The Vermont Controversy regarding Ownership of Land (Charlestown, Sullivan Co., NH)
From:	Farns10th@aol.com - Janice Farnsworth

Subject:  The Vermont Controversy (Part 1 of 2)
Source:   History of Charlestown, NH by Rev. Henry H. Saunderson
              Chapter VIII, p.120

The State of Vermont, originally the New-Hampshire grants, adopted its 
Constitution and set up an independent government in 1778.  Previous to 1749 no
township had been chartered in the territory which it embraced.  In that year Gov-
ernor Benning Wentworth having received a royal commission to make grants of
unimproved lands within his government,  gave a charter to sundry individuals of the
township of Bennington.  Having done this, he addressed a letter to Lieutenant
Governor Colden, acting chief magistrate of the Province of New-York, in the ab-
sence of General Monkton, in which he informs him in respect to the nature of the
commission which he had received; and gave a description of New-Hampshire, as
the King, in his commission had determined it; and then invited Lieut. Gov. Colden
after his consideration, to give his sentiments in relation to the manner in which it
would affect the grants made by himand preceding Governors; it being his intention
to avoid interference with the government of the Province of New-York, as much as
might be consistent with His Majesty's instructions.

To this, on the 9th of April, 1750, he received a reply from Gov. George Clinton,
contained in a resolve of the Council of New-York, as follows:

"That this Province is bounded eastward by (the) Connecticut River, the letters
patent from King Charles Second to the Duke of York expressly granting all lands
from the west side of the Connecticut River to the east side of Deleware Bay."

On this, other letters passed between them, giving the reasons of their respective
claims.  But Governor Wentworth, not deterred by any representations adverse to
his commission, commenced that series of charters which was only terminated in
1764; in which year His Majesty, to whom the two provinces had appealed to de-
cide the matter of jurisdiction in dispute between them, made his decision in favor
of New-York; from which time New-Hampshire withdrew her claims, till led by
circumstances which will hereafter be narrated again to revive them.

The decision of His Majesty would have forever settled all matters in dispute, had
the Legislation of New-York possessed that conciliatory element which it would
have been natural to anticipate under the circumstances.  Governor Wentworth
had chartered a large number of towns, amounting in all to 138.  Fourteen thousand
acres of land, also, agreeably to His Majesty's proclamation, had been given to
certain of the King's officers, in compensation for faithful service.  But New-York
greedy of gain, and eager to make what she could, instead of allowing the grantees
any rights, construed the King's decision as an annihilation of the New-Hampshire
Charters and a retroversion of all the lands, as in a state of nature, to herself; and
with this view, commenced to enact laws and extend her jurisdiction.  But this
course, so contrary to the expectations of the inhabitants and grantees, excited
at once both their indignation and opposition; an opposition which led to combina-
tions for the defense of their rights, which their assumed rulers found it impossible
to control or resist; which not only rendered the laws of New-York nugatory, but
were the means of ultimately establishingthe territory over which it was sought to
extend them as an independent State.

As early as 1776, at the Dorset Convention, the representatives of the New-Hamp-
shire grants took measures which very clearly indicated their determination to gov-
ern themselves and in 1778 a Constitution having been formed and adopted, their
representatives assembled for the first time at Windsor to enact laws for the new
government, which had been organized under the name of "The State of Vermont."
On their assembling at Windsor, a committee from sixteen towns on the east side
of the Connecticut River in New-Hampshire, immediately waited on the Legislature
and presented a petition, "That their towns were not connected with any State in
respect to their internal police," and praying that they might be admitted to con-
stitute a part of the new State.  These towns were Cornish, Lebanon, Dresden (a
name given at that time to the district belonging to Dartmouth College) Lyme,
Orford, Piermont, Haverhill, Bath, Lyman, Apthorp (now divided into Littleton and
Dalton), Enfield, Canaan, Cardigan (now Orange) Landaff, Gunthwaite (now Lisbon)
and Morristown (now Franconia).  These towns had no complaints to make of
grievances received from the government of New-Hampshire, nor was it pretended
that they anticipated any.

The argument they employed to show some reasonable ground for their 
proceedings was this: "That New-Hampshire had originally been granted as a
province to John Mason, and by his grant, had only extended sixty miles inland 
from the sea; that all the territory westward of the sixty mile line, had been annexed
to the state by virtue of royal commissions, which had been given the governors of
the Province; and that the royal authority having been overthrown, the people of the
territory which had been in that manner annexed, were released from all obligations
to continue under the New-Hampshire government.  They were therefore at perfect
liberty to do as they pleased, and determine for themselves what juridiction they
would be under."

