LIBRARY OF THE U N IVLR.SITY or ILLI NOIS 973.3 B75f -*~ — Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign http://www.archive.org/details/fourteenthcommonOObrew THE FOURTEENTH COMMONWEALTHS THE FOURTEENTH COMMONWEALTHS Vermont and the States That Failed by WILLIAM BREWSTER PHILADELPHIA GEORGE S. MacMANUS COMPANY i960 Copyright 1960 by WILLIAM BREWSTER All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced without permission. printed by Theo. Gaus' Sons, Inc., Brooklyn, n. y., u.s.a. 1 "£15 4 PREFACE Some years ago, the author delivered an address on the lost states, before the University Club of Wilkes-Barre, which elicited considerable interest in the subject and that has induced me to write this book. The subject has been variously, incompletely, and inaccu- rately treated in newspapers and magazines from time to time. Local histories have creditably presented the facts and a com- prehensive history of one of the states that failed has been published. Inasmuch, as there were four movements, for the establishment of states and their admission as the fourteenth member of the Confederated United States, prompted by the same motives and pursued at about the same time, it seemed desirable to group the four projects together in one concise work. The leaders of each proposed state expected it to be the Fourteenth Commonwealth. Vermont succeeded and the reader will be able to perceive why it did. Vermont and the states that failed are not to be regarded merely as detached and dramatic episodes of our national life, but should be considered as integral and important contributions to the development of American character and to the evolution of the Federal Government of the United States. In compiling this volume, the writer has relied on all avail- able original sources of information. The more or less illegal nature of the movements required secrecy, and little of the proceedings was committed to permanent written records. There- fore, resort has been compelled to the nearest contemporary - historical accounts. With these brief words of explanation, this work with its omissions and imperfections is respectfully submitted to the patient reader. William Brewster _£ Kingston, Pa. Oct. 1959 CONTENTS Preface v Introduction xi Section I VERMONT CHAPTER PAGE I The New Hampshire Grants i II The Bennington Mob 9 III Onion River Land Jobbing 20 IV Wits and Not Whips 25 V British Intrigues 41 VI Vermont a State 56 Section II WESTMORELAND I The Connecticut Claim 63 II Settlement and Yankee Pennamite Wars 69 III The Decree of Trenton 76 IV Patterson and Armstrong 91 V John Franklin 102 VI Timothy Pickering 118 VII Conclusion 137 Section III FRANKLIN CHAPTER PAGE I The Southern Frontier 147 II Watauga 157 III Cession of Territory by North Carolina 170 IV The August Convention 175 V The First Constitutional Convention 181 VI New State Government Established 186 VII The Failing Fortune of Franklin 197 VIII The Future of John Sevier 208 Section IV TRANSYLVANIA I The Transylvania Company 221 II The Pathfinder 228 III BOONESBOROUGH 236 IV A State That Failed 246 List of Documents, Records fmd Books 256 Index 259 THE FOURTEENTH COMMONWEALTHS INTRODUCTION WHY? Why the title of this book? Because each of the new state schemes treated of herein, it was expected and hoped would become the fourteenth member of the Confederated United States. However, only one of the four succeeded, Vermont which became the fourteenth commonwealth of the Federal Union, not under the Articles of Confederation, but after the adoption of the Constitution and under the present government of the United States. The four had a somewhat similar inception and development; and all the powers, if any, exercised, were derived from what may be termed the authority of squatter sovereignty. This dis- tinguishes them from the colonies which by the Declaration of Independence were merged into the original thirteen United States, because these colonies derived their powers from the king of England either by royal orders, royal charters or royal proprietary grants. The Declaration of Independence sundered this royal authority, and most of the states assumed succession of this sovereignty by the means of conventions of the people.' The only tie binding Vermont to the Confederated United States was the claim of New York to the jurisdiction of its territory, and having successfully resisted that claim, the citi- zens of Vermont considered themselves politically adrift in the seething sea of the Revolution. They were a people of and by themselves, and impelled by the peril of their situation, they adopted their own Declaration of Independence and instituted a representative organization which for years maintained itself as the de facto government of an independent republic. By their great achievement at Ticonderoga, they thought they merited recognition of their independence, and time and again supplicated Congress to admit Vermont as the Fourteenth Com- monwealth, but the persistent opposition of New York baffled their desires. Of the three lost states, Franklin and Transyl- xi vania actually sent agents who solicited the recognition and support of the Continental Congress. All of the four were inhabited by people of the same racial strain, thoroughly American and mainly of English and Scotch- Irish ancestry. A few of them were sordid land jobbing specu- lators, but most were courageous men and women who were actuated by the desire for cheap and fertile land and who sought only the betterment of their condition and the establishment of homes in the wild borderland. They were not idealists inspired by any public motives or patriotic impulses, not mere adven- turers who sought the excitement of the frontier, nor refugees fleeing from bigotry and intolerance, but a practical