VERMONT-L Archives

From: <>
Subject: [VT-L] THE VERMONT CONTROVERSY Part 2 of 2
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 14:36:50 EST

Subject: The Vermont Controversy Part 2 of 2
Source: History of Charlestown, NH by Rev. Henry H. Saunderson
Chapter VIII, p.127

Continued from - Charlestown was represented by Captain
Samuel Wetherbe, who was elected at a legally called
town meeting.

The folowing is the report of the proceedings of this
convention:
"RESOLVES
Of a Convention Held on the New-Hampshire Grants

At a Convention of Delegates from twenty-two towns on
the New-Hampshire Grants from both sides of the Connecti-
cut River, held at Cornish, December 9th, 1778.

Voted unanimously:

1. That the members of the Convention will unite to-
gether for the purpose of pursuing such legal and
and regular measures, as may have a tendency to
secure to these Grants the benefits of good govern-
ment, without any regard to the distinction made by
the arbitrary line drawn on the western bank of the
Connecticut River by the King in Council in 1764.

2. A pamphlet entitled "A public defense of the right
of the New-Hampshire Grants, etc." compiled by a
major part of the Committee appointed by the Assembly
of Vermont for that purpose, was repeatedly read,
and unanimously approved.

3. Whereas, notwithstanding the request for this Con-
vention, but few of those towns whose members contin-
ued to act with said Assembly after the protesting
members had withdrawn, have sent members to this
Convention; and the conduct of the Assembly in pass-
ing the votes and resolves contained in their print-
ed Journals, the protest, remarks, etc., have rend-
ered it impracticable for said Assembly to carry
into execution said resolves as therein proposed,
which difficulty will continue so long as said votes
stand in force; and as the people in these towns
by justifying the conduct of the Assembly in violat-
ing the Constitution, will, on their part, dissolve
the solemn compact which they entertained into by
the confederation, and the people consequently be-
come discharged from their allegiance and obligations
to the State, therefore:

Voted: That the proposals contained in the before
mentioned address, be made to New-Hampshire,
viz:

l. To agree upon and settle a dividing line be-
tween New-Hampshire and the Grants, by
committees from each party, or otherwise, as
they may mutually agree.

Or, 2. That the Parties mutually agree in the
appointment of a Court of Commissioners of
disinterested, judicious men of the three
other New-England States to hear and determ-
ine the dispute.

Or, 3. That the whole dispute with New-Hampshire
be submitted to the decision of Congress in
such way and manner as Congress in their
wisdom shall prescribe.

Provided always: That the Grants be allowed equal
privileges with the other party, in espousing and
conducting their cause.

Or, 4. If the controversy cannot be settled on
either of the foregoing articles, and
in case we can agree with New-Hampshire upon
a plan of government, inclusive of extent
of territory, that we unite with them, and
become with them one entire State, rejecting
the arbitrary line drawn on the western bank
of the Connecticut River, by the King of
Great Britain, in 1764.

4. Voted, That the inhabitants of those towns
on the Grants, in the State of Vermont, who
have not sent a representative to this con-
vention and whose members joined with the
majority of said Assembly, in passing the vote
on account of which the protesting members
withdrew, be requested to direct their re-
spective member to rescind said votes, and
join us in making said proposals to New-
Hampshire.

5. That in case those towns, whose members con-
tinued to act with the Assembly of Vermont,
still remain firm and stedfast in supporting
and continuing said votes of Assembly, and
neglect to join in carrying into execution
said report of their committee, we will make
overtures to join with New-Hampshire on the
last article in said proposals.

6. That all the other towns in said Grants, be
requested to join us in making proposals to
New-Hampshire as before mentioned and that
those towns which agree to join therein, be
requested to transmit copies of their votes
relative thereto, to:

Governor Marsh
Mr. Woodard
Colonel Morey
Major Child
Colonel Payne
Colonel Olcott
General Bailey

Who, are hereby appointed a committee for
receiving them and carrying the foregoing
votes and proposals into execution, so soon
as the towns on the Grants can have reason-
able opportunity to join us therein.

7. Voted, That said Committee be impowered to
call a Convention from the towns on the
Grants, whenever anything shall appear, which
shall, in their opinion, render one necessary.

J. Marsh, Chairman

Extracted from the votes of said Convention

B. Woodard, Clerk
See Vol. VIII, Documents and Records, relating to State
of New-Hampshire. Edited by Nathaniel Bouton, D.D.,
pages 817-18.

The people of Vermont, now began to see how they stood,
and determined instead of continuing their union with
the towns east of the Connecticut River, to take every
measure to conciliate New-Hampshire which was in their
power.

They, therefore, determined on embracing the first
opportunity that was presented for disolving a connect-
ion they felt never ought to have been formed, and the
results of which had already caused them no little
trouble.

