54 



CIVIL HISTORY OF VERMONT. 



Part. II. 



UNION WITH A PART OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. 



DIFFICULTY WITH NEW HAMPSHIRE. 



territory. Hence we have hitherto had 

 occasion to consider the people of Ver- 

 mont only in their relation to the govern- 

 ment of New York ; but the declaration 

 of their independence and the organiza- 

 tion of their government were, in their 

 consequences, the occasion of new diffi- 

 culties, not only with New York, but also 

 with Now Hampshire and Massachusetts. 



The original territory of New Hamp- 

 shire 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- 

 al grants, and belonged to New Hamp- 

 shire 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 con- 

 tended, that all the territory west of Ma- 

 son's grant, had been held in subjection 

 to New Hampshire by force of the royal 

 commissions — that when the royal author- 

 ity ceased in the colonies, in conser[uence 

 of the declaration of independence, their 

 allegiance to New Hampshire ceased, and 

 they were left at liberty to form a sepa- 

 rate 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 terri- 

 tory between Mason's grant and Connect- 

 icut 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 pur- 

 pose of preserving its own union, the 



York. By Ethan Allen.' It was dated Bennington, 

 An^nst 9, 1778, and printed at Hartford, Ct. in a 

 Deal pamphlet of 2t pages, and is now in the pos- 

 e3s-;ion of the author. The substance of this pam- 

 phlet was afterwards incorporated into Allen's 

 ' Vindication of Vermont,' and may also in part be 

 found in Slade's Vt. State Papers, page 85. 



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 af- 

 firmative and twelve in the negative." 

 It was also voted that any other towns on 

 the east side of Connecticut river might 

 be admitted to a union, on producing a 

 vote of the majority of the inliabitants, or 

 on their sending a representative to the 

 assembly of Vermont. Having thus ef- 

 fected their purpose, the sixteen towns 

 informed the government of New Hamp- 

 shire that they had withdrawn from their 

 jurisdiction, and wished the division line 

 to be established and a friendly inter- 

 course 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 withdraw- 

 ing from her jurisdiction. But the event 

 proved both these* representations to be 

 false. Tlie government of New Hamp- 

 shire was justly incensed at the proceed- 

 ings. Mr. Weare, President of the Coun- 

 cil 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, gov- 

 ernor of Vermont, claiming the sixteen 

 towns as a part of New Hampshire.! He 

 stated that a large portion of the inhabi- 

 tants of those towns were opposed to the 

 union, that this minority had claimed the 

 protection of the state, and that the gov- 

 ernment of New Hampshire considered 

 itself bound to protect them. He urged 

 Gov. Chittenden to exert his influence 

 with the legislature, to dissolve a connec- 

 tion, which would endanger their peace 

 and probably their political existence. 



On the reception of this communica- 

 tion. Governor Chittenden convened the 

 council, and it was agreed that Colonel 

 Ethan Allen should repair to Philadelphia 

 and ascertain how the proceedings of 

 Vermont were regarded by Congress. On 

 his return, he reported that Congress was 

 unanimously opposed to the proceedings 

 of Vermont in relation to the union with 



* For this letter, see Slade's Stale Papers, p. 90. 

 t Ibid, page 91. 