The Legislature was at first inclined to reject the petition, not being without
apprehensions that a union with these towns might be fraught in some way with
undesirable results.  But the subject, by those who had it in charge, being pressed
with great earnestness, and threats being put forth by members of the towns in
Vermont, adjoining and near the Connecticut River, that they would withdraw from
the new State, provided the petition was rejected, and unite with the people
forming a State on the east side of the river, the following measure was at length
adopted.

It was resolved to refer the consideration of the petition to the freemen of the several
towns, to be decided by the instructions which they should give their 
representatives, at the next meeting of the assembly.  During this period inter-
vening before the meeting of the next legislature the party in favor of the petition
omitted no efforts by which they might secure the necessary majority of the
members. And when, in June, the assembly met again, it was found that thirty
seven out of the forty-nine towns represented, had voted in favor of a union with the
New-Hampshire towns.  An act was accordingly passed, not only authorizing
the sixteen petitioning towns to elect and send representatives to the assembly,
but it was also resolved that other towns on the same side of the river might,
on producing a vote of the majority of the inhabitants, or on sending representatives
to the assembly, be admitted to the union.

But the union of these towns on the east side of the Connecticut with the State
of Vermont had scarcely been secured before apprehensions began to arise of
unpleasant results.  It had been represented to the people of Vermont that the
inhabitants of the petitioning towns were unanimous in favor of the movement and in
addition to this, that New-Hampshire as a State would not object to the connection.
But the facts very soon came out, that neither of these representations were 
correct; for there was not only a considerable minority, in all the towns, who were
opposed to the union with Vermont, but an indignant protest in the following August
by Meshech Weare, the President of New-Hampshire, (as the Chief Magistrate of
the state was then called), was addressed to Governor Chittenden, against the
course pursued by Vermont, in admitting these towns under its jurisdiction.

He averred that the towns had been settled and cultivated under grants from the
New-Hampshire government; they they were within the boundaries of the State
prior to the opening of the Revolution; that most of them had sent delegates to the
State in 1775, and moreover that they had applied to the State for assistance and
protection, and had received it at very great expense; that the statement that the
sixteen towns were not connected with any State, in respect to their internal police,
were a mere chimera, without the least shadow of reason for its support; and 
avowed that Boston in Massachusetts, and Hartford in Connecticut might as
rationally declare themselves unconnected with their respective States as those
sixteen towns disown of their connection with New-Hampshire.

When the assembly met, only a part of the sixteen towns were represented.  Those
represented, however, insisted that in order to have the benefit of the laws and the
protection of the State, it would be necessary that they should be erected 
into a new county, or at least annexed to the contiguous counties west of them.  And
this, if they were to remain under the jurisdiction of Vermont, could not rationally
be denied them.  But the majority of the Legislature, having become apprehensive
that their proceedings in relation to these New-Hampshire towns might not improb-
ably have an effect adverse to the admission of their State to the American Union,
as their course was to be laid, by President Weare, before Congress, began to
plot a way of divorce from their new friends on the east side of the Connecticut
as soon as possible.  The way they took to accomplish their object was this:
feeling a little delicate about telling them that, under the circumstances, their
company had ceased to be wanted, they adopted a course of strategy indirectly
to inform them of the fact.  The subject providing for the townships in a county
by themselves, or annexing them to other already existing counties, having been
brought before the assembly, was most earnestly debated.   At length three
questions were proposed to the assembly on which they voted with the given results:

p.125
Question 1st.  Shall the counties in this State remain as they were established
                      by this assembly at the session in March last?  This was decided
                      in the affirmative; yeas 35; nays 26.
                     
                      The following were given as the reasons of those who voted on the
                      negative of this question:

                       1. Because the whole state of Vermont was, (by the establishment
                           referred to in the question) in March last, divided into two
                           counties only; which was previous to the union of the towns east
                           of the Connecticut River with this State; and therefore they will
                           thereby be put out of any protection or privileges of said State;
                           which we conceive to be inconsistent with the 6th section of
                           the bill of rights, established as part of the constitution.

                        2. Because the affirmative of the question is in direct opposition
                            to the report of the committee of both houses on the subject.

Question 2.  Shall the towns east of the Connecticut River, included in the union
                   with this State, be included in the County of Cumberland?
                   This was decided in the negative; nays 38; ayes 28.

Questioin 3.  Shall the town on the east side of the Connecticut, which are
                    included by union within this state, be erected into a distinct
                    county by themselves?
                    Nays, as before, 33; yeas, 28.

Those who voted in the affirmative of the last two questions gave their reasons as
follows: "Because the negative being passed, the towns on the east side of the
Connecticut River, which are included by union with this state, are thereby
effectually debarred from all benefit, protection and security of the commonwealth
of Vermont, in violation of the 6th article of the bill of rights, which is established
as part of the Constitution of said state, and in violation of the public faith of said
State, pledged by their General Assembly at Bennington, June 11, 1778; and also
a resolve of the Assembly passed yesterday, whereby the towns east of the river
which were received into union with said state, were entitled to all the privileges
and immunities vested in any town in said state."

