peopleofnewhampshire - Tumblr blog

[peopleofnewhampshire]

Proceedings of the Bar Association of the State of New Hampshire, 1905

Page 212: Twelve of the delegates entered their protest against adopting the new form of government, “because,” as they say, “it appears to us too much like setting up an independency of the mother country,” and “because the colonies of New York and Virginia, which are much larger and more opulent, and, we presume, much wiser, have not attempted anything of this kind; nor, as we can learn, ever desired it.” It was indeed a new and decisive measure, a step in advance of any yet taken, and sanctioned by the example of no other colony. But the people of New Hampshire, ever forward in the assertion of their rights, would not be deterred by the hesitancy or delay of others. The men who were the first in America to seize a royal fort and carry off its stores, as Sullivan, Langdon and their associates had done, a year before this at Portsmouth, were not likely to shrink from any duty, however hazardous, which the exigencies of the times required.

Page 224: It was my fortune—good or bad—to belong to this convention; and surprised more than discouraged at the result, not surprised that parts were rejected, but that the whole was discarded in a mass, I thought it became us, like the convention of 1781, to revise, once more, the whole of our amendments; and, correcting what was wrong in the first attempt, and retaining much which was good, to appeal to “the sober second thoughts of the people, for the reversal, on some points at least, of their former hasty decision. but the general feeling was all the other way. Discouraged by its previous ill success, the convention sent out, for a second trial, only three of its former amendments; the first dispensing with the religious test; the second, abolishing the property qualification, and the third, providing a new mode for making future amendments. Even of these, the second only was adopted by the people; so that the only change which, on the maturest consideration, the people of New Hampshire, after an experience of nearly sixty years, saw fit to make in the constitution, was the abolition of this property qualification for office—a provision which had never been much regard in practice, and, of late, not at all. That some of the changes proposed by the convention and rejected by the people, were improvements on the old constitution, there can be little question; others, of a more doubtful character, were yet not unworthy of a trial; but there were some others, particularly that providing a ratio of representation in the House, so decidedly bad, that one can hardly imagine them tolerable under any circumstances.

Page 242: With a cold climate and a barren soil, the people of New Hampshire enjoy as large a share of the choicest blessings of Heaven as falls to the let of the mass of men in any country, whatever may be the sun over their heads or the soil under their feet. That much of this felicity is due, under the good providence of God, to the wise form of our government, cannot be doubted. Nor is less due to the general moderation and sobriety of our character as a people. While we are as thoroughly democratic, in our habits and opinions and in our general train of thought and action, as the people of any other state in the Union, the conservative element is not less strongly developed. For nearly sixty years the people of New Hampshire declined, though regularly invited thereto every seventh year, even to call a convention to revise their constitution; and when at length one was convened, and the proposed amendments laid before them, they refused, with an unanimity which surprised all parties, to change the fundamental law under which they had so long and so happily lived; choosing rather to retain the good which they possessed than to attempt the better, which was offered indeed, but which might fail them in the trial. If to some of us their course in this respect, seemed over-cautious, yet all will agree that it was neither rash nor presumptuous. It showed no blind impulse of passion, nor love of change for the sake of change, had seized on the public mind, and that her, at least, men may be free without being fickle; strong in the consciousness of power, and yet cautious in its use. This stability of temper, this indisposition to change, speaks well, in an age of change and revolution, for the permanence of our free institutions.

Page 397: From 1784 to 1791 the people of New Hampshire were not at all compactly organized for political purposes, and politics was largely upon a personal basis. During these years not half the senators were elected by popular vote in the counties, and in four years of the seven no candidate for the presidency received a majority of the popular votes. The councilors were regularly chosen, three from the house and two from the senate, the members thus elected continuing to hold their seats in the Legislature. The president often presided in the joint sessions of the houses, which were numerous. 

[peopleofnewhampshire]

Journal of the Constitutional Convention of the State of New Hampshire, 1889

Page 66: It is well known that the Legislature represents the people of New Hampshire, in theory at least, and I have no doubt but generally in practice. Now if we are to change this in the least, or to permit it to be changed, my impressions are that it would be better to leave it to the Legislature. I am not afraid to trust that body. I do not think the citizens of New Hampshire are afraid to trust it. When you put this into the Constitution you have got to abide by it whether it works well or ill, unless another convention is called or the Constitution is in some way amended. If you leave it to the legislators to act at their discretion, they can provide that all or a part of these forcers may be elected by a plurality; and if at any time it is discovered that the scheme does not work well, then they can repeal the law, having no constitutional provision to prevent them. We have noticed that in various respects the people have actually annulled certain provisions of the Constitution because they were not consistent with their convictions. We have seen members of the Catholic church sit here year after year, notwithstanding the prohibition in the Constitution. We have seen men elected to office and discharge the duties acceptably to all who had not the property qualification, although that property qualification was in the Constitution. Now my impressions are that we had better not go too far. We had better consider that we do not possess all the wisdom of the world or more wisdom than the future legislators of New Hampshire may possess. If we make any amendment let us leave it to the Legislature to say whether these officials shall be elected by a plurality or by a majority, as in their wisdom they shall think proper.

Page 68: It is truly said that the farmers of our Constitution handed down to us their acts like the Act of the first apostles, and yet their resolutions have never reached us. What I believe the people of New Hampshire need, is fewer resolutions, more action, more business and enterprise tending to a grander prosperity, and less of legislative action, less politics, and less tinkering with the Constitution of the State.

Page 70: Mr. French of Nashua: We are not here to amend the Constitution, but we are here to vote to submit such things to the people of New Hampshire as we think or as we know from our experience and observation they wish to vote upon. That is may idea of our duty. Now the Legislature of New Hampshire in certain cases has provided for electing certain officers by plurality vote; but, notwithstanding the Legislature of New Hampshire has had the power for many years to provide for the election of representatives,—and I speak of this as being a parallel case to the matter of the election of senators,—I believe they have not provided yet for the election of representatives by a plurality vote; nor have they, unless I am mistaken, made such provision with reference to the election of the selectmen of towns. Now the Legislature represents probably the feeling of the people about as near as anything that we can get hold of. It represents what the people are thinking about and what is being agitated; and, since they have failed to see the importance of providing in the case of the election of representatives that it shall be by a plurality vote, I cannot believe that the people of this State wish to vote upon that question. If either of the amendments suggested here is to be passed, I think it should be the one giving the discretion and power to the Legislature to provide that these officers may be elected by majority vote.

Page 76: Mr. Bartlett of Raymond: I beg leave to differ with some of the gentlemen who have made suggestions with reference to this matter. It seems to me that the great question for us to determine is not whether the people of New Hampshire have asked for this measure, but whether it will better the condition of the people of New Hampshire.

Page 87: It is suggested that by making a stated compensation short sessions will be encouraged. That is an imputation upon the integrity of our chosen representatives. Is our action to be a declaration that we fear, or that we have reason to fear, that our representatives will come here for the purpose of getting the paltry sum of $3 a day and will protract the sessions unreasonably to serve their own avarice instead of serving the State? Is it to be assumed that all the patriotic sentiments which were supposed to exist in the people of New Hampshire at the time the Constitution was framed, and which make the bedrock of our scheme of government, have changed and that the Legislature has got to be looked after? Must we station a guard over them to see that they do not abuse the high trust we have voluntarily given them? Is not that the imputation of the proposed amendment?

Page 167: Unless we honestly believe ourselves that this amendment ought to be inserted in the Constitution, we have no right to vote for it here. You are doing more than presenting it to the people. You are saying to the people of New Hampshire that you believe in it. Now unless a man votes honestly upon such a subject, he is not worthy of a seat in this convention. He should vote according to the dictates of his own conscience, and not for any reasons of expediency or matter of party policy.