people seeking satisfaction of the natural human desire for material improvement. Mostly young men and women with growing families, they went from the more crowded east either as indi- viduals or organized colonists into the wilderness where they suffered the red-men's atrocities and the white men's oppressions. Some were mere squatters and the others held the lands they occupied by conflicting titles. In fact, their disputed land tenures caused their troubles and their abortive schemes of independ- ence. They received little support and suffered opposition from their parent states, Connecticut, Virginia and North Carolina. Ignored, deserted, opposed and drifting about in a state of nature, they exercised squatter sovereingty and established for brief periods imperfect self governments in three of them. The states that failed were impelled by the same motives and there is striking similarity in their inception, development and failure. Not one of them ever emerged into a state of complete legality. They were embroynic, and the stillborn chil- dren of a most troubled time, when the thirteen states exhausted by the struggles of the Revolution drifted to impotence and confusion. Like all associated states lacking the power of su- preme sovereignty, the Confederation rent assunder by inability to collect its taxes, compose the quarrels of its members and enforce its enactments, was threatened with death and dissolu- tion. Powerless to check the rising spirit of separation which threatened the dismemberment of some of the states, the Amer- ican people embraced a stronger union, and one of the potent arguments in favor of the Federal Constitution was the dis- turbed condition of the state of Franklin and teeming discontent in the Kentucky counties of Virginia. xn Three of the most pleasant spots in North America were occupied by the lost commonwealths, and the great fertility of the soil naturally enhanced the progress, prosperity and prestige of each. There were hardships and dangers, and terrible mas- sacres, but not all the inhabitants were murdered by the Indians and in fact few were slain. There were alarms, flights and aban- donment of the clearings but the settlers soon returned to the lands they occupied and loved. The sturdy men who wielded the axe and followed the plow and the vigorous young women with the many children they clothed and fed were mainly indif- ferent to the contentions that so greatly disturbed the politi- cians, and little cared whether the government was that of Con- necticut, Westmoreland or Pennsylvania, Franklin or North Carolina, Virginia or Transylvania. They fought when fighting was necessary to hold their homes and naturally preferred one leader to the other and this jurisdiction to that, but their main purpose was to hold the lands which they occupied and which they retained with a tenacity that overcame every obstacle. More important to them than all the political bickering and fighting were : the location of a blacksmith shop at the intersecting trails around which grew a village with stores, taverns and pleasant homes; the erection of a mill on a nameless stream which ground their grain; the construction of another on a falling brook which sawed lumber for better homes; the laying out of roads and the building of bridges; and the founding of churches and the establishment of schools. Franklin was the most important of the states that failed and the one attaining the most complete development. It adopted a constitution, elected a governor and assembly, enacted laws, organized courts, collected taxes and for some time exercised the functions of an independent backwoods republic. The envy and strife among its leaders put it to sleep. After a brief inter- lude of North Carolina and territorial government, it sort of translated itself into the state of Tennessee with its only gover- nor as the first chief executive of that commonwealth. Transylvania was a land speculating scheme and began its existence with a gesture of independence. Its backwoods assembly hastily elected and convened held but one brief session. It passed some laws and adjourned. The whole scheme possessed only a shadowy existence during one summer, and then was enveloped and overwhelmed by Virginia. xiii Westmoreland or the Wyoming settlements had the most eventful and tragic history. The new state movement, there, only existed after the Decree of Trenton, 1 when the Connecticut people had driven out their Pennsylvania oppressors and during which time they exercised imperfect self government. As a commonwealth, Westmoreland was only a paper fabrication which vanished in a thin mist of history. This work has been divided into four sections, each treating insofar as possible, only, of the events connected with the new state movement. No general and complete history of the four regions is attempted; but in order to give a proper background some extraneous circumstances and events have been considered. 