The next day the minority of the legislature made a written protest against the
manner in which these questions had been decided; stating more fully their
unconstitutionality and injustice; and the consequences to which their action led,
than they had done in the reasons for voting as they did on the day previous.  They
then closed their protest, which was followed by their names, in the following 
language:

We do, therefore, publicly declare and make known, that we cannot, consistent
with our oaths and engagements to the state (so long as said votes stand and
continue in force) excercise any office or place, either legislative, executive or
judicial, in this state; but look upon ourselves, as being thereby discharged from
any and every former confederation and association with the state."

After having presented their protests, the protesting members immediately withdrew
from the legislature, leaving in the Assembly a number barely sufficient to
constitute a quorum, who, having finished the necessary business of the session,
and provided, by the following resolutions, for ascertaining the sense of the people
on the subject of the union, adjourned on the 24th of October.

"In General Assembly, Windsor, October 23d 1778, Resolved -
That the member of the Assembly, lay before their constituents, the situation
of the union subsisting between the state and sixteen towns east of the 
Connecticut River; and be instructed how to proceed relative to said union at
the next session of this assembly."

Measures were also taken for supplying the places of those members who had
withdrawn, from the Vermont towns, provided that, on the meeting of the Assembly,
they should refuse to take their seats.

The members of the Vermont towns, west of the Connecticut River who on the
22nd of October, signed the protest, were as follows:

J. Marsh, Lieutenant Governor
Peter Olcott of Norwich, Assistant
Thomas Moredock, Assistant

The above were member of the council.   Others were:

Alexander Harvey of Barnet
Benjamin Spaulding of Sharon
Stephen Tilden of Hartford 
Joseph Hatch of Norwich
Abel Curtis of Norwich
Ichabod Ormsbee of Fairlee
Benjamin Baldwin of Bradford
Frederick Smith of Strafford
Joseph Parkhurst of Royalton
Elijah Alvord of Wilmington

The names of Reuben Foster of Newbury and Joshua Nutting of Corinth are also
attached to the protest.

Five other members from the west side of the river, voted in the minority, with
the New Hampshire towns, and recorded with them also, on the 21st of October,
the reason of their votes, whose names are not found on the final protest:

Abraham Jackson of Wallingford
Lieutenant Abner Lewis of Clarendon
Edward Aiken of Londonderry
Timothy Bartholomew of Thetford
Colonel Ebenezer Walbridge of Bennington

The names of the members of the New-Hampshire towns who signed the protest
were:

Thomas Baldwin of Canaan
Major James Bailey of Haverhill
Bela Turner of Enfield
Bezaleel Woodard of Dresden, Clerk of the House
David Woodard of Hanover
Jonathan Freeman of Hanover
Joshua Wheatley of Lebanon
Nehemiah Estabrook of Lebanon
Colonel Elisha Payne of Cardigan
Colonel Israel Morey of Orford
John Young of Gunthwaite
Nathaniel Rogers of Landaff
Abner Chandler of Piermont

The proceedings of the Assembly created in the minds of the minority, the most
intense excitement.  They considered the New Hampshire towns as not only
deprived of their constitutional rights, but that the action of the majority of the
legislature was, in other respects, objectionable.  It was not only wanting in
justice but was deficient in courtesy.  It was wholly irreconcilable with the oaths
they had taken, at least, as the minority viewed it; and those who were aggrieved
felt it would be wrong to submit to it without an indignant protest.  This protest
was accordingly made; nor did they feel inclined to let the matter rest here.  Not
a few of them were men of most determined purpose who were not to be tricked
out of their rights without, at least, an endeavor to maintain them.  The withdrawing
members, therefore, met to see what they would do; and on earnest consultation
it was unanimously determined that a convention should be called, to which all
the towns in the vicinity of the Connecticut River should be invited to send 
delegates.  Cornish, New Hampshire was the place agreed upon for holding it and
the time designated was the 9th day of December.  Vermont was only represented
by eight towns.  But the number of New Hampshire towns sending delegates was
twelve.  Charlestown, NH was represented by Captain Samuel Wetherbe who was
elected at a legally called town meeting.    End Part 1 of 2

*************************************************
* * * * NOTICE: Printing the files within by non-commercial individuals and 
libraries is encouraged, as long as all notices and submitter 
information is included. Any other use, including copying files to other 
sites requires permission from the submitters PRIOR to uploading to any 
other sites. We encourage links to the state and county table of 
contents. 

* * * *
The USGenWeb Project makes no claims or estimates of the validity of the 
information submitted and reminds you that each new piece of information 
must be researched and proved or disproved by weight of evidence. It is 
always best to consult the original material for verification.