Page 170: It would satisfy me in the present state of the public mind were I assured there would be put into the Constitution, there to remain, a provision making it a misdemeanor to engage in the traffic in intoxicating liquors. Then and so long as that remains, there can be no high license law, and the debate upon that subject is removed from the political arena. I am satisfied if the resolution is only broad enough to include the principle. It is, perhaps, wiser not to attempt too much, or more than is necessary. It is a matter of uncertainty whether the people of New Hampshire are in favor of having even so much put into their Constitution. It is certain that a very large body of them are asking us for something, the submission to them of some amendment embodying the principle of prohibition. We cannot do less than to meet the demand. With the principle fixed in the Constitution, it would be the province of the Legislature to enact laws in furtherance thereof and in addition thereto, as the varying circumstances of the time might demand. I shall therefore vote to reject the amendment offered by the gentleman from Greenland.

Page 178: I need not argue this question, however, and I do not propose to argue it. I know there are sincere men here who doubt whether this question should be submitted to the people in the purposed way. Some of you are in favor of license; some of you think that is the best way to crush out the sale of intoxicating drinks,—some of you honestly think so; but, my friends, I ask you for a moment to examine this question. This State has tried high license. In 1778 the Legislature of New Hampshire passed a license law, and from that time down to 1847 there was a license law upon our state books. In 1847 the Legislature submitted the question to the people, “Shall a prohibitory law be enacted by the Legislature of New Hampshire?” and there were 17,000 votes cast,—12,000 in favor of prohibition, and 5,000 against it. The law was passed in 1849, it was repeated in 1855, and from that day to this the people of New Hampshire, by their statues, by their voice as evinced in the Legislature, have declared in favor of prohibition. My friend from Lancaster says, “Leave it upon the statute book.” We have left it upon the statute book.

Page 181: I am in favor of doing anything that may eliminate from New Hampshire the evils of the liquor traffic, and I judge that is the unanimous feeling of this convention. Now, if those who are in favor of including cider are serious and honest, let them present an independent resolution to that effect and I will vote for it; and then if they are in favor of prohibiting the manufacture and sale of malt and distilled liquors, they should vote for the proposition. Whether they do or not, I shall vote for it. If I were opposed to the principle of prohibition, I would vote fairly and squarely against the main question; I would face the question honorably, instead of attempting to kill the measure as they do by loading it down with conditions which they feel, and perhaps know, the people of New Hampshire will not indoors. We all recognize this to be a great evil, and those who have spoken have confessed it to be the greatest vice of the times. Such feeling has been manifested here that we must know that there exists among the people a desire to act upon this particular question. We have been confronted by a petition bearing the names of thousands of the people of New Hampshire asking that this measure be submitted to them. I do not believe we are called upon to decide the merits of prohibition or license here, but should leave it to the people to decide for themselves, and if the people of New Hampshire can see in this a way by which we shall eliminate from society this evil, let them vote for it.

Page 158: I am not inclined to shut my eyes to the fact that there are many and varying opinions upon this as well as all other subjects, and that wisdom and the hope of success direct to measures and forms of expression made as little offensive as possible without the abandonment of principle. It has been said by the gentleman from Lancaster (Mr. Ladd) that the principle of prohibition has been a failure. I deny it. The condition of the people of New Hampshire is today infinitely better than it would have been without that law. I know it from careful observation from year to year for many years past. The argument made by the gentleman can be made against anything. It can be made against the religion of Jesus Christ; because, for sooth, all men at this hour do not bow down before His cross it is a failure, and let us cast it aside and the Holy Scriptures as well. There is nothing that cannot be attacked with this fallacious kind of reasoning. 

[peopleofnewhampshire]

Edwin David Sanborn, History of New Hampshire, 1875

Page 75: The governor of Massachusetts reproved Randolph for endeavoring to excite discontent among the people. He replied, “if he had done amiss, they might complain to the king.” After a brief stay of six weeks he returned to England, charging the magistrates of Boston with oppression, and calling on the king to free the people of New Hampshire from their galling yoke. After his departure the Council of Massachusetts, with the advice of the elders of the church, sent agents to England to answer, in person, to such allegations as might be made against them. On their arrival a hearing was ordered before the chief justices of the king’s bench and common plea. The agents disclaimed all title to the land claimed by Mason, and asserted the right of jurisdiction only over that portion of the territory within the limits of the charter of Massachusetts. The judges declined to determine the ownership of the soil; but decided that neither the proprietor nor Massachusetts had the right of jurisdiction over New Hampshire. It was accordingly decreed that the four towns of Portsmouth, Dover, Exeter and Hampton were beyond the bounds of Massachusetts. This opened the way for the establishment of a separate government for New Hampshire. The secretary of state therefore informed the colony of Massachusetts that it was the king’s pleasure that the two colonies should be separated; and that all commissions issued by Massachusetts within the limits of New Hampshire should be null and void. The claimant, however, was obliged to declare, under his hand and seal, that he would demand no back rents due prior to the separation; and that he would confirm to all settlers their title to their lands and houses on condition of their payment to him of sixpence in the pound of the entire value of their property. On these terms a commission was issued on the 18th of September, 1679, under the royal seal, for the government of New Hampshire as a royal province. The union with Massachusetts, which had existed for 38 years, was arbitrarily dissolved, contrary to the express wishes of all the parties interested. This union had been pleasant and profitable to both colonies, and was sundered with the special regret of the citizens of New Hampshire. It was the more unwelcome to them because it was planned to favor the claim of Mason, and thus deprive them of their property and their government.

Page 88: While the political heavens were shrouded in deepest gloom, as the people gazed upon the storm in an agony of despair, they suddenly beheld —“a sable cloud Turn forth her silver lining on the night.” The despotism of James II had gone beyond the people’s endurance. They had arisen in their might and driven the perjured tyrant from his throne and realm. The arrival of this intelligence filled the people with joy. Andros imprisoned the man who brought the news. The people of Boston rose in arms, arrested the governor, Andros, and his principal adherents, and sent them as state prisoners to England, to await the decision of the new government. The people of New Hampshire were for a time left without a responsible government. A convention was called, composed of deputies from all the towns, to deliberate upon their exigencies. At their meeting in January, 1690, after some unsatisfactory discussion of other plans, they resolved on a second union with Massachusetts. A petition to this effect was readily granted by their old ally, till the king’s pleasure should be known. The old laws and former officials for a time resumed their sway; but this union was brief. The king was, for some reasons, averse to the people’s wish. Their old adversaries, the heirs of Mason, were again in the field. They had sold their claim to Samuel Allen of London for 750 pounds. Through his influence the petition was not granted; and the same Allen was made governor and his son-in-law, John Usher, lieutenant-governor. Thus the people of New Hampshire were again furnished with a governor, a creature whom they little needed and greatly hated. Again war, pestilence and famine were at their doors. The Indians were upon the war path; the governor was exercising the vocation of a civil robber, and the smallpox was raging in the land with fearful desolation. The times were dark; their souls were tried; their hearts were sad; but their trust was in God.

Page 92: The advent of these savage bands from Canada turned the eyes of the colonists to that country as the source of their calamities. They resolved to invade that country. Every nerve was stained to fit out a suitable fleet. The command was given to Sir William Philipps, a patriot and an honest man, but incompetent to such hazardous service. Two thousand men were placed on board. They did not reach Quebec till October. Sickness invaded the troops; they became discouraged and the enterprise was given up. The New England ships were scattered not heir return, by storms; one was wrecked. The remnant of the troops, with the governor, returned in May. For some time after this repulse the colonies aimed only to protect their frontiers. For a season hostilities in Maine were suspended by a treaty with the Abenaquis. They brought in ten captives and settled a truce till May 1, 1691. In June, they assaulted a garrison at Wells, and were repulsed. They then began to commit murders at Exeter, Rye and Portsmouth. They continued these desultory attacks for many months, till the commencement of the year 1693, when they became comparatively quiet. Their means were spent, not their rage. Their diminished resources, not their extinguished hate, arrested them. Their braves were in captivity and they could only recover them by treaty. Accordingly they came to Pemaquid and entered into a solemn covenant to abandon the French and become subjects to England; to perpetuate peace and refrain from private revenge; to restore captives and to give hostages for the due performance of their engagements. This truce was hailed with joy by the people of New Hampshire. Their trade had been nearly ruined; their harvests had been destroyed; their homes burned; their friends tortured and slain; and at one time they were so despondent as to contemplate the desertion of the province. There were neither men, money nor provisions for the garrisons. The province owed 400 pounds but had nothing with which to pay the debt. Massachusetts aided them but little, because of their domestic feuds in politics and the general devotion of the people to the prosecution of witches.

