VIEWS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AND NEW YORK.

Previous to the adjournment of the convention, it had been ordered that the first election under the constitution should take place in December, 1777; and that the representatives then elected, should meet at Bennington in January following. Public attention was, however, so much engrossed by the advance of the enemy under Burgoyne, that the constitution was not printed in season to have the election take place at the time appointed. The convention was, therefore, again called together at Windsor by the council of safety, on the 24th of December, where they revised the constitution, and postponed the day of election to the first Tuesday of March, 1778, and the meeting of the assembly to the second Thursday of the same month.

ALLEN'S ADDRESS.

ing now declared their independence and adopted a constitution, they were by no means to be cajoled into an acknowledgment of the "supremacy" of that state. An answer to this proclamation was afterwards published by Ethan Allen, in which he points out its sophistry, shows that its overtures "are all romantic, designed only to deceive woods people," and he exhorts his fellow citizens to maintain inviolate the supremacy of the legislative authority of the independent state of Vermont, as the only means of security to their persons and property; and he closes with the following bold and energetic address to the people of Vermont:

"You have experienced every species of oppression, which the old government The manner in which these proceed- of New York, with a Tryon at its head, ings of Vermont were viewed by New could invent and inflict; and it is maniHampshire and New York, is obvious fest that the new government are minded from the style of their communications to follow nearly in their steps. Happy is during this period. In answer to the ap- it for you that you are fitted for the seplication of the council of safety of Ver- verest trials! You have been wonderfully mont for assistance, Mr. Weare, president supported and carried through thus far in of the council of New Hampshire, ad- your opposition to that government. Fordressed Vermont as a free and sovereign, merly you had every thing to fear from but new state, and in such terms as to it, but now little; for your public characleave no doubt but that New Hampshire ter is established, and your cause known willingly acknowledged her indepen- to be just. In your early struggles with dence. But not so with New York. The that government, you acquired a reputaproceedings of Vermont, it is true, had tion for bravery; this gave you a relish changed her policy, but had by no means for martial glory, and the British invasion reconciled her to a relinquishment of her opened an ample field for its display, and jurisdiction over the Grants. In his proc- you have gone on conquering and to conlamation addressed to the inhabitants of quer until TALL GRENADIERS are the Grants, February 23d, 1778,* the dismayed and tremble at your approach. Governor of New York, after confirming Your frontier situation often obliged you their titles to their lands in particular to be in arms and battles; and by repeatcases, and making several concessions in ed marchings, scoutings and manly exertheir favor, expressly declares, that that cises, your nerves have become strong to government" will vigorously maintain its strike the mortal blow. What enemy rightful supremacy over the persons and to the state of Vermont-or New York property of those disaffected subjects." land-monopolizer, shall be able to stand The overtures in the proclamation of before you in the day of your fierce anGovernor Clinton, from which the above extract is taken, have a semblance of fairness which might have misled a people less discerning, and less jealous of their rights than they to whom they were addressed. But the people of Vermont had been too long accustomed to a thorough investigation of every point in the controversy not to perceive that these overtures held out no prospect of substantial relief. They perceived at once that New York was now endeavoring to effect that by policy, which she had heretofore vain. ly attempted by force. They had ever acted upon the conviction that the claims of New York were groundless; and, hav

*See Slade's Vt. State Papers, page 82.

ger.

SECTION III.

Controversy with New Hampshire in 1778 and 1779—Legislative proceedings of

Vermont.

After the royal decision of the controversy between New Hampshire and New York, in favor of the latter, in 1764, New Hampshire had made no attempt to continue her jurisdiction over the disputed

*The work from which this extract is taken, is

entitled An Animadversory Address to the inhab

itants of the State of Vermont, with Remarks on a Proclamation, under the hand of his Excellency, George Clinton, Esq. Governor of the State of New

UNION WITH A PART OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.

DIFFICULTY WITH NEW HAMPSHIRE.

legislature voted, on the 18th of March, 1778, to refer the decision of the question to the people.

The Legislature met again by adjourn ment on the 4th of June, at Bennington, when it appeared that a majority of the towns were in favor of the union with the sixteen towns from New Hampshire; and, June 11th, it was "voted that the union take place-thirty-seven in the affirmative and twelve in the negative.” It was also voted that any other towns on the east side of Connecticut river might

territory. Hence we have hitherto had occasion to consider the people of Vermont only in their relation to the government of New York; but the declaration of their independence and the organization of their government were, in their consequences, the occasion of new difficulties, not only with New York, but also with New Hampshire and Massachusetts. The original territory of New Hampshire was granted to John Mason, and was bounded on the west by a line sixty miles from the sea. The lands between this line and Connecticut river, were roy-be admitted to a union, on producing a al grants, and belonged to New Hampshire by virtue of the commissions of the governors of that province. Vermont had no sooner organized her government than the inhabitants on these lands manifested their desire to dissolve their connection with New Hampshire, and unite with Vermont. In their justification, they contended, that all the territory west of Mason's grant, had been held in subjection to New Hampshire by force of the royal commissions-that when the royal authority ceased in the colonies, in consequence of the declaration of independence, their allegiance to New Hampshire ceased, and they were left at liberty to form a separate government, or to unite with such neighboring government as would con

sent to a union.