1 The Decree of Trenton was the judgment of the court constituted under the Articles of Confederation which determined the jurisdiction of the disputed territory to be in Pennsylvania. XIV Section I VERMONT • Dorset ^ I Ao'Banni'oQron / M A S 3 A C H VERMONT OJjJjL CHAPTER I THE NEW HAMPSHIRE GRANTS It is not my purpose, in this section, to write a history ol Vermont; but merely to compare the successful movement there with the futile efforts made to establish and maintain independ- ent governments in the three states that failed; that is by a comparison of events and circumstances without attempting to account for the ultimate results. In the four movements for separation and independence, many conflicting circumstances, conditions, crosscurrents and confusions baffle and bewilder an- alysis and explanation. It may be best to confine treatment of the subject to certainty of facts and leave conclusions to the judg- ment of the intelligent reader or perhaps to the transcendant wisdom of critical historians and historical commentators who delight in conjecturing what might have been. In the four state movements, there is much similarity in time, motives, actors and circumstances, and dissimilarity in territory, population and development. As to time, all began in the colonial period immediately preceding the Revolution, Vermont being the first in its inception. The underlying motive in every case was the demand, for better and cheaper land, inspired by the pressure of the farm population in the adjacent colonies. The actors were all of the same character, mostly adventuresome poor young men and with few exceptions native Americans, sturdy, industrious and independent. In religion, they were Calvinists, New England Congregationalists at the north and Presbyterians in the south. The basic racial stocks were English and Scotch-Irish but this difference in blood did not differentiate them for both equally loved freedom and inde- pendence. The circumstances which influenced them are difficult to define, yet all the movements were similarly beset with dis- puted land titles, conflicts over jurisdiction, land jobbing, internal jealousies, and the hostility of the neighboring colonies. The territories embraced in the four projects were all in- land, but differed from each other in fertility of soil, outlets for commerce, natural resources and size. In Vermont, a con- siderable population supported an orderly administration, but in the others there were insufficient inhabitants to maintain effi- cient self government. In all, except Transylvania, development was retarded by armed conflicts over jurisdiction and internal dissension, but Vermont excelled the others in cultivation of the soil, comfortable living, government and progress. The territory north of Massachusetts extending to the Canadian line, and between the Connecticut river and New York, now comprehended in the state of Vermont, was, in 1749, claimed by Massachusetts, New Hampshire and New York. The respective claims of Massachusetts and New Hamp- shire were based on the following grants, royal decisions and actual possessions. In 1606, King James I created two chartered companies, the Virginia and Plymouth companies and granted them all the territory of North America between the 34th and 45th degrees of latitude and extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, the latter company to hold the northern por- tion. 1 In 1620, the king revived the Plymouth company, which had fallen into decay, under the name of the Council for New England and granted it all the territory between the 40th and 48th degrees of latitude and extending from sea to sea. 2 Acting under this grant, the Council for New England, March 19, 1627, granted to Sir Henry Roswell, John Endicott and others all the land between lines drawn three miles north of Charles river and three miles north of Merrimac river and extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean; but this while vesting title to the land gave the grantees no powers of government. 3 This deficiency was, however, supplied by King Charles I, who, March 4, 1628, granted them and twenty others a royal charter, under the name of "The Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England," giving them full powers of government and confirming the ownership of the territory previously granted to Roswell and others. 4 The claim of New Hampshire was founded on the following grants made by the Council for New England to John Mason : 1 Hutchison's History of Massachusetts, Vol. I, page 2. 2 Ibid., page 5. 3 Ibid., 8; Palfrey: History of Colonial New England, Vol. I, page 97. 4 Hutchinson, Vol. I, page 9 ; Palfrey, Vol. I, page 98. March 9, 1621, territory between Naumkeag (Salem) and the Merrimac; August 10, 1622, territory from the Merrimac to Sagedahoc; November 7, 1629, territory between Merrimac and Piscataqua rivers; April 22, 1635, territory between Naum- keag and Piscataqua river by the name of New Hampshire. 5 Under these grants or by their own volition, settlers entered the territory between the Merrimac and the Piscataqua river near its mouth and the following towns were established: Dover, Exeter, Hampton and Portsmouth. In 1677, the Mason conflict of title with the Massachusetts grant was referred to a commit- tee of the King's Council, which determined "that Massachusetts had a right to three miles north of Merrimac river to follow the course of the river so far as it extended." 6 The effect of this decision was to absorb a great part of New Hampshire in Massa- chusetts, as the course of the Merrimac is west from the ocean for a considerable distance, then turns south makes a loup and thence runs north about fifty miles to the outlet of Winnepausake lake (now Bristol). Consequently, if this construction prevailed all that remained to New Hampshire was the territory between the course of the Merrimac from its source and the Piscataqua. However, the old charter of Massachusetts having been vacated, King William in 1 69 1, granted a new charter with a royal governor 7 and defined the northern boundary of the province as "extending from the great river commonly called Monomack, alias Merrimac on the north part and from three miles northward of said river to the Atlantic, etc." 8 In 1737, a royal commission, composed of colonial delegates, decided that if the northern boundary of Massachusetts was fixed by the old charter, it ran as determined by the committee of the King's Council in 1677, viz from the outlet of Lake Winnepausake to the sea; but if the boundary was fixed by the second charter, that of King William, it began three miles north of the mouth of the Merrimac and thence due west to the sea. 9 This opinion decided nothing, and both Massachusetts and New 5 Hutchinson, Vol. I, pages 313 to 317; Palfrey, Vol. I, page 77. 