Page 141: The several parties in moving westward toward the place of destination suffered untold horrors from cold and hunger. Winter was approaching. Rogers reached the Ammonoosuc on the firth of November. Other parties came in later. They subsisted on roots, nuts, birch bark and such small animals as they could kill. They devoured their leather straps, their cartouch boxes, their moccasins and even their powder horse after they had been sodden in boiling water. The weak in mind went mad; the weak in body died. They even ate the bodies of their murdered comrades! To such fearful sufferings were those heroic Rangers subjected to free the people of New Hampshire from their relentless foes who had, from the first history of the state, hung like a dark cloud upon its northern horizon.

Page 166: The people of New Hampshire were so inured to war, that they never could be wholly unprepared for it. An old law required every male inhabitant, from 16 to 60 years of age, to own a musket, bayonet, knapsack, cartridge box, one pound of powder, 20 bullets and 12 flints. Every town was required to keep, in readiness for use, one barrel of powder, 200 pounds of lead and 300 flints, besides spare arms and ammunition for those who were too poor to own them. Even exempts, as old as the discharged Roman veterans, were obliged to retain their arms. The militia was regarded as the right arm of the public defense. It was organized into companies and regiments and subjected to frequent drills under their officers. In most of the townships laid out by proprietors or royal governors, a “training ground” was as commonly reserved as a parsonage. Like the Jews of old in restoring and guarding their broken walls, they “made their prayer” and “set their watch.” Volunteer companies also enlisted for the defense of the country. After the first blood was shed, every means that could convey the intelligence to the eye or ear was used to spread the alarm. Beacons were lighted, drums beaten, guns fired, and bells rung to warn the people of their danger. “The there was hurrying to and fro; in hot haste” men made ready their armor, women prepared their clothes and buckled on their harness.

Page 200: This constitution, with some slight amendments, such as the advance of public opinion required, has remained in force to this day. This fact reveals the wisdom of the delegates of that famed convention, which continued its existence for more than two years and held nine sessions. The history of this important instrument, containing both a bill of rights which could scarcely be improved, and permanent rules for the guidance of the lawmakers of a sovereign state, shows that it was repeatedly discussed, criticized, revised and virtually amended by the legal voters in their democratic town meetings. A high degree of intelligence characterized the people of New Hampshire at that day, for their successors for two generations have lived in content under a constitution whose every clause was submitted to the legal voters of 1784.

Page 204: “Peace hath her victories, No less renowned than war,” wrote Milton, after he had experienced the conflicts and triumphs of both. The victories of peace are achieved by moral forces, and are often harder to be secured than those where “field are won.” In our country, the same men who led our armies presided in our legislatures. Washington, “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen,” guided the helm of state after the adoption of the new constitution. At the same time, his companion in arms, General John Sullivan, presided over the people of New Hampshire. But, during the period of transition, from the restoration of peace, 1783, to the commencement of Washington’s administration in 1789, the whole country was in a condition of feverish excitement. Rebellion, on a great scale, had resulted in independence; many of the people began to think that rebellion was a wholesome remedy for all social and political evils. In New Hampshire the whole population was poor, was in distress and in debt. The government, which was of their own creation, seemed to them to be able but unwilling or incompetent to aid them. They charged their distress upon the courts that enforced the payment of honest debts, upon the legislature which failed to make money plenty in every man’s pocket. They attempted to suppress both courts and legislature by violence. The wildest theories were broached and the most impracticable measures proposed. They fondly dreamed that paper money would supply all their wants. They accordingly demanded large issues of paper bills “funded on real estate and loaned on interest,” or irredeemable paper bills; no matter how or when payable, paper bills must be had or the unwilling government must be compelled to yield to the people whose creature it was. They were determined “to assert their own majesty, as the origin of power, and to make their governors know that they were but the executors of the public will.” The legislature passed stay-laws and tender-laws, but no substantial relief came. The people of New Hampshire, after the return of peace, were in the condition of a patient enfeebled by long disease; they clamored for curative processes and popular nostrums which only increased the fatal malady. They held primary meetings, town meetings, country and state conventions, which resulted in the formation of an abortive party which demanded the abolition of the inferior courts and equal distribution of property and the canceling of all debts. This unmitigated agrarianism, it was thought, would bring back “the age of gold.” The people of Massachusetts had set the example of rebellion against the courts of the law and the officers of the government.

Page 233: Condition of the People of New Hampshire at the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century. Let us now, with the light of memory and tradition lingering on the track, point backward the glass of history and descry the farmer in his field, the mechanic in his shop, and the minister at his altar, as they severally lived and labored seventy years ago,—“As when, by nigh, the glass of Galileo, less assured, observes imagined lands and regions in the moon.’ We can scarcely conceive of a more independent, self-reliant, hearty, healthy and hopeful denizen of earth than the farmer of that age. He lived upon the produce of his own soil; was warmed by fuel from his own woods, and clothed from the flax of his own field or the fleeces of his own flock. No flour, hams, lard nor oil was then imported. Broadcloths and cotton fabrics were scarcely known. The oxen and swine which yielded the “fresh meat” in winter and the “salt meat” in summer were fed and attend by himself. Trade was carried on chiefly by barter. Little money was needed. The surplus produce of the farm, or the slaughtered swine not needed by the family, were carried to market in the farmer’s “double sleigh” and exchanged for salt, iron, molasses and other stores not produced at home. So the year went round, marked by thrift, contentment and prosperity. “Happy the man whose wish and care a few paternal acres bound; content to breath his native air, in his own ground.”

Page 256: Governor Plumer, writing to John Quincy Adams of the people of New Hampshire, says: “Though dismemberment has its advocates here, they cannot obtain a majority of the people or their representatives to adopt or avow it.” During the whole period of the war, the parties in New Hampshire were so nearly equal that neither of them dared to advance very ultra opinions. they were a mutual check upon each other. “Neither party as strong enough to feel confident of success and neither so weak as to despair of victory.” such a political condition is really the best hedge of integrity and the strongest antidote to corruption in the administration of a republic.

Page 259: While the cloud of war was distinctly visible above the political horizon, but prior to its commencement, several local matters of public interest occupied the attention of the people. It was customary in the early history of our country to raise money by lottery for the general welfare. Roads were built, literary institutions founded and religious societies aided, by such questionable means. A lottery had been authorized by the legislature, for the construction of a road through the Dixville Notch in the northern part of the state. Tickets had been issued, exceeding the prizes by the sum of $32,100; but through the failure of agents, the loss of tickets and the expense of management, only $1,500 came into the state treasury. This unprofitable and demoralizing process of raising funds was at this time discontinued; and, with the moralists of the present day, its former existence excites profound regret. During the year 1811, the people of New Hampshire were greatly disturbed by the failure of three of their principal banks. The announcement of the bankruptcy of three such institutions in a small state, and nearly at the same time, produced unusual commotion in business circles. Men had not then become accustomed to the almost daily defalcations of officials entrusted with corporate funds. Banks then seldom suspended specie payments; and the absolute failure of a moneyed institution was almost as rare as an earthquake. The Hillsborough, Cheshire and Coös Banks, by illegal issues and  excessive loans, had thrown so many of their bills upon the market that they were unable to redeem them and were compelled to suspend payment. The directors could not escape censure; for the public could justly charge their losses either upon their carelessness or dishonesty. Those men who incurred the public displeasure with great difficulty regained their former popularity.

Page 268: In January 1817, John Quincy Adams, then minister to England, wrote a long letter to Governor Plumer in commendation of his message, of which he says: “It was republished entire in one of the newspapers of the most extensive circulation, not as, during our late war, some of our governors’ speeches were republished, to show the subserviency of the speakers to the bulwark of our holy religion and to the press-gang, but, professedly, for the pure, patriotic and genuine republican sentiments with which it abounded. It has been a truly cheering contemplation to me to see that the people of New Hampshire have recovered from the delusions of that unprincipled faction which, under the name of Federalism, was driving them to the dissolution of the Union, and, under the name of Washington, to British re-colonization—to see them returning to the counsels of sober, moderate men, who are biased by no feelings but those of public spirit and by no interests but those of their country.”