Accordingly, on the 2nd of the following session, which
was the 12th of February, 1779, the subject of the Union
was resumed, and the instructions of the freemen of the
state to their representatives were examined; on which
it was found that there was a majority for receding from
their connection with the sixteen towns.

Whereupon, Mr. Ithamir Hibbert of Wells, and Mr. Hubbell
Wells of Halifax were appointed a committee to join a
committee from the Council, to prepare a draught relat-
ive to the dissolution under consideration; which
committees, after suitable consultation, unanimously
agreed on the following report:

"Whereas in consequence of a representation, made to the
general Assembly of this state at their session at
Windsor, in March, 1778, by a committee consisting of
seven persons, inhabiting several towns lying contiguous
to the east side of the Connecticut River, that a number
of inhabited towns, east of said river, were then un-
connected with any state, in regard to their internal
police; and on said committee's application to the
general assembly that the said towns might be admitted
into the union with this state, orders were issued by
the assembly to the representatives' constituents, for
instructions in the premises, and whereas, in conseq-
uance of such instructions, the representatives of said
Constituents, when met at their adjourned session in
Bennington on the 11th day of June, last, did receive
into union with said state sixteen towns, east of said
Connecticut River, and grant leave for other towns to
unite if they should Choose.

And whereas a dispute has arisen in respect to the right
New-Hampshire has to exercise jurisdiction, over those
sixteen towns, as claimed in a letter to his Excellency
Thomas Chittenden, Esq., by Meshech Weare, Esq., Presi-
dent of the Honorable Council of the State of New-Hamp-
shire, dated August 22, 1778, and whereas, the General
Assembly of this state, did at their session at Windsor
in October, last, agree on certain methods (contained
in the report of the grand committee of both houses) to
settle and adjust the dispute with New-Hampshire; never-
theless, the measures to be pursued to effect those
methods were rendered impracticable by the members, east
of said river, withdrawing themselves from the House
in an unconstitutional manner, and forming a convention,
in direct violation of the most solemn oaths and obli-
gations, into which they had entered, declaring them-
selves discharged, from any and every former Confedera-
tion with this State:

And whereas your committee have just grounds to appre-
hend, that the said sixteen towns are of right included
within the jurisdiction of New-Hampshire, they are there-
fore of the opinion that the said union ought to be
considered as being null from the beginning.

Jonas Fay, Chairman of Committee."
p.131
This report being read and accepted the house:

"Resolved - That the said Union be and is hereby
dissolved, and made totally void, null and extinct; and
that his Excellency the Governor be and is hereby dir-
ected to communicate the foregoing draught, and resolve
thereon, to the President of the Council of the State of
New-Hampshire."

Ira Allen, Esq., was appointed to transmit to New-Hamp-
shire, the foregoing report and resolution, who present-
ed them to the President and Council of that State, on
the 20th of the succeeding March.

This, so far as the State of Vermont was concerned, it
might have been supposed, would forever have put an end
to all proceedings connected with the acquisition of new
territory from other States. But affairs, in conseq-
uence of what they had already done, had arrived at a
juncture at which they found difficulties awaiting them
of a most perplexing character. The towns connected with
them in the late union had not only become violently
excited against them, but the State of New-Hampshire
which had been before been favorable to the admission of
Vermont, to the union, as a separate and independent
State, had been induced to change her course, which had
previously been friendly, to one of determined opposi-
tion.

>From representations which had been forwarded to Congress,
that body too had begun to partake of the excitement,
so that Vermont had need of no little wisdom in those
who were appointed to direct her affairs, in order for
them to decide, under the circumstances, on what would
be the best course to pursue.

Mr. Allen, on arriving at Exeter, found affairs in a very
unsatisfactory state. He had already been preceded by
the committee, appointed by the Cornish Convention, con-
sisting of General Jacob Bailey and Davenport Phelps,
who had presented the substance of the action of that
convention in the following petition:

"To the Honorable, the President in Council, and the
Representatives of the State of New-Hampshire in General
Assembly convened, the subscribers hereto, beg leave to
represent, that a large number of charters of incorpora-
tion of certain tracts of land, were formerly issued
from their excellencies Benning Wentworth and John Went-
worth Esq'rs., in the name of the King of Great Britain,
lying and being west of the Mason Grant, and east of a
north line, drawn from the northwest corner of the now
State of the Massachusetts Bay, to Lake Champlain and
from thence to the latitude of forty five degress; that
in the year 1764, the aforesaid King of Great Britain,
in violation of his contract with the Grantees, and in
an arbitrary manner, passed a decree that there should
be a division of the aforesaid grants, between the then
Province of New York and New Hampshire, to which decree
the inhabitants of said Grants were then and have ever
since been averse; as they were thereby deprived of
privileges, which they of right claimed, and in their
settlement reasonably expected within the jurisdiction
of New Hampshire; that the inhabitants aforesaid, since
the declaration of independence, view themselves at
liberty to connect in one body politic, or unite with
any other State; that they are now in general, desirous
of a union with the State of New Hampshire; that the
representatives of the people in assembly on the 20th
of October last, voted, that a defence of the rights of
the people, be stated by a committee appointed for that
purpose, and that answers to some letters, etc., be
drafted by said committees. Also that offers be made to
the State of New Hampshire, either to settle a boundary
line between New Hampshire and the Grants by a committee
mutually chosen; or in such a way as Congress may point
out; or to make an offer of the whole of said Grants to
New Hampshire.