6 Hutchinson, Vol. I, pages 312 to 319 for a discussion of claim and opinion of Jones, Attorney general. 7 Ibid., page 410. 8 Ibid., page 383. 9 Ibid., 382 to 387; Palfrey, IV 68 to 70. Hampshire appealed to the king, whose privy council disregard- ing any interpretation of the charters established an arbitrary line between the two provinces, viz "that the northern boundary of Massachusetts should be a curved line pursuing the course of the Merrimac river at three miles distance on the north side thereof beginning at the Atlantic Ocean and ending at a point due north of Pautucket Falls (now Lowell) and a straight line drawn from thence due west until it met the New York line. 10 This settlement fixed the southern line of New Hampshire but did not determine how far west that province ran. The claim of New York was based upon the grant of Charles II to his brother, the Duke of York, after the conquest of New Netherland, of u that part of the Main Land of New England and extending from the river Kennebuck and so upward by the shortest course of the river Canada, etc. and all the land from the west side of Connecticut to the east side of Delaware Bay." 11 This grant made March 12, 1664, included the parts of Con- necticut and Massachusetts west of the Connecticut river; but by an agreement between New York and Connecticut, in 1683, the boundary line between the two colonies was fixed twenty miles east of the Hudson river. 12 This line was, by intrusions and possessions of Massachusetts, acquiesced to by New York as the boundary between them and is so stated in a report of the Lords of Trade to the king in 1757. 13 The foregoing grants, decisions, of the royal council, agree- ments and possessions indicate a certainity of facts warranting the conclusion, that the legal technical title to and right of government of the territory, now Vermont, was, in 1749, vested in the province of New York; that Massachusetts had merely a claim of possesion to a small region by reason of its establish- ment of Fort Dummer, now Brattleborough and other settle- ments nearby; and that the western boundary of New Hampshire was undefined but could extend no farther westward than the Connecticut river. As to New Hampshire, this was the conclusion of the royal government, which that year appointed Benning Wentworth governor of New Hampshire, and defined the terri- 10 Ibid., 387, 388; Ibid., 71, 72. 11 New York Colonial Documents II, page 295. 12 ibid., Vol. IV, pages 628 to 630. 13 Ibid., Vol. VII, page 223 ; also see Colden's letter in which he states he can find no record of any agreement. tory he was to govern, as extending due west till it met another government. 14 Nevertheless, Wentworth, presuming that his colony ex- tended as far west as Massachusetts, granted, January 3, 1749, to William Williams and sixty-one others a township six miles square and situate twenty four miles east of the Hudson River and six miles north of Massachusetts, which in his honor was called Bennington. Wentworth communicated, to Governor Clin- ton of New York, his presumptive right, which the latter dis- claimed. After informing Clinton of his grant of the township of Bennington, it was agreed between them that matters should remain status quo, awaiting the decision of the king. 15 Nothwithstanding this agreement, Wentworth made further grants and by 1754, had granted fourteen townships west of the Connecticut river. His nephew, John Wentworth, who succeeded him as governor, had surveys made and laid out on either side of the Connecticut river three rows of townships; and by 1764 granted one hundred thirty-eight townships extending as far as Lake Champlain. It has been urged that the Wentworths were actuated solely by personal greed, and that the fees they received and their retention for themselves of two rights of three hun- dred and sixty acres in each township greatly enhanced their private fortunes. A New Hampshire grant consisted of a township, six miles square, divided into sixty-four proprietors rights of about three hundred sixty acres each. One of these rights was reserved for the church, one for the first settled minister, one for schools, one for the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel and two for the governor. In most cases, the townships were granted to land jobbers who peddled out the rights to actual settlers or held them for future speculation. The rights were usually sold at reasonable prices to poor young men, from the adjacent New England colonies, who were eager for homes and rapidly settled the disputed territory. These purchasers knew little of land titles and confidently assumed their titles were indefeasible being de- rived from a royal governor. Moreover, they were induced to purchase and encouraged to settle by assurances, of New Hamp- shire's right to the territory and intention to defend the validity ^Documentary History of New York, Vol. IV, page 552. 15 Ibid., pages 534 to 537. of its grants, contained in the proclamation of Governor Went- worth, issued March 16, 1764. 16 Meanwhile, New York had not remained indifferent to the action of New Hampshire and the intrusions of the settlers under its grants; and Governor Colden had issued a proclama- tion, preceding and provoking Wentworth's proclamation, warn- ing the intruders and pronouncing them outlaws. 