Page 287: The Toleration Act. The great teacher says: “Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.” Whether the first settlers at Little Harbor and Northam attempted both does not clearly appear; but it is manifest that these representatives of the Laconia Company were not exiles for conscience’ sake. They did not come into the wilderness to found churches, but to catch fish, work mines, buy furs, fell trees, and till the soil. The woods and the waters yielded tribute to their industry. The religious element was more strongly developed in Hampton and Exeter, but so long as these four towns made their own laws, the state took precedence of the church. The reverse was true of Massachusetts; and when, in 1641, a political union was effected between these plantations and the colony of Massachusetts, they were exempted from religious tests and allowed an equitable representation in the legislative assembly. During the entire early history of New Hampshire there was greater freedom of individual opinion and a more liberal toleration of differences in religion prevailed than in the other New England colonies. Still, that deep-seated conviction which had been the growth and habit of centuries in the old world, that it was the duty of the state to uphold the church, led the people of New Hampshire to sustain divine worship by law, and to build churches and support a christian ministry by general taxation. The majority of the colonists were Congregationalists, and the minsters of that denomination were legally constituted “the standing order” in the state. The towns were empowered by the early legislators, in accordance with the provisions of an English law, to raise money for the support of the gospel; and the people, in town meeting assembled, voted for their spiritual teachers and assessed themselves for their support. The rise of other religious denominations in the state created great dissatisfaction with this law. They were often compelled to aid in the building of churches which they never entered, to pay for preaching which they never heard, and to support a creed which they did not believe. The Bill of Rights declares “that no person of any particular religious sect or denomination shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of a teacher or teachers of another persuasion, sect or denomination; and that no subordination of one sect or denomination shall ever be established by law.” This plain provision was evaded by requiring a man who refused to pay his tax for the legally appointed clergyman to prove that he belonged to another denomination. This was not always possible to be done.

Page 352: In common with the other settlers of New England, the people of New Hampshire from the first placed a high estimate upon education. Knowing that in a free state, where the people govern, it is indispensable that they be virtuous and intelligent, the developing of such a population has never been lost sight of. Hence the laws have carefully looked after the instruction of the young, that not a child might grow up in ignorance either of its moral duties or of those branches of knowledge which should fit it for successful citizenship. There has also been a desire not only to secure universal instruction in common and rudimentary branches, but to encourage a higher education and furnish facilities for all who wished to gain it; indeed, to stimulate as many as possible to seek for it. The first law in regard to common schools enacted in the state after the Revolution required not only the raising of moneys in every town “to be expended for the sole purpose of keeping an English grammar school or schools, for teaching reading, writing and arithmetic, but in each shire for the purpose of teaching the Latin and Greek languages, as well as the aforesaid branches.” Although, sixteen years alter, this last provision was repealed, yet the spirit which originally led to its enactment led subsequently to the founding of academies in various parts of the state. The means requisite for the erection of suitable buildings for these institutions and often for partial endowment were the result, frequently, of the munificence of some single individual, sometimes of a few, and again by the contributions generally of the citizens of a place.

Page 359: New Hampshire is a good state to stay in, because men live long and grow old in it. Its bracing air promotes longevity. Dr. Belknap, in his history of the first settlers of New Hampshire says: “In that part of America which it falls to my lot to describe, an uncleared and uncultivated soil is so far from being an object of dread that there are no people more vigorous and robust than those who labor on new plantations; nor, in fact, have any people better appetites for food. A very large proportion of the people of New Hampshire live to old age; and many of them die of no acute disease, but by the gradual decay of nature. The death of adult persons between 20 and 50 years of age is very rare compared with European countries.” “When no epidemic prevails not more than one in seventy of the people of New Hampshire die annually.” It must be remembered that this was written before the advent of Venetian blinds, damask curtains, double windows, India rubber strips, air-tight stoves and woolen carpets. Houses were heated by open fires which changed the air every hour. Men were accustomed to the healthy stimulus of pure air, bright sunlight and moderate fires within doors; and without furs, flannels or overshoes they became inured in their daily toils to the effects of pinching forests and driving snows, so that they were not debilitated at home by excessive heat nor chilled abroad by excessive cold.

Page 408: The people of New Hampshire and Maine have a personal interest in the character of the early proprietors and settlers of these states. The question is still debated, whether Mason and Gorges, the early owners of Maine and New Hampshire, ought to be classed among mercenary adventurers or the founder of States. Captain John Mason received such title to the territory of the Granite State as kings and corporations could bestow. He planted colonies upon the soil and gave name to the state. He persevered where most men would have failed; he hoped where others would have despaired; he made magnificent plans for himself, but they came to nought. He expended a large estate upon his plantations in the wilderness, and received no returns. when he died he bequeathed to his heirs nothing but a legacy of quarrels and lawsuits which lasted for nearly a century. His whole life may be illustrated by the troubled sleep of the hungry man, who “dreameth, and behold he eateth; but he taketh and his soul is empty.” He was a martyr to “a great idea.”

[peopleofnewhampshire]

Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the New Hampshire Press Association, 1872

Page 36: The commencement of the “American Patriot” was attended by circumstances of no more favorable character than accompanied preceding attempts, except that Concord had been chosen in which to permanently hold the sessions of the Legislature. In all probability the Patriot, after brief existence, would have gone into the same grave as its predecessors, but for the fortunate circumstance that it came into the custody of a gentleman of the ability, industry and tact necessary not merely to rescue it from the fate of other village journals here, but to make it a power in New Hampshire. This person was the late Hon. Isaac Hill, who in his day acquired a reputation as a political writer and journalist second to that of no other newspaper conductor. He came to Concord soon after the expiration of his apprenticeship with Joseph Cushing, proprietor and publisher of the “Amherst Cabinet.” The “American Patriot” had been six months in existence. The first number printed by Mr. Hill is dated April 18, 1809, and thenceforward the people of New Hampshire came within an influence they had only imperfectly realized—the power of the press to mold and guide popular opinion. Mr. Hill was a man of decided convictions and untiring industry; wrote with great facility and vigor, and possessed that electric force by which a writer upon political affairs imparts to others the convictions and zeal possessed by himself. Under his guiding hand the success of the Patriot was certain. It soon became a successful journal, attaining a wide and constantly increasing circulation; greater than that of any preceding or contemporary journal in New Hampshire. A circumstance which accelerated its growth was that difficulty with England which culminated in what is known as the war of 1812-15. That the Patriot in the hands of Mr. Hill would have become permanent, even in years of profound calm, there is no reason to doubt; but it is equally certain that its growth would have been less rapid, because of the natural sluggishness of mankind until moved by exciting causes; the disinclination of the people, during the first twenty years of the period here in review, to expend money for the gratification of literary taste, and the limited amount of money in circulation.

Page 41: The departure from this feeble journalism dates at the time the late Governor Hill took charge of the New Hampshire Patriot, now the only paper at the Capitol that has been able to survive more than sixty years, and keep the same title from 1809 to 1871; being now the junior in age of only four papers in the State,—“The New Hampshire Gazette,” and the “Portsmouth Journal,” Portsmouth; “The New Hampshire Sentinel,” in Keene, and “The Farmer’s Cabinet, in Amherst.” The spirit infused by Mr. Hill into the Patriot was soon felt throughout the State. The circulation of that journal so increase as to be a marvel to the proprietors of contemporary establishments, and they realized that the people of New Hampshire were about to demand stronger meat than the substances with which they had been fed; that to move men to the performance of political duties, vigorous appeals must be addressed to them through the public journals, and that a party could not be regarded as equipped for warfare unless in possession of engines adapted both for vigorous assault and earnest defense; that the time had passed, never to return, when feeble journals could be made to thrive, since eh apple had taken a “new departure,” and would no longer be satisfied with weekly periodicals which satisfied their ancestors.