With these views of their relations to New Hampshire, the people on the territory between Mason's grant and Connecticut river, proceeded to make arrange ments for proposing a connection with Vermont. The Legislature of Vermont met, for the first time, on the 12th of March, 1778, at Windsor, and the same day a petition was presented from sixteen towns on the east side of Connecticut river, praying to be admitted to a union with Vermont. The Legislature was much embarrassed by this application. Most of the members from the west side of the mountains regarded the union as a dangerous measure, and the majority of the assembly appeared to be against it; yet several of the towns in Vermont on Connecticut river were very desirous that the towns from New Hampshire should be received, and went so far as to propose withdrawing from their connection with Vermont, and setting up another state. In this state of things, and for the purpose of preserving its own union, the

York. By Ethan Allen.' It was dated Bennington, August 9, 1778, and printed at Hartford, Ct. in a neat pamphlet of 24 pages, and is now in the pos session of the author. The substance of this pamphiet was afterwards incorporated into Allen's Vindication of Vermont,' and may also in part be found in Slade's Vt. State Papers, page 85.

vote of the majority of the inhabitants, or on their sending a representative to the assembly of Vermont. Having thus effected their purpose, the sixteen towns informed the government of New Hampshire that they had withdrawn from their jurisdiction, and wished the division line to be established and a friendly intercourse to be kept up.

Those who were anxious for this union had represented to the Legislature, that the inhabitants of the sixteen towns were nearly unanimous in their votes to join Vermont, and that New Hampshire, as a state, would not object to their withdrawing from her jurisdiction. But the event proved both these representations to be false. The government of New Hamp shire was justly incensed at the proceedings. Mr. Weare, President of the Council of New Hampshire, wrote to Congress on the 19th of August, to procure advice, and, in case of necessity, the interference of that body.* On the 22d of August, he, in the name of the general assembly of that state, wrote to Mr. Chittenden, governor of Vermont, claiming the sixteen towns as a part of New Hampshire. stated that a large portion of the inhabitants of those towns were opposed to the union, that this minority had claimed the protection of the state, and that the government of New Hampshire considered itself bound to protect them. He urged Gov. Chittenden to exert his influence with the legislature, to dissolve a connection, which would endanger their peace and probably their political existence.

He

PROCEEDINGS OF THE VERMONT LEGISLATURE.

CONVENTION AT CORNISH.

New Hampshire; but that if those pro- | The object of this convention was to esceedings were disannulled, only the delegates from New York would oppose their independence.* The Legislature met again by adjournment on the 8th of October, 1778, at Windsor, and, having received the report of Col. Allen, Oct. 13th, they took up the subject of the union.

At the first session of the Legislature in March, the state had been divided into two counties, Bennington on the west side of the mountains, and Cumberland on the east. After considering and debating the subject of their connection with the sixteen towns from New Hampshire, from the 13th to the 21st of October, votes were taken in the Legislature on the following questions, the result of which evinced the determination of a majority of the members to proceed no further in that hazardous experiment. Question 1st. Shall the counties in this state remain as they were established in March last? This question was decided in the affirmative; yeas 35, nays 26. Question 2d. Shall the towns on the east side of the Connecticut river, which have been admitted to a union with Vermont, be included in the county of Cumberland? Question 3d. Shall said towns be erected into a county by themselves? The last two questions were both decided in the negative; yeas 28, nays 33.f

tablish a government in the valley of the Connecticut, the centre and seat of which should be somewhere upon that stream. The convention met at Cornish, New Hampshire, on the 9th of December, and a union was agreed upon by the majority of the delegates, without any regard to former limits, and a proposal was made to New Hampshire, either to agree with that state upon a division line, or to submit it to Congress, or to arbitrators mutually chosen. In case neither of these proposals was accepted, they proposed that they would consent that all the grants should be united with New Hampshire, and altogether become one entire state, co-extensive with the claims of New Hampshire previous to the royal decision in 1764. Till one of these proposals was acceded to, they "resolved to trust in providence and defend themselves."