17 More effectual than these paper manifestoes was New York's appeal to the royal government and the plastering of the New Hampshire town- ships with patents issued to that province's politicians and avid land jobbers. By the appeal, it obtained from the king, July 20, 1764, an order declaring, "the western banks of the River Connecticut from where it enters the province of Massachusetts Bay as far North as the forty-fifth degree of Northern latitude to be the Boundary line between the said two Provinces of New Hamp- shire and New York." 18 By plastering the New Hampshire grants with patents, New York secured the support of many of its most influential men, and planted on the ground a consider- able number of settlers, who disputed the possession of the New Hampshire grantees. The king's order put a stop to Wentworth's land jobbing scheme and inhibited New Hampshire from exer- cising jurisdiction over the grants it had made. In 1760, New York established the county of Cumberland, running from the Connecticut river to the Green Mountains; 19 and in 1770, Gloucester county north of Cumberland and adja- cent to the Connecticut river. 20 A majority of the settlers in these counties held their lands under New York patents, and consequently were strongly attached to that province. The New York land jobbers brought actions of ejectment in the courts of that province and attempted evictions were made. To protect themselves and stop these suits, the settlers living about Bennington sent Samuel Robinson, a leading inhabitant there, as their agent to London. Robinson enlisted the powerful assistance of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, which possessed a right in each township under the Wentworth grants, and the two by their petitions obtained an order from the 16 Ibid., page 570. « Ibid., 558. ™Ibid., 576. ™lbid. t 587. 2 o Ibid., 634. king, April n, 1767, commanding the governor of New York to make no new grants in the disputed territory and to molest no person in quiet possession of land under a valid deed from New Hampshire. 21 The attitude of the royal government was most commend- able. It considered the welfare of the actual settlers and not the selfish interests of the royal governors, or as Lord Shelburne said in his letter transmitting the king's order: "The power of granting land was vested in the governor of the colony originally for the purpose of accomodating, not disturbing settlers espec- ially the poor and industrious." However, this liberal and benign policy of the crown had been thwarted by the cupidity of the royal governors and their political favorites, who when con- fronted with their transgressions, excused themselves by omis- sions, equivocations and evasions, as did Governor Moore of New York, in his replies to Shelburne. 22 A list of the settlers made December 18, 1765 by Samuel Robinson and Jeremiah French 23 indicates there were upward of two hundred and fifty settlers west of the Green Mountains and in the region about Bennington; and it is to be presumed there were equal numbers settled along the Connecticut river. In the next two years, the number greatly increased and probably Robinson was justified in the assertions contained in his petition to the king. Those west of the Green Mountains invariably de- pended on the New Hampshire grants, and those east of the mountains and along the Connecticut river held under both New York and New Hampshire and their allegiance was generally to New York. This difference of title and allegiance greatly confused and embittered the contest, as will presently appear. From the king's order, of 1764, declaring the western banks of the Connecticut, etc. "to be" the boundary line, conflict- ing conclusions were drawn as to the meaning of the words to be, New York contending they referred to the past and that the Connecticut river had always been the eastern boundary of that province; while the New Hampshire grantees maintained the words affected the future and did not impair the validity of the prior grants made by Governor Wentworth. However con- strained the latter construction may seem, by it the New Hamp- 21 Ibid., 584-609. 22 Ibid., 590, 605. ™Ibid., 585. shire grantees justified their resistance to the claims of New York. Perhaps, a better justification was the inherent moral right of the settlers to the lands they alone made valuable by occupa- tion and improvement, and the royal declaration that the actual settlers who had valid deeds from the New Hampshire governor were not to be disturbed in their possessions. Since this better justification applied only to actual settlers and not to the land jobbers who owned most of the New Hampshire township grants, and were the leaders of the resistance to New York, the constrained construction of the words to be provided them with a legal argumentation of the contest. However, legal pros and cons were of no avail and the contest was now transferred to the arena of force and arms. CHAPTER II THE BENNINGTON MOB The state of Vermont was largely the creation of a remark- able family. Joseph Allen, a sturdy Connecticut farmer and his wife Mary Baker, aunt of Remember Baker, were the parents of two daughters, Lydia and Lucy, and six sons, Ethan, Heman, Levi, Zimri, Heber and Ira, who were all notable in the annals of Vermont. Even as children, they were obstinate, bold and clever; and Ethan is said to have characterized them, thus, "Only two women were delivered of seven devils, Mary Mag- dalene and my mother." Of these sons, Ethan, the eldest and Ira, the youngest, became famous. Ethan Allen was born in Litchfield, Connecticut, January 10, 1738, and soon after the family removed to the town of Cornwall in the same colony. As a youth, Ethan came in contact with Dr. Thomas Young, a scholarly man and from him imbibed some philosophical notions and unorthodox religious opinions. Desiring wealth, he joined a partnership business, which erected a small iron furnace at Salisbury, Connecticut, for the manu- facture of cast iron kettles that readily sold to potash