But it should be understood that at the time the New Hampshire Patriot was started a period of great political excitement had commenced, cause by those disputes with the English Government which were settled only after a war with that nation. At first thought it would be supposed that newspapers printed in Concord during those terrible occurrences which transpired in France in that portion of the Revolution since known as the Reign of Terror would have been sought and read with avidity, but the opinion may properly be entertained that those tragic events, which shocked the people of Europe, created hardly a ripple in the interior of New Hampshire. I have made repeated enquiry of the most aged people here in regard to the effect of such news as the massacres of September, 1792; the execution of Louis the Sixteenth and his wife; the terrible slaughter by the guillotine; the awful drownings at Nantes, on the Loire; the diabolical proceedings in Lyons, and the fall and death of Robespierre, had upon such people as then dwelt in Concord. I not only could not learn that those appalling transactions created deep emotion, but received the impression that, occurring at such distance, when communication was infrequent, and there were not, as now, the most intimate relations between the two continents, the Reign of Terror produced little impression here. Enquiring as to this matter, of a man who was twenty-five years of age in 1794, I found him incapable of giving me any information; but, alluding to a memorable flood on the intervals of Merrimack River, in 1787, he pointed to rising ground, and said the cattle of his father took refuge there, and were brought off in a flat boat, or they would have perished. But the interest preceding the War with England and the concussion that ensued, came home tot he people of New Hampshire, and that became the period whence dates the rise of the press to its present dignity and power in the State. 

[peopleofnewhampshire]

Journal of the House of Representatives of the State of New Hampshire, 1855

Page 32: The people of this State are not wont to be dilatory in the march of progress and reform, and I trust that their hopes and expectations of a radical change in our license law will be no longer doomed to disappointment. A new law prohibiting the sale, with very limited exceptions, if any are advisable—a law which will protect the legal rights of all persons, but be clothed with ample powers to effectually enforce its provisions, and, as fully as possible, answer its intents and purposes—a law, the penalties of which, shall be commensurate with the offense—such a law, I have no doubt, is expected and demanded by the people of New Hampshire. The welfare and prosperity of the State demand it; our social and domestic relations demand it; morals and religion demand it; the hopes of the rising generation demand it; patriotism demands it; and I cannot believe that these demands will be slighted by a legislature elected under circumstances peculiarly propitious for a full knowledge of the wishes and wants of their constituents, and free from all associations and prejudices tending to embarrass independence of action favorable to promoting them.

Page 240: 3d. Resolved, That the people of New Hampshire demand as a right, the restoration of said compromise, and the amendment of the Kansas and Nebraska bill, so called, so as to exclude slavery from said territories, and will never consent to the admission into the Union, of any State out of said territory, with a constitution tolerating slavery.

4th. Resolved, That, while the people of New Hampshire are ardently and affectionately attached to the Union, and will do all in their power to preserve it, consistently with their honor and their rights, they will not, to avoid any crisis, submit to the introduction of slavery into Kansas and Nebraska, consecrated and set apart to free labor, as those territories have been for more than thirty years, by the consent of all the States of the Union.

5th. Resolved, That all threats of a dissolution of the Union coming from the slave States, unless they are permitted to regulate the policy of the general government on the subject of slavery, have lost all their terrors with the people of New Hampshire, and that they are resolved to demand and enforce their rights in every crisis, and at any sacrifice, consistently with honor and the Constitution. ……… 7th. Resolved, That the question whether “it is the duty and the interest of the people of Arkansas to discontinue all social and commercial relations” with the people of Ohio, in consequence of conduct of which they disapprove, is on upon which the people of New Hampshire are not, at this time, called to act, and one which they are willing the people of Arkansas should settle for themselves, upon their own responsibility, having no fears that the people of Ohio will be frightened from what they deem their duty or interest, by any threats of the kind coming from the State of Arkansas, or any other salve State, and that the people of New Hampshire hereby pledge themselves to the people of Ohio, that they will unite with, and sustain them in all constitutional efforts to resist the further aggressions of the slave power.

Page 11: And let us all, gentlemen, apply ourselves to the duties before us with a fixed determination to perform them in as brief a time as may be consistent with due deliberation and prudence, over remembering that we are here as the representatives of the people of New Hampshire, not of any particular section or class of them; that we are here to consult the interests of the people of New Hampshire, not our own individual wishes or prejudices.

Page 246: Resolved, That the people of New Hampshire demand as a right the restoration of said Compromise and the amendment of the Kansas and Nebraska bill, so called, so as to exclude slavery from said territories, and will never consent to the admission into the Union of any State out of said territory with a constitution tolerating slavery.

Resolved, That while the people of New Hampshire are ardently and affectionately attached to the Union, and will do all int heir power to preserve it, consistently with their honor and their rights, they will not, to avoid any crisis, submit to the introduction of slavery into Kansas and Nebraska, consecrated and set apart to free labor as those territories have been for more than thirty years, by the consent of all the States of the Union, nor will they hold themselves bound by any legislative compromise upon the subject of slavery till the Missouri Compromise is restored.

Page 247: Resolved, That threatens of a dissolution of the Union, coming from the slave States, unless they are permitted to regulate the policy of the General Government on the subject of slavery, have lost all their terrors with the people of New Hampshire, and that they are resolved to demand and enforce their rights in every crisis, and at any sacrifice, consistently with their honor and the Constitution. ……… Resolved, That the question whether it is the duty and the interest of the people of Arkansas to discontinue all social and commercial relations with the people of Ohio, in consequence of conduct which they disapprove, is one upon which the people of New Hampshire are not, at this time, called to act, and one which they are willing the people of Arkansas should settle for themselves upon their own responsibility, having no fears that the people of Ohio will be frightened from what they deem their duty or interest, by any threats of the kind coming from the State of Arkansas, or any other slave State, and that the people of New Hampshire hereby pledge themselves to the people of Ohio, that they will united with, and sustain them in all constitutional efforts to resist the further aggressions of the slave power.

Page 290: Mr. Herbert of Rumney, offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the veto of Franklin Pierce, President of the United States, of the Collins Appropriation Bill, March 3d, 1855, was an act worthy of his position as a statesman and a patriot, highly creditable to himself, showing clear sagacity as a jurist, a lucid understanding of the Constitution; eloquent and convincing in its language, without party bias or sectional preference, showing alike the purity of his motives and his hickory firmness, which yields to no monied monopoly or extravagant corrupt expenditures of our public fund; but showing an unyielding attachment to our national integrity and articles of confederation; which elicits praise and continued confidence from the people of New Hampshire, which political selections and educated hostility should never be permitted to withhold.

Page 338: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened, That the people of New Hampshire have never regarded the “French Spoliation Bill” as founded in justice, and for that reason have resisted their payment. Therefore, we approve of the act of the President of the United States in vetoing the bill for their payment passed by the last Congress; and we hereby request our delegation in Congress to oppose all similar bills.

Page 576: Mr. Fellows of Salisbury, moved the substitution of the following for that portion of the resolutions which occurs after the words “as follows,” where it occurs in the first of the series:

Resolved, That we reiterate the sentiments so many times endorsed and conformed by a large majority of the people of new Hampshire, through the ballot box and in public assemblies, that—

“Congress has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists or others made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incident steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenance by any friend of our political institutions.” 

[peopleofnewhampshire]

Laws of the State of New Hampshire, 1855

Page 1614: 3d. Resolved, That the people of New Hampshire demand as a right, the restoration of said compromise, and the amendment of the Kansas and Nebraska bill, so called, so as to exclude slavery from said territories, and will never consent to the admission into the Union, of any State out of said territory, with a constitution tolerating slavery.

4th. Resolved, That, while the people of New Hampshire are ardently and affectionately attached to the Union, and will do all in their power to preserve it, consistently with their honor and their rights, they will not, to avoid any crisis, submit to the introduction of slavery into Kansas and Nebraska, consecrated and set apart to free labor, as those territories have been for more than thirty years, by the consent of all the States of the Union.

5th. Resolved, That all threats of a dissolution of the Union coming from the slave States, unless they are permitted to regulate the policy of the general government on the subject of slavery, have lost all their terrors with the people of New Hampshire, and that they are resolved to demand and enforce their rights in every crisis, and at any sacrifice, consistently with honor and the Constitution.