Only eight towns on the west side of Connecticut river were represented in this convention, and the delegates from some of these declined taking any part in making the foregoing proposals to New Hampshire. From the proceedings of this convention, it became obvious that the whole aim of the leading men in the vicinity of Connecticut river, was to establish such a government as to bring themselves in the centre, and it did not appear to be material with them whether this was effected by a union of a part of New Hampshire with Vermont, or by bringing the whole of Vermont under the

The

of aiding in the dismemberment of New Hampshire, and they were wise enough to embrace the first opportunity to retrace their steps, and dissolve a connection which threatened their ruin.

Finding by these votes that the Legislature did not incline, at present, to do any thing more on the subject of the union, the representatives from the towns on the east side of the Connecticut with-jurisdiction of New Hampshire. drew from the assembly, in which they people of Vermont were now fully sensihad been admitted to seats, and were fol-ble of the impolicy, as well as injustice, lowed by fifteen representatives from towns on the west side of the river, together with the lieutenant governor, and two of the council. After these members had withdrawn, the number left was barely sufficient to constitute a quorum. They, The legislature of Vermont met at Bentherefore, proceeded to transact the re-nington, according to adjournment, on maining business of the session, and adjourned on the 24th of October, to meet again at Bennington on the second Thursday of February next, having resolved to refer the subject of the union with New Hampshire to their constituents for instructions how to proceed at their next

session.

The seceding members, after entering a formal protest upon the journals against the proceedings of the assembly, held a meeting, at which they made arrangements for calling a convention, to which they invited all the towns in the vicinity of Connecticut river to send delegates.

*For a copy of this report see Slade's State Papers, pago 92. For these proceedings, see Ibid. p. 94.

the 12th of February, 1779, and the next day they voted to dissolve the union which had subsisted between them and the towns in New Hampshire. This determination of the legislature of Vermont was immediately communicated to the government of New Hampshire by Ira Allen, and was received while efforts were making to gain the assent of that government to the proposals made by the Cornish convention. Encouraged by these divisions, the legislature of New Hampshire now resolved to lay claim, not only to the sixteen towns, which had united with Vermont, but to the whole

For these preceedings see Slade's State Papers,

page 102.

CLAIMS UPON VERMONT.

state of Vermont, as grants originally made by that province. Application was made to Congress for a confirmation of this claim, and at the same time New York applied to that body for a confirmation of her title to the territory in ques

tion.

DIFFICULTIES IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY.

wrote to Congress, urging their decision of the controversy, and blaming the people of Vermont for the violence of their proceedings.

In conformity to the recommendation of Governor Clinton, the friends of New York met in convention at Brattleboro', on the 4th of May, 1779, and, having or

nor of New York, in which, after stating the summary manner in which the pretended State of Vermont was proceeding to confiscate their property, and various other grievances, they "entreat his excellency to take immediate measures for protecting the loyal subjects of that part of the state, and for convincing Congress of the impropriety of delaying a decision in a matter, which so nearly concerned the peace, welfare and lives of many of their firm adherents.'"* About the same time a military association was formed in Cumberland county for the purpose of opposing the authority of Vermont.

Circumstances connected with these applications convinced the people of Ver-ganized, drew up a petition to the Govermont, that they were the result of the intrigues of the leading men in those states, and were designed to effect a division of Vermont between them, by a line along the summit of the Green Mountains.* As the other states in general took but little interest in these controversies, and as the adjustment of them was embarrassing to Congress, it was thought that, if New Hampshire and New York should agree, it would be left pretty much to those two states to settle the affairs of Vermont between them, in which case Vermont must certainly lose her separate existence as a state. But either to disappoint the parties, which appeared to be resolved on the annihilation of Vermont, or for some other cause, Massachusetts now interposed, and claimed a portion of the disputed territory, as within her jurisdiction. Thus was Vermont struggling to maintain her independence against the three adjoining states, which were all claiming her territory and the right of jurisdiction, nor had her proceedings yet received any countenance or encouragement from the continental Congress.

SECTION IV.

Controversy with New York, New Hampshire and Massachusetts, in 1778, 1779, and 1780.

During the troubles, resulting from the union with a part of New Hampshire, and which have been mentioned in the preceding section, Vermont was still as deeply as ever involved in the controversy with New York; but now, events transpired in the southeastern part of the county of Cumberland, which gave to that controversy a much more alarming aspect. On the 7th of July, 1778, Governor Clinton wrote to his friends in Vermont, recommending, that wherever the partizans of New York were sufficiently powerful, firm resistance should be made to the draughting of men, the raising of taxes, and to all the acts of the "ideal Vermont State; and also "that associations be formed for mutual defence against this usurpation." At the same time he

* See Williams' History, Vol. II. page 184.