That on the 9th day of Decenber, last, by a convention
of committees delegated by the inhabitants of said Grants
it was voted that proposals of an union with said New
Hampshire, be made to the assembly of said State.

In consequence whereof, we the subscribers, being duly
authorized for that purpose, do now propose to this
Honorable Court, that the whole of said grants be
connected and confederated with said State of New Hamp-
shire; receiving and enjoying equal privileges and
immunities with the good people of said State.

Dated at Newbury this 17th day of March, 1779.
Jacob Bailey
Davenport Phelps."
p.132
The following are the proceedings of the legislature of
New-Hamphire on the foregoing petition:
State of New-Hampshire
"In the House of Representatives, April 2d, 1779.

The committee on the petition of General Bailey and Mr.
Phelps relating to the New-Hampshire Grants so called,
reported that this State should lay claim to the juris-
diction of the whole of the New-Hampshire grants so
called, lying to the westward of the Connecticut River,
setting forth the right this State has to the same;
allowing and conceding nevertheless, that if the honor-
able continental Congress shall allow the said grants
to the westward of the Connecticut River to be a separ-
ate state, as now claimed by some of the inhabitants
thereof by the name of Vermont, that in such case the
state of New-Hampshire will acquiesce therein, and that
this state shall exercise jurisdiction as far west as
the western bank of the Connecticut River, and no farther
until the dispute is settled by Congress.

By order of the major part of the Committee.
(signed) Josiah Bartlett, Clerk

Which report being read and considered, it was Voted,
That it lie for further consideration until the next
session of the General Assembly of this State.
Sent up for concurrence
John Langdon, Speaker.
In Council the same day read and concurred.
E. Thomson, Sec'ry.

p.133
State of New-Hampshire
In the House of Representatives, June 24, 1779.

The House by vote took under consideration the report of
the Committee of the second day of April, last, which
was at that session voted to lie for consideration until
this session, relative to the New-Hampshire Grants, etc.
And the question being put whether the report of the
said committee be received and accepted or not? It
passed in the affirmative.
Sent up for concurrence.
John Langdon, Speaker
In Council, the 25th of June, 1779, read and concurred.
E. Thomson, Sec'ry."

Vermont was now in a situation of extreme embarrassment.
New-Hampshire had put in a claim to juridiction over her
entire territory, and not without great plausibility in
her arguments to sustain it. The State of New-York was
also pressing a similar claim. And, in addition to this,
what added not a little to her embarrassment was that
Massachusetts also laid claim to that portion of her
her territory of which she had been deprived by the
decision of the King of Great Britain,
in respect to the divisional line between that State
and New-Hampshire in 1740. This decision had given to
New-Hampshire a strip of territory forty miles in width
from the Merrimac River, westward through what is now
the whole extent of New-Hampshire and Vermont, this
width being fourteen miles greater than New-Hampshire had
ever claimed.

But what affected her more sensibly than these claims
was, Congress, instead of becoming more favorable to her
independence, seemed in this difficult complication of
circumstances to have wholly turned against her.
On every side; even by many towns within her own
limits, her right to self government was ignored. Congress
looked upon her position as one that not only portended
no good to the best welfare of the nation, but even deemed
it most prejudicial to that welfare in the great struggle which
was going on. The controversy therefore did not seem to
be beneath the attention of the general government, but
rather, appeared to demand some action on its part. It was a
matter of the utmost moment that between the states there
should be no jarring interests, and that every difficulty, which
would have a tendency to lead to internal conflicts should be
harmoniously adjusted. Regarding the subject, therefore, in
this light, and feeling earnestly solicitous to secure such a
settlement of existing disputes, as would preserve or bring
about the most kind and friendly feelings among the contest-
ants, and thinking that that object could be best accomplished
by themselves, Congress took the subject into consideration.

End, Chapter 8
Transcribed by Janice Farnsworth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This thread:

• [VT-L] The Vermont Controversy: (towns east of CT River wished to become VT) by <>

  • [VT-L] THE VERMONT CONTROVERSY Part 2 of 2 by <>