Page 1615: 7th. Resolved, That the question whether “it is the duty and the interest of the people of Arkansas to discontinue all social and commercial relations” with the people of Ohio, in consequence of conduct of which they disapprove, is on upon which the people of New Hampshire are not, at this time, called to act, and one which they are willing the people of Arkansas should settle for themselves, upon their own responsibility, having no fears that the people of Ohio will be frightened from what they deem their duty or interest, by any threats of the kind coming from the State of Arkansas, or any other salve State, and that the people of New Hampshire hereby pledge themselves to the people of Ohio, that they will unite with, and sustain them in all constitutional efforts to resist the further aggressions of the slave power. 

[peopleofnewhampshire]

Journal of the House of Representatives of the State of New Hampshire, 1847

Sir, in behalf of the people of New Hampshire and of the legislature here assembled, I bid you a welcome, a most hearty welcome among them. In their behalf, I extent to you, not as the president of a party, but as the president of the whole people, their kindest hospitalities, so long as you can remain with them.

[peopleofnewhampshire]

Journal of the House of Representatives of the State of New Hampshire, 1843

Page 11: In my address to both houses of the Legislature, at their last session, I commended the interests of our militia to their favorable consideration. I cannot doubt the readiness of an assembly like yourselves, to perfect this great institution of the people intended for the protection of the people. It was the remark of a distinguished statesman of our country, “that the beauty of our republic does but reflect the deformities of European despotism.” And in no one particular is the character of our republican institutions more beautifully illustrated than in the militia establishment of the respective States. Almost the first amendment which was made to the constitution of the United States, declared that the right of the people to bear arms should not be infringed, and gave ample testimony to the necessity of a well regulated militia for the security of every free state. It is believed to be the general sentiment of the people of New Hampshire that the existence of the moral influence and physical power of our militia, is essential for the due enforcement of the enactments of our Legislature. This opinion sanctioned and sustained as it has been by the best and purest patriots of our country, should induce us to lend our aid for the improvement and maintenance of a system so essentially connected with the liberties and just rights of the people.

Page 16: In a communication received since our last meeting from His Excellency Samuel W. King, acting as the Governor of Rhode Island, a demand was made upon me as the Chief Magistrate of New Hampshire to surrender to the individual who was designated, His Excellency Thomas W. Dorr, then residing within the limits of our State, for the purpose of having him conveyed to the State of Rhode Island for the trial of an offense alleged to have been by him committed. I felt it to be my duty to refuse a compliance with the requisition. And in my answer I felt it to be equally my duty to make a full and explicit statement of the reasons which induced my course of action. There was involved in that correspondence a fundamental principle, and in its consideration it became necessary to examine well the character of our own government, as well as the political and inalienable rights of man, as portrayed in the constitution of our own State and that of the nation. The course I felt bound to take, has been strongly condemned by one portion of our fellow citizens, and as strongly approved by another. All that I have to say is, that I have done no more than what my conscience sanctions;—no more than what an honest discharge of my duty required at my hands. If the views of those who oppose the course pursued, be right, then, in my judgment, our revolution which was to secure to freemen just and equal rights,—to give to man an independent and sovereign charter, and to implant in his soul the inherent principle of personal and political liberty—has proved a solemn mockery. Such, however, I have yet to learn are the sentiments of the majority of the people of New Hampshire. If the convulsion I have formed, and if the course I have pursued touching the Rhode Island controversy, gives effect to “the will of my constituents,” I shall feel an entire confidence in the justice and constitutionality of the reasons assigned in refusing to comply with that requisition for the surrender of Governor Dorr.

Page 61: Resolved, That it is the duty of New Hampshire to act and harmonize with her sister states in this particular instance. And as the executive and legislative departments of New Hampshire have been legally notified that the sum of $9,955.14, is now ready to be paid over to them, this sum has in fact become identified with, and virtually constitutes part of the resources of the State; and it is their duty to receive, guard, preserve and dispose of it for the benefit of the people of New Hampshire. Said report and resolutions were read, and On motion of Mr. Colby—Laid upon the table.

Page 175: It ought to be borne in mind, that if New Hampshire refuses to receive her share, it will not change or abolish the law, nor prevent other States from accepting their just proportion. New Hampshire will be guilty of no injustice to the other States by receiving her share. By the laws of the land, this money belongs to her as much as the State tax that is annually collected from the people of the several towns. To refuse to receive it, and apply it to the “general charge and expenditure” of our own State, as we have a right so to do, when at the same time we recommend that “it be applied to the general charge and expenditure of the United States,” is a breach of trust to the people of New Hampshire. We have been notified that the money is ready for us; in fact it is as much ours and as much under our control, as if it were in our State treasury; and it is as much our duty to guard and preserve it as it is any species of property belonging to the State. In my opinion we cannot excuse ourselves to our constituents by passing a resolve that the act is unconstitutional. This power is expressly assigned by the constitution to the Supreme Court. Every person has an undoubted right to form and express whatever opinion he pleases in regard to the constitutionality of any law or measure. But when any department of government leaves its legitimate sphere, and assumes the province of deciding questions that are by the constitution expressly assigned to another department, disorder, anarchy and a state of insubordination must inevitably ensue. We all profess to admire, venerate, and to preserve inviolate the constitution of the United States.—If we look into it we shall find the following important provisions:—

Page 177: Resolved, That it is the duty of New Hampshire to act and harmonize with her sister States in this particular instance. And as the Executive and Legislative departments of New Hampshire, have been legally notified that the sum of $9,955.14, is now ready to be paid over to them, this sum has in fact become identified with, and virtually constitutes a part of the resources of the State; and it is their duty to receive, guard, preserve and dispose of it for the benefit of the people of New Hampshire.

Page 15: In my address to both houses of the Legislature, at their last session, I commended the interests of our militia to their favorable consideration. I cannot doubt the readiness of an assembly like yourselves, to perfect this great institution of the people intended for the protection of the people. It was the remark of a distinguished statesman of our country, “that the beauty of our republic does but reflect the deformities of European despotism.” And in no one particular is the character of our republican institutions more beautifully illustrated, than in the militia establishments of the respective States. Almost the first amendment which was made to the constitution of the United States, declared that the right of the people to bear arms should not be infringed, and gave ample testimony to the necessity of a well regulated militia for the security of every free State. It is believed to be the general sentiment of the people of New Hampshire that the existence of the moral influence and physical power of our militia, is essential for the due enforcement of the enactments of our Legislature. This opinion is sanctioned and sustained as it has been by the best and purest patriots of our country, should induce us to lend our aid for the improvement and maintenance of a system so essentially connected with the liberties and just rights of the people.

Page 21: In a communication received since our last meeting from His Excellency Samuel W. King, acting as the Governor of Rhode Island, a demand was made upon me as the Chief Magistrate of New Hampshire to surrender to the individual who was designated, His Excellency Thomas W. Dorr, then resisting within the limits of our State, for the purpose of having him conveyed to the State of Rhode Island for the trial of an offense alleged to have been by him committed. I felt it to be my duty to refuse a compliance with the requisition. And in my answer I felt it to be equally my duty to make a full and explicit statement of the reasons which induced my course of action. There was involved in that correspondence a fundamental principle, and in its consideration it became necessary to examine well the character of our own government, as well as the political and inalienable rights of man, as portrayed in the constitution of our own State and that of the nation. The course I felt bound to take, has been strongly condemned by one portion of our fellow citizens, and as strongly approved by another. All that I have to say is, that I have done no more than what my conscience sanctions;—no more than what an honest discharge of my public duty required at my hands. If the views of those who oppose the course pursued, be right, then in my judgment, our revolution which was to secure to freeman just and equal rights—to give to man an independent and sovereign character, and to implant in his soul the inherent principle of personal and political liberty—has proved a solemn mockery.—Such, however, I have yet to learn are the sentiments of the majority of the people of New Hampshire. If the conclusions I have formed, and if the course I have pursued touching the Rhode Island controversy, gives effect to “the will of my constituents,” I shall feel an entire confidence in the justice and constitutionality of the reasons assigned in refusing to comply with the requisition for the surrender of Governor Dorr.

