of a committee it was voted that the subject of petitioning congress to be formed into a separate jurisdiction, should be postponed to a future meeting. It was resolved that a manifesto should be published in the newspapers, stating briefly the reasons why the inhabitants of the New Hampshire Grants did not choose to connect themselves with the government of New York; and it was also voted that an answer should be prepared to a pamphlet which had been issued by the provincial congress of New York, bearing date October 2d, 1776, in favor of the jurisdiction of that state over the Grants, which answer should set forth the advantages that would arise to the people of the district, by forming themselves into a separate state, and that it be "printed and communicated to the inhabitants as soon as may be."

The convention appointed a large committee to make known its proceedings to their constituents, and to procure their signatures to the association for the defence of American liberty previously adopted, and then without transacting other important business, adjourned to meet again at the same place on the third Wednesday of the ensuing January.1

A well written manifesto, setting forth the reasons of the New Hampshire grantees for declining to connect themselves with the government of New York, calculated to make a favorable impression on the public mind towards their cause, was soon afterwards published in the Connecticut Courant, and probably in other papers. It was signed by Ira Allen clerk, and bore the character of an official act of the convention. A copy of it is preserved in the American Archives, volume second of the fifth series at page 1300.

The New York pamphlet above referred to was the report of a committee of the New York convention upon the letter of the Cumberland county committee of the 21st of June preceding, which had claimed and reserved to the people of the county a right to withdraw from the New York jurisdiction, in case they should not approve the form of government they were preparing for that state. The report had been approved by the New York convention and entered on the journal of October 4, 1776, and is found in the American Archives, volume three at page 222. An elaborate answer to this pamphlet was prepared by Ira Allen, embodying the causes, which in the opinion of the writer, justified the withdrawal of the people of the district from the New York government, and also the advantages which would accrue to them by the formation of a separate

1

For the proceedings of this convention see Records of J. H. Phelps.

state. It appears not to have been published until the ensuing spring. It was entitled, Miscellaneous Remarks on the Proceedings of the State of New York against the State of Vermont; was printed in pamphlet form at Hartford "by Hannah Watson near the great bridge, A.D. 1777," and was extensively circulated. There is a manuscript copy of it in the Stevens Papers, in the office of the secretary of state, at Montpelier. A printed copy of it has not been found.

CHAPTER XXII.

MEASURES FOR ORGANIZING A SEPARATE STATE GOVERNMENT.

1777.

Convention of the New Hampshire Grants at Westminster, Jan. 1777, declare the district a separate state - Proceedings of New York against a new state- The declaration and petition of the New Hampshire Grants, stating the grounds of their claim to independence presented to Congress Letter of Dr. Thomas Young to the inhabitants of Vermont a free and independent state-Vermont convention at Windsor, of June 4, 1777, and its proceedings. The New York constitution strengthens the friends of the new state Resolutions of congress of June 30, censuring Dr. Young's letter and disclaiming any participation in the movement of the Vermonters for independence Debate in Congress on the resolutions The conduct of Vermont defended by Roger Sherman The resolutions to be circulated in Vermont by order of the New York council of Safety, and the action of Gouverneur Morris in relation thereto.

THE year 1777 occupies an important place in the history of

the New Hampshire Grants. It witnessed a declaration by the inhabitants of their independence and the formation of a state constitution. It was also a period of great peril and suffering, from the invasion of a powerful and cruel enemy, and of commendable energy and valor on the part of the people in effecting his defeat and capture.

The convention of the New Hampshire Grants met agreeably to adjournment at the Court House in Westminster on the 15th of January, 1777, and was in session three days, Capt. Joseph Bowker in the chair, Ira Allen clerk, and Reuben Jones assistant clerk. On Thusday, the second day of the session, a committee was appointed to examine the votes that had been taken among the inhabitants, on the question of separating from the New York government, which committee reported as follows, viz: "We find by examination that three-fourths of the people in Cumberland and Gloucester counties that have acted are for a new state, the rest we regard as neuters." This being understood to be the state of feeling on the east side of the Green mountain, and it being well known that the people on the west side were nearly or quite all for a new jurisdiction, the convention unanimously voted for a separate and independent state. On the morning of Friday the 17th, a committee which had been previously appointed made their report of a form for a public declaration to that effect. The report began by stating that, "whenever pro