makers. This and other speculative ventures not proving very successful, we find him in 1768 attending a meeting at Canaan, Connecticut of New Hampshire grantees, who were devising ways and means to defend their rights in law suits brought against them at Albany. Impressed by Ethan's audacity and dominating per- sonality, they employed him as their agent in defense of the suits. Allen immediately went to Portsmouth, New Hampshire and interviewed Governor Wentworth, who convinced him of the validity of the New Hampshire grants, in fact so much so, that he purchased a right in the town of Pultney and another in Castleton. At Wentworth's suggestion, he went to New Haven and engaged Jared Ingersoll, an eminent Connecticut lawyer, to represent him in the Albany suits. At the trial, the judge himself a land jobber and interested party refused to consider Ingersoll's defense and directed judgment against the New Hampshire grantees. The New York land jobbers attempted to bribe Allen, who spurned their offer with a remark that: "The Gods of the Hills are not the Gods of the Valleys," and when pressed for an explanation of this assertion replied, "If you will accompany me to the hill of Bennington the sense will be made clear." This was Vermont's Declaration of Independence. At the Catamount Tavern in Bennington, Allen announced the failure of his legal defense, and it may be presumed advised resort to force and arms. Be that as it may, the upshot was the formation of an organized mob, called the Green Mountain Boys with Ethan Allen, Colonel Commandant and Seth Warner and Remember Baker, captains. Most of the summer, Ethan spent at the Catamount Tavern bluffing, bragging, threatening and denouncing "Yorkers" with horrid profanity. Although not a dissipated man, it is said he was an adept at mixing stone fence, the popular beverage in the Green Mountains, which was a strong concoction of rum, apple jack, cider, spices and Jamaica ginger. It may be presumed that his carousals at the Catamount did not lessen his popularity with the rough frontiersmen of his regiment, who estimated his ability to lead by his capacity to consume stone fence. When cold weather came and "Yorkers" were not likely to bob up, Ethan went to the home of his brother, Heman at Salisbury and there in the congenial company of his own family spent the winter. As he had a flare for writing, when not loafing at his brother's store, he spent his time producing broadcasts against New York land jobbers, scribbling scraps of philosophy of which he knew nothing and writing diatribes against the Jewish Jehovah and Puritan preachers. Ethan Allen was no soldier and not much of a statesman. The only real fighting he ever did was in the little engagement in which he got himself captured; and thereafter he languished in a British prison until the fighting was pretty well over. Neither did he exert any great influence in the civil affairs of his state. He prevailed by his manner and not by his means. That his sober neighbors in Vermont justly estimated his limitations is illustrated by the election of Seth Warner to command the Ver- mont Revolutionary regiment, and the choice of Thomas Chitten- den governor of the state for twenty years. Notwithstanding, this dubious estimate of him, Ethan Allen was, in the opinion of the writer, the father of Vermont. He was 10 the right man, at the right time in the right place. He was a mob leader at a lawless time in an isolated community. He rightly estimated the irresolution and timidity of the land jobbers, the vacillation and contemptible weakness of the New York govern- ment, the moral sympathy of the surrounding people and the just policy of the British government. By bluffing, blustering, threat- ening, burning and beating without design of murder, he terrified and intimidated his antagonists and prevented New York's absorbing the New Hampshire grants. As presumed by a biographer, Ethan, on all unusual occasions, in order to impress his "Boys," wore his traditional uniform with epaulets, gold braid and shinning buttons. He certainly on train- ing days wore his huge sword, specially made to accomodate his gigantic stature, and gave his commands with considerable profanity. That his men had much training is doubtful, for Ethan knew little about the manual of arms, and we may assume it was confined to marching back and forth a few times on the village green to the beat of a drum, and then a headlong charge into the Catamount tap room and a terrific assault on stone fence. When these martial duties had been duly performed, it is prob- able that the valiant soldiers, all that were able departed to their lonesome cabins and left the campaign in the hands of Ethan, Landlord Fay and the other leading statesmen who consumed the rest of the stone fence. The courage of the Green Mountain Boys was never put to the test, but if it had been there is no doubt they would have creditably acquitted themselves, for they were made of the stuff which could fight like a cornered catamount. This terrible animal was their emblem and in its honor or their own honor, they had stuffed one of ferocious size and mounted it atop a tall pole in front of Fay's tavern at Bennington with its glistening teeth and sharp nose pointed toward New York. No roster of the Green Mountain Boys exists. When sum- moned, they seemed to come spontaneously out of the ground and when the day's deed was done they vanished as they came. They never encountered an army, as none ever ventured into their sacred Green Mountains, and consequently they never fought any battles, killed any one or got themselves killed. No tragedy was suffered like that of their kindred down in the Wyoming Valley, where there were pitched battles, many fatal casualties, destruction of whole villages and