Page 378: Resolved, That the course of the present chief magistrate of our State in refusing to surrender the patriot Dorr to the paltry tyrants ho have usurped the places of that government of which he is the rightful and constitutional head in Rhode Island, is in accordance, as we believe, with the gerbil voice of the republican people of New Hampshire, and together with the other patriotic acts of his administration entitles him to the renewed thanks of the democracy of our State and country.

On the question, Shall the resolution pass? It was decided in the affirmative. So the resolution passed. 

[peopleofnewhampshire]

George Bancroft, The History of New Hampshire, 1842

Page 111: To the people of New Hampshire this peace gave a grateful respite. They were dispirited and reduced. The war had broken up their trade and husbandry, and weighed them down with a heavy burden of debt. The earth also was less fruitful than before; as if the kindly skies withheld their gifts at such an exhibition of the follies and cruelties of man. The governor was obliged to impress men to guard the outposts; and sometimes these were dismissed for want of provisions. In this situation, they applied to Massachusetts for assistance. Their application found that colony overwhelmed with witchcraft, and rent with feuds about the charter. Superstition and party spirit had usurped the place of reason, and the defense of themselves and their neighbors was neglected for the ghostly orgies of the witch-finder and the quarrels of the old and new chartists.

Page 138: The growing unpopularity of Shute admonished him, at this time, to return to England. Although the people of New Hampshire were quiet under his administration, yet there was rising in Massachusetts a violent and increasing opposition. Having been a solider in his youth, and accustomed to military command and obedience, he was poorly prepared to brook the crosses and perplexities of political life. He did not possess that evenness of temper and calmness, which are so necessary for the management of difficult affairs. It was in the midst of an Indian war, when difficulties surrounded the government, that he left for England, and Lieutenant Governor Wentworth succeeded to the chair. It was resolved to prosecute the war vigorously. Wentworth, in the absence of Shute, took the field as commander-in-chief, and displayed the prudence and energy of an able leader. He was careful to supply the garrisons with stores and to visit them in person, to see that the duties of all were strictly performed.

Page 146: The battle of Lovewell’s pond was the most obstinate and destructive encounter in the war. Commissioners were now despatched, on the part of New England, to Vaudruil, governor of Canada, to complain of the countenance he had given to the Indians. This procured the ransom of some captives, and exerted an influence favorable to peace. After a few months, a treaty was ratified at Falmouth. Never were the people of New Hampshire so well trained to war as at this period. Ranging parties constantly traversed the woods, as far north as the White Mountains. Every man of forty years had seen twenty years of war. They had been taught to handle arms from the cradle, and, by long practice, had become expert marksmen. They were hardy and intrepid, and knew the lurking places of the foe. Accustomed to fatigue and familiar with danger, they bore with composure the greatest privations, and surmounted with alacrity the most formidable difficulties.

Page 230: Everything indicated that the people of New Hampshire were fast uniting with the views of Massachusetts and the other colonies. In vain did the governor labor to prevent the free action of the people. In vain did he dissolve and adjourn their meetings. In vain did he declare them illegal. The rose when he entered among them to declare their proceedings void; but no sooner had he retired than they resumed their seats and proceeded, unrestricted by forms. An authority was rising in the province above the authority of the governor—an authority founded on the broad basis of the people’s will—an authority before which the shadow of royal government was destined to pass away. The people appointed committees of correspondence, and chose delegates to the provincial congress at Philadelphia; and nowhere were the proceedings of the congress more universally approved. “Our atmosphere threatens a hurricane,” wrote the governor to a confidential friend. “I have strove in vain, almost to death, to prevent it. If I can, at last, bring out of it safety to my country, and honor to our sovereign, my labors will be joyful.”

Page 231: The people of New Hampshire soon gave an example of the spirit by which the whole country was animated equally with themselves. An order had been passed by the king in council prohibiting the exportation of gunpowder to America. A copy of it was brought by express to Portsmouth, at a time when a ship of war was daily expected from Boston to take possession of fort William and Mary. The committee of the town, with secrecy and despatch, collected a company from Portsmouth and some of the neighboring towns, and, before the governor had any suspicion of their intentions, they proceeded to Newcastle and assaulted the fort before the troops had arrived. The captain and five men, who were the whole of the garrison, were taken into custody, and one hundred barrels of powder were carried off. The next day another company removed fifteen of the lighter cannon, together with all the small arms and other warlike stores. These were carefully secreted in the several towns, under the care of the committees, and afterwards did effectual service at Bunker’s Hill. Major John Sullivan and John Langdon were the leaders in this expedition. No sooner was it accomplished, than the Scarborough frigate and sloop of war Canseau arrived, with several companies of soldiers. They took possession of the fort, but found only the heavy cannon. Sullivan and Langdon were afterwards chosen delegates to the next general congress, to be holden on the tenth of May.

Page 247: While such was the enthusiasm for liberty, it was but natural that a violent resentment should be kindled against those who still adhered to the royal cause. These took the name of tories; their opponents, the name of whigs, or sons of liberty. The tories were persecuted with relentless fury. Some of them were arrested and imprisoned. Some fled to Nova Scotia, or to England, some joined the British army in Boston. Others were restricted to certain limits, and their motions continually watched. The passions of jealousy, hatred and revenge were under no restraint. Although many lamented these excesses, there seemed to be no effectual remedy. All the bands of ancient authority were broken. The courts were shut; the sword of magistracy was sheathed. But amidst the general laxity in the forms of government, order prevailed; reputation, life and property were still secure; thus proving that it is not in outward forms of austerity, or sanguinary punishments, or nicely written codes, or veneration for what is old, that our rights find protection—but in the potent, though unseen, influence of family ties, virtuous habits and lofty example. These contributed more, at this time, to maintain order than any other authority; thus illustrating how much stronger are the secret than the apparent bonds of society. But the people of New Hampshire proceeded to perfect, as far as possible, their provisional government. The convention which had assembled at Exeter, was elected but for six months. Previous to their dissolution in November, they made provisions, pursuant to the recommendations of congress, for calling a new convention, which should be a more full representation of the people. They sent copies of these provisions to the several towns, and dissolved. The elections were forthwith held. The new convention promptly assembled, and drew up a temporary form of government.

Page 291: The legislation of this, as well as a few preceding and subsequent years, evinces at once great economy in the legislature and great financial distress among the people. In 1791, the salary of the governor was fixed at two hundred pounds, of the chief justice at one hundred and seventy pounds, and the secretary of state at fifty pounds per annum. Laws, granting relief to towns—directing the treasurer not to issue extents for outstanding taxes—providing for the receipt of specie in payment of public dues, at the rate of one pound for two in state notes—granting reviews and staying ,for a limited time, all proceedings against bondsmen, were of frequent occurrence, and indicated, in characters not to be mistaken, the severity of those financial embarrassments, which the expenses of the war had imposed upon the people of New Hampshire, and which neither the unrivaled industry nor the reviving enterprise of its citizens had yet been able to remove.

Page 294: In conclusion, they solemnly “remonstrated against the said act, so far as it relates to the assumption of the state debts,” and requested that, “if the assumption must be carried into effect, New Hampshire might be placed on an equal footing with other states.” Opposed as they then were in their political attachments, it is a singular circumstance, that, at this early period, Virginia and New Hampshire occupied the same ground upon this important question. Though generally belonging in name to that federal party, which was by many deemed to favor a concentration of all political power in the general government, the people of New Hampshire showed, on more occasions than one, a firm attachment to democratic principles, and a patriotic zeal for their rights as citizens of a sovereign state.

Page 362: The people of New Hampshire contributed no less to the success of the war than they did to its commencement. Its hardy citizens were to be found in every hard-fought field. Its seaboard contributed its weather-beaten seamen to man our navy, and sent whole companies to mingle in the conflict which raged on our frontiers. Recruits swarmed to the seat of war from every part of the state. Every village furnished its squad. Every scattered settlement among the mountains contributed its man. In some instances whole families came forward at the call of their country; and father and son left their little homestead in the wilderness and marched to the post of danger together. Had these brave men remained quietly by their own firesides, and left to others the noble task of defending their country, far different would have been the result of the elections at home; and far different, too, there is reason to believe, the result of some of those fierce conflicts on the frontier, in which the American flag floated in triumph over body fields and vanquished enemies.

