directed to represent to you, and to desire it may be laid before the representatives of your people, the intimation in said re- solve, that the said sixteen towns ' are not connected with any state, with respect to their internal police,' is an idle phantom, a mere chimera, with- , out the least shadow of reason for its support.
The town of Boston, in Massachusetts, or Hartford, in Connecticut, (if disposed) might, as rationally, evince their being unconnected with , their respective states, as those sixteen towns their not being connected with New-Hampshire.
Were not those towns settled and cultivated, under the grant of the governor of New-Hampshire ? Are they not within the lines thereof, as settled by the King of Great-Britain, prior to the present æra ? Is there any ascertaining the boundaries between any of the United States of A- merica, but by the lines formerly established by the authority of Great Britain ? I am sure there is not. Did not the most of those towns send delegates to the convention of this state, in the year 1775 ? Have they not, from the commencement of the present war, applied to the state of New-Hampshire, for assistance and protection ? It is well known, they did-and that New-Hampshire, at their own expence, hath supplied them with arms, ammunition, &c. to a very great amount, as well as paid soldiers for their particular defence ; and all at their request, as members
..
5
92
CONTROVERSY WITH NEW-HAMPSHIRE ..
of this state-Whence then, could this new doctrine, that they were not connected with us, originate ? I earnestly desire that this matter may be seriously attended to ; and I am persuaded the tendency thereof, will be ta anarchy and confusion.
udWhen I consider the circumstances of the people, west of Connecticut . river, the difficulties they encountered in their first settlement, their late endeavours to organize government among themselves, and the uncer- tainty of their being admitted, as a separate state, into the confederacy of the United States, I am astonished that they should supply their enemies with arguments against them, by their connecting themselves with peo- ple, whose circumstances are wholly different from their own, and who are actually members of the state of New Hampshire .- A considerable number of inhabitants of those sixteeen towns (I am well informed) are entirely averse to a disunion with the state of New-Hampshire, and are about to apply to this state for protection ; indeed, some have already ap- plied. And are not the people in this state under every obligation, civil and sacred, to grant their brethren the needed defence ?
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.