tection was withheld by a government no allegiance was due, or could of right be demanded;" that the lives and properties of the inhabitants of the New Hampshire Grants had been manifestly aimed at, for many years past, by the monopolizing land traders of New York and by the legislative and executive authorities of that colony and state, of the truth of which many overt acts were so fresh in the minds of the members as to render it needless to name them. The report then referred to the resolution of congress of May 15, 1776, which had recommended to the respective assemblies and conventions of the United Colonies, "where no government sufficient for the exigencies of their affairs" existed, to form such government, and stating that such new government was necessary “to enable them to secure their rights against the usurpations of Great Britain and also against those of New York and the several other governments claiming jurisdiction of their territory," and offered for the consideration of the convention the following declaration:

"This convention, whose members are duly chosen by the free voice of the inhabitants in the several towns on the New Hampshire Grants, in public meeting assembled, in our own names and in behalf of our constituents, do hereby proclaim and publicly declare, that the district of territory comprehending and usually known by the name and description of the New Hampshire Grants, of right ought to be, and is hereby declared forever hereafter to be considered as a separate, free and independent jurisdiction or state, by the name, and forever hereafter to be called, known and distinguished by the name of New Connecticut, and that the inhabitants that are at present or may hereafter become resident within said territory shall be entitled to the same privileges, immunities and enfranchisements, which are, or that may at any time hereafter be allowed to the inhabitants of any of the free and independent states of America; and that such privileges and immunities shall be regulated in a bill of rights and by a form of government to be established at the next adjourned session of this convention."

1

This declaration being unanimously adopted, it was voted that it should be published in the newspapers, and a committee of three was appointed to prepare it for the press. At the convention at Dorset the preceding September, Dr. Jonas Fay, Col. William Marsh and Dr. Reuben Jones had been appointed "a committtee to draw a petition to send to the honorable Continental congress," to be reported to a committee to examine the same; and Nathan Clark,

1

1In reference to the name given to the state in this declaration, see Appendix No. 9.

Esq., Col. Seth Warner and Capt. Heman Allen had been selected to make the examination. At the present convention, Dr. Jonas Fay, Col. Thomas Chittenden, Dr. Reuben Jones, Col. Jacob Bayley and Capt. Heman Allen were appointed delegates to present the petition to congress. An addition of several members was made to the committee of war. It was recommended to each town in Cumberland and Gloucester counties to choose new committees of safety, where the towns were dissatisfied with the committees, the committees in other towns to remain for the time being. A letter was prepared and signed by the chairman of the convention, addressed to John Sessions and Simon Stevens who had been acting as delegates in the New York convention, informing them of the declaration which had been made for a separate state, and requesting them to withdraw at once from the New York convention, and not to appear again in the character of representatives for that county, adding that they "were not chosen by a majority of the people at large."

The convention was then adjourned to meet at the meeting house in Windsor, on the first Wednesday of June then next.1

While the inhabitants of the New Hampshire Grants were preparing to form themselves into a separate state, as related in the preceding chapter, their proceedings had not been unnoticed by the men who administered the New York government.

On the 20th of January, 1777, a committee of the New York convention, to whom the subject had been referred, made a report which was taken into consideration and adopted by that body. It charged the disaffection towards the New York government, principally "to the arts and misrepresentations of certain inhabitants of the county of Charlotte, distinguishing themselves by the name of Green Mountain Boys," who, it was alleged, " made sundry unjust and iniquitous pretensions, anciently set up by the states of Massachusetts and New Hampshire against certain large tracts of land within the known bounds of New York," claiming the lands under grants of those states, and denying the title under New York. It alleged that countenance and encouragement was given to the disaffected by false representations that persons of considerable influence and authority in the neighboring states were favorable to them, and that it was the intention of the Continental congress to aid and assist them in obtaining their independence. It charged that these false statements had "received great weight and authority from the

1 Ms. Records of J. H. Phelps. Slade, p. 68.