cruel eviction of ii thousands ; and neither were their encounters comparable to the engagements between the factions in the hills of East Tennessee. All their escapades did not equal a bloody tumult in a Pennsyl- vania mining patch fifty years ago. Nevertheless, the Green Mountain Boys accomplished much and succeeded while the others failed. They chased "Yorkers", whipped land agents, suspended itinerant doctors on high poles, banished surveyors, switched naked chain boys with "twigs of the wilderness" and killed no one. Needless to say these indignities shamed the New York settlers and agents, and soon none dared venture across the border and endure humiliation. The New York governor fretted and fumed, issued proclamations and offered rewards, which only provoked Ethan to, more insolent and obstinate defiance. The activities of the Green Mountain Boys were principally confined to the district in and around Bennington. East of the Green Mountains and along the Connecticut river, there was pretty general submission to the government of New York. 1 The antics of the Bennington Mob, as New Yorkers desig- nated the Green Mountain Boys, are well told in the numerous affidavits made at the time, and as they are retold in the various histories of Vermont, these accounts for the most part must be substantially correct. In order that the reader may understand the nature of the struggle, some of the episodes are hereinafter retold. John Munro, an occupant under New York grants, and a magistrate by appointment of that province, was the most active and obnoxious opponent of the New Hampshire grantees. 2 He complained: "They, (the Green Mountain Boys) assemble themselves together in the night and throw down all the Yorkers Fences as we are called, and Drives the cattle into the Fields and meadows and destroys both Grass and corn and do ever mischief they can think of." 3 To make bad matters worse, the mob destroyed Squire Munro's potash works and threatened to burn all his property. 4 Unable to put up with his obnoxious presence any longer, the mob seized him tied him to a tree and whipped him until he fainted. When he revived, he was again 1 Documentary History of New York, Vol. IV, page 837. a Ibid., pages 680, 744, 762, 776. 8 Ibid., page 714. *lbid., page 800, 843. 12 flogged until he fainted and upon recovery was whipped the third time. His wounds were dressed and he was forever banished with the admonition if he returned he would be hanged. 5 Need- less to say Munro had had enough and we hear little of him any more. In spite of the organized resistance, the land jobbers were determined to drive out the New Hampshire men, and in Jan- uary, 1 77 1, Sheriff TenEck of Albany county with a large posse marched across the border to the house of James Breckenridge in Bennington for the purpose of evicting him. Breckenridge had been warned of their approach and had fortified his house within which a number of armed neighbors had gathered to resist the sheriff. Most of the posse slunk away and refused to cooperate, and the sheriff supported by only two or three approached the door and demanded admission. The Bennington Mob seems to have been well mustered for the occasion, as two large armed bands of them had secreted themselves in the bushes flanking the house. Discovering this, the sheriff backed out of his perilous position as best he could and with what remained of his formid- able array departed in haste and fear to the safety of Albany. 8 If such could be the humiliation of a sheriff backed by the great power and wealth of New York, the woe of the individual who ventured into the disturbed country was intolerable. Such was the situation of Dr. Samuel Adams, an itinerant physician who had squatted on a New York claim at Arlington. The dis- position of his neighbors seems to have been toleration of his presence, probably because of his occupation for doctors were badly needed there; and if he had been quiet his intrusion would have been overlooked. Although warned to keep his mouth shut, like most foolish men he continued to talk long and loud. This provoked the "Boys" to seize and bring him to Ethan Allen's judgment seat, a stump in front of the Catamount Tavern in Bennington. Ethan patiently listened to the complaint and the doctor's answers; and not wishing to do the old blatherskite physical harm, soberly adjudged him guilty of intolerable perti- nacity, and pronounced an astounding sentence which was im- mediately carried out. He was securely strapped in a chair which was hoisted to the top of the pole directly beneath the threatening catamount and kept suspended there while every 3 Ira Allen: History of Vermont, page 57. • Documentary History of New York, Vol. IV, pages 732 to 743. 13 one jeered and laughed. When lowered from his perch un- harmed, he was so humiliated, that he never "peeped after." 7 Not ridiculous but severe was the punishment dealt out to Charles Hutcheson, a "Yorker," who had built a cabin near the twenty mile line. Ethan and Remember Baker descended upon him, demolished his cabin, made a great bonfire of the logs and when they were consumed, Ethan admonished him: "Go your way now, and complain to that Damned Scoundrel, your governor. God Damn your governor, laws, king, Council and Assembly." When he remonstrated, Allen thundered in his terrible way: "God Damn your soul are you going to preach to us," and made terrible threats against him. Whereupon, he fled and returned no more. 9 This was a little more than New York could stand and the Council after ponderous deliberation offered a reward of twenty pounds for the capture of Ethan Allen, Remember Baker and other terrible malefactors. 