In consequence of representing that they had a regiment of 500 men, and of making some other false assertions, several commissions had been obtained from Governor Clinton; and the government of Vermont, therefore, found it necessary to take measures to put a stop to these military movements. Ethan Allen was accordingly ordered by the governor to call out the militia for that purpose. When the adherents of New York were informed of these transactions on the part of Vermont, Col. Patterson, who held a commission in the county of Cumberland under the authority of New York, wrote to Governor Clinton, May 5th, for directions how to proceed, and suggested the necessity of sending the militia of Albany county to his assistance. This letter and the foregoing petition were answered by the governor with assurances of protec tion; and he recommended that the authority of Vermont should not be acknowledged, except in the alternative of submission or inevitable ruin.

On the 18th of May, Governor Clinton wrote to the president of Congress, "that matters were fast approaching to a very serious crisis, which nothing but the immediate interposition of Congress could possibly prevent; that be daily expected he should be obliged to order out a force for the defence of those who adhered to New York; that the wisdom of Congress would suggest to them what would be the consequence of submitting the controversy, especially at this juncture, to the decision of the sword; but

*For this petition see Slade's Vermont State Pa-, pers, page 106.

PROCEEDINGS OF CONGRESS.

|

RESOLUTIONS RESPECTING VERMONT.

1779, passed several resolutions, the substance of which was as follows: *

Resolved, that it be earnestly recommended, that New Hampshire, Massachusetts and New York expressly author

that justice, the faith of government, the peace and safety of society would not permit them to continue any longer passive spectators of the violence committed on their fellow citizens."* This letter and sundry other papers relating to the dis-ize Congress to determine their disputes putes were laid before Congress on the 29th of May, 1779, and were referred to a committee of the whole; and on the first day of June, Congress resolved "that a committee be appointed to repair to the inhabitants of a certain district, known by the name of the New Hampshire grants, and inquire into the reasons why they refuse to continue citizens of the respective states, which have claimed jurisdiction over the said district. And that they take every prudent measure to promote an amicable settlement; and to prevent divisions and animosities, so prejudicial to the United States." t

relative to their respective boundariesand that on the first of February next, Congress will proceed to settle and determine the same, according to equity. It was, moreover, declared to be the duty of those inhabitants of the New Hampshire grants, who did not acknowledge the jurisdiction of either of the above named states, to refrain from exercising any power over such of the inhabitants as did acknowledge such jurisdiction, and it was likewise recommended to the said states to refrain, in the mean time, from executing their laws over such inhabitants as did not acknowledge their respective jurisdictions.

While Congress was engaged in passing these resolutions, Allen marched with From the whole tenor of these resoluan armed force and made prisoners of the tions, it was evident that Congress wished colonel and other officers who were acting for the present to pacify the parties, withunder the authority of New York. Com-out coming to any decision upon the matplaint was immediately made to Governor Clinton, with an earnest request that he would take speedy measures for their relief. Governor Clinton wrote again to Congress on the 7th of June, stating what had taken place, disapproving of the resolutions of Congress before mentioned, and requesting that the committee, appointed to repair to the New Hampshire grants, might postpone their visit till after the next meeting of the New York legislature. June 16th, Congress resolved that the officers captured by Allen should be liberated, and that the committee above mentioned be directed to inquire into the circumstances of that transaction. ‡

ter in dispute; and it was equally evident that she would prefer sacrificing Vermont as a separate jurisdiction, to a rupture at this time with either of the states, which laid claim to that territory. Nor shall we be surprised at this partial and evasive policy, when we consider that the successful termination of the war for independence, which was then undecided, and the fate of the colonies generally, depended upon the integrity of their union in the common cause.

These resolutions seem to have quieted all parties but Vermont. New Hampshire and New York complied with the recommendations, and authorized ConOf the five commissioners appointed to gress to settle the dispute. Massachusetts repair to Vermont, two only attended- did not comply, and she probably negDr. Witherspoon and Mr. Atlee. These lected it for the purpose of relieving Congentlemen repaired to Bennington in June, had several conferences with the matter at the time appointed, and of pregress from the necessity of deciding the friends of Vermont, and, also, with oth-venting the sacrifice of Vermont. A comers, who were in the interest of New York. It seems to have been the aim of these commissioners to effect a reconciliation between the parties; but it appears from the report, which they made to Congress on the 13th of July, that they did not succeed in accomplishing the object of their mission. Four parties were now claiming the same tract of country, and each of these parties had applied to Congress for a decision of the controversy. Under such circumstances, Congress could not well avoid taking up the matter; and among others, on the 24th of September,

pliance with these resolutions on the part of Vermont, would have been to admit the existence of four separate jurisdictions at the same time in the same territory, and in a territory too, the inhabitants of which had declared themselves to be free and independent, and had assumed the powers of government and exercised them in all cases and in every part of the territory. No alternative, therefore, remained to Vermont. She had taken a decisive stand-declared her independence-formed a constitution-enacted laws, and established courts of justice, and now noth

*For these Resolutions see Sladets State Papers,

page 110.