9 Governor Tryon followed with a long winded proclamation as effectual as the Pope's Bull. 10 Undaunted by rewards and proclamations, Ethan went into the proclamation business and issued, February 5, 1772, his celebrated bombastic proclamation, which he had printed and distributed and posted across the New York frontier. It was signed by Ethan Allen, Remember Baker and Robert Cochran, and offered a reward for the capture of James Duane and Thomas Kemp, New York lawyers and land jobbers, who were termed disturbers of the peace. 11 Ethan had a fine sense of humor, and well knew his reward was only a hoax, as neither Kemp nor Duane, who were both lawyers and consequently great cowards, dared venture even to Albany and run the risk of being kidnapped and strung up on the Catamount pole. It was intended as a jolly joke and was so regarded by most people in New York, who enjoyed a good laugh over futile proclama- tions and rewards and the discomfiture of governors, land jobbers and politicians. In the beginning of his campaign against the "Yorkers," Allen came to and went from Vermont with the seasons, but 7 Ira Allen: History of Vermont, page 46. 8 Documentary History of New York, Vol. IV, page 746. 9 Ibid., page 749. 10 Ibid., page 730. 11 Manuscript in State Library at Montpelier. 14 in 1 77 1, when the Bennington Mob under his skillful direction had pretty well established the security of the New Hampshire grants, he bought a property in Poultney where he placed his brother Heber and family, and there made a more permanent home. Not all things went so well with the Green Mountain Boys and especially with Ethan's cousin, Remember Baker, who had a sad experience. One night a Yorker mob inspired by hope of the reward broke into his house, pulled him and his wife out of bed, wounded both and leaving her insensible on the floor bore away the struggling and bleeding Remember. She recov- ered her senses, hastened to a neighbors and gave the alarm. Soon the "Boys" were in close pursuit and overhauled the "Yorkers" before they had gone far toward Albany. After badly mauling the presumptous "Yorkers" and releasing the prisoner, they carried the injured Remember back to his home. This diabolical outrage, as he termed it, aroused Ethan to a white passion and he wrote a highly colored account of the affair, which he had published in the Connecticut Courant, then widely read, and this as Ethan designed won much sympathy for the New Hampshire people. Governor Tryon of New York tiring of futile proclamations resorted to appeasement and May 10, 1772, addressed a letter, to the inhabitants of Bennington, offering safe conduct to their representatives and suggesting as their envoys, Parson Dewey, James Breckenridge and Stephen Fay, but warning them not to send Ethan Allen, Robert Cochran, Mr. Seville or Remember Baker, and particularly Seth Warner, "whose audacious be- havior has subjected him to the penalties of the laws of his country." 12 As ambassadors, Stephen Fay and Jonas Fay re- paired to New York and submitted the attitude of their consti- tuents to the Provincial Council, which after due consideration, 1 resolved that all criminal prosecutions be suspended and a rec- ommendation be made to all New York claimants to stop all civil suits until the king's pleasure should be made known. 13 This attitude was favorably received, but while the settle- ment was being acclaimed at the Catamount Tavern with toasts to the king, Governor Tryon and the New York Council 14 , there 12 Documentary History of New York, Vol. IV, page 779. ™Ibid., page 792. ^Ibid., pages 791, 792. 15 were new flare ups on Otter Creek and as far north as the Onion River. Inspired by the victories of the "Boys" over the "Yorkers," there had been a brisk sale of New Hampshire grants and an influx of New England settlers into this northern region. This stimulated the activities of the New York claim- ants, who sent surveyors into the district to lay out their claims and agents to occupy them. In September, John Dumbar, a "Yorker," while attempting a survey on the Onion River, was seized by a mob led by Remember Baker and Ira Allen, and "thrown into the fire, Burned and otherwise beat and abused in a cruel manner." 15 Meanwhile, the Board of Trade in London, acting under orders of the king, was attempting a solution of the vexatious dispute; and made their decision in a report submitted to the Privy Council in December, 16 wherein they concluded: First, that the proprietors in all townships originally settled and estab- lished under grants from Massachusetts should be quieted in their possessions, and that all New York claimants to their lands should be compensated by grants elsewhere upon condition of their quitting their said claims: Second, that all grants by New York upon which actual improvements had been made previous to the establishment of the townships laid out by the governor of New Hampshire ought not to be disturbed; Third, that all townships laid out by the governor of New Hampshire, provided they do not include lands antecedently granted, and improved should be confirmed, and the shareholders in said townships who have actually settled and improved their shares ought not in the future be disturbed in their possessions. It was further recommended that ample grants of land should be made to soldiers, ministers of the gospel, schools, the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel and that the rights of the royal navy should be secured. This report severely criticised the conduct of the New York governors and Council in their grants of land. Nothing could have been fairer than the attitude of the British government, but this report gave great displeasure and antagonism in New York, not only because of its severe censure of the monopolistic land steals practiced in that province, but also because it practically nullified the New York grants in is Ibid., 779. 1