Page 425: While such was the state of things at home, the people of New Hampshire had seen a revolution progressing in Connecticut, similar to that which was now beginning among themselves. Ever since the first settlement of Connecticut, the people had groaned under an oppressive system of religious intolerance. It was a complete and most odious union of church and state. None but the standing order of clergy could there obtain a legal support; and the laws for the support of that order were such a direct violation of the right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, that by many they were deemed “disgraceful to humanity.” Often was the parish collector seen robbing the humble dwelling of honest poverty of its table, chairs and andirons, or selling at vendue the cow of the poor laborer, on which the subsistence of his family depended, in order to load with luxuries the table of an indolent priest, or clothe in purple those who partook with him of the spoils of the poor. All ministers of the standing order were viewed as thieves and robbers—as wolves in sheep’s clothing—who had gained a dishonest entrance into the fold, and whom it was the duty of the standing order to drive out.

Page 426: In 1818, a bill was reported to the convention of that state, confirming freedom of conscience to all. Every man possessed of real independence and enlightened views, rejoiced at a revolution which sundered so monstrous a union of the church and the state in Connecticut. The clergy of the standing order deprecated—mourned—threatened, and exclaimed, “Alas! for that great city!” But the vast concourse of the people joined in thanksgiving for its destruction. Such was the change which the people of New Hampshire had witnessed in a neighboring state. They themselves were bound by a system less odious in the degree of practical evil which it inflicted, but in principle essentially the same. The act of the 13th of Anne, empowered towns to hire and settle ministers, and to pay them a stipulated salary from the town taxes. This was not directly a union of church and state; but it operated most oppressively. Each town could select a minister of a particular persuasion, and every citizen was compelled to contribute toward the support of the clergyman and to build the church, unless he could prove that he belonged to a different persuasion and regularly attended public worship elsewhere on the Lord’s day. 

[peopleofnewhampshire]

Journal of the House of Representatives of the State of New Hampshire, 1842

Page 11: Notwithstanding the pecuniary embarrassments, the extraordinary distress, which so generally pervade our land, the people of New Hampshire have much cause for gratulation that they are to a great extent exempted from the evils, which so heavily press upon other sections of our country. We have much reason to rejoice that so much prosperity and success has attended the efforts of the various classes of our industrious community.

Page 15: It would ill accord with that steadfast devotion to the principles of our government—to that lofty spirit of patriotism and State pride—to that love of liberty and independence for which the people of New Hampshire have been so long and deservedly commended—to receive this bounty at the hands of the General Government.

Page 18: There has been of late, in one of the States of the Union, a controversy of a most extraordinary character—a controversy involving the grave question of the right of the people to self-government—a right well protected “by universal suffrage and equal legislation.” No question of so serious importance, has for many years occupied the attention of the American people, as that now agitated in the State of Rhode Island. Governed by a charter, granted at a time when popular rights were not acknowledged to exist—possessing a small territory and scanty population—the people of that State have, until the present time, delayed taking that step, which the other States of the Union deemed of paramount importance, that of adopting a written Constitution, recognizing certain principles and clearly defining the powers of the various departments of the government. Why it is not as competent for the people of Rhode Island, at the present time to adopt a written Constitution, as it was for the people of New Hampshire in 1792, no friend of popular rights is able to understand. AS an independent State of this Union, New Hampshire cannot fail to regard with deep solicitude every movement, come from whatever quarter it may, tending to abridge the sovereignty of the people—to bring their political influence within the control of exclusive privileges. Living as we do under a Constitution, the deliberate choice of the people, and appreciating the blessings of political and individual independence which spring from it, our warmest sympathies must be excited for those who are struggling for the same advantages. This case must in the end prevail, and our earnest prayer must be, that these great blessings may be attained at the smallest sacrifice of internal peace and private happiness.

Page 21: I am not tenacious of any particular mode for the accomplishment of the object which I deem so important to the well being of our community. But I submit the whole matter to the sound discretion and good judgment of the Legislature, not doubting that such provisions will be added to our present judicial system as will secure the prompt administration of justice, by men in whose intelligence, learning and integrity, the people of New Hampshire will repose confidence.

Page 77: In communicating to the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives my acceptance of the office to which I have been thus elected by their kindness, I desire to express the great obligations which I feel to them, for the high honor thus conferred upon me, and to assure them, that it shall be my constant endeavor, so far as my ability permits, to discharge the duties of the high and important office in a manner acceptable to them and our common constituents, the people of New Hampshire. With high consideration, I am your Excellency’s obedient servant, Leonard Wilcox.

Page 16: Notwithstanding the pecuniary embarrassments, the extraordinary distress, which so generally pervade our land, the people of New Hampshire have much cause for gratulation that they are to a great extent exempted from the evils, which so heavily press upon other sections of our country. We have much reason to rejoice that so much prosperity and success has attended the efforts of the various classes of our industrious community.

Page 20: It would ill accord with that steadfast devotion to the principles of our government—to that lofty spirit of patriotism and State pride—to that love of liberty and independence for which the people of New Hampshire have been so long and deservedly commended—to receive this bounty at the hands of the General Government.

Page 23: There has been of late, in one of the States of the Union, a controversy of a most extraordinary character—a controversy involving the grave question of the right of the people to self-government—a right well protected “by universal suffrage and equal legislation.” No question of so serious importance, has for many years occupied the attention of the American people, as that now agitated in the State of Rhode Island. Governed by a charter, grantees at a time when popular rights were not acknowledged to exist—possessing a small territory and scanty population—the people of that State have, until the present time, delayed taking that step, which the other States of the Union deemed of paramount importance, that of adopting a written Constitution, recognizing certain principles and clearly defining the powers of the various departments of the government. Why it is not as competent for the people of Rhode Island, at the present time to adopt a written Constitution, as it was for the people of New Hampshire in 1792, no friend of popular rights is able to understand. As an independent State of this Union, New Hampshire cannot fail to read with deep solicitude every movement, come from whatever quarter it may, tending to abridge the sovereignty of the people—to bring their political influence within the control of exclusive privileges. Living as we do under a Constitution, the deliberate choice of the people, and appreciating the blessings of political and individual independence which spring from it, our warmest sympathies must be excited for those who are struggling for the same advantages. This case must in the end prevail, and our earnest prayer must be, that these great blessings may be attained at the smallest sacrifice of internal peace and private happiness.

Page 26: I am not tenacious of any particular mode for the accomplishment of the object which I deem so important to the well being of our community. But I submit the whole matter to the sound discretion and good judgment of the Legislature, not doubting that such provisions will be added to our present judicial system as will secure the prompt administration of justice, by men in whose intelligence, learning and integrity, the people of New Hampshire will repose confidence.

Page 157: In communicating to the Hon. Senate and House of Representatives my acceptance of the office, to which I have been thus elected by their kindness, I desire to express the great obligations which I feel to them for the high honor thus conferred upon me, and to assure them that it shall be my constant endeavor, so far as my ability permits, to discharge the duties of that high and important office in a manner acceptable to them and to our common constituents, the people of New Hampshire. With high consideration, I am Your Excellency’s obedient servant, Leonard Wilcox. 

[peopleofnewhampshire]

The People’s Democratic Guide, 1842

From Gov. Hubbard’s Message to the Legislature of New Hampshire.

“There has been of late in one of the States of the Union, a controversy of a most extraordinary character—a controversy involving the grave question of the right of the people to self-government—a right well protected “by universal suffrage and equal legislation.” No question of so serious importance has for many years occupied the attention of the American people, as that now agitated in the State of Rhode Island. Governed by a charter granted at a time when popular rights were not acknowledged to exist—possessing a small territory and scanty population, the people of the State have, until the present time, delayed taking that step, which the other States of the Union, deemed of paramount importance, that of adopting a written Constitution, recognizing certain principles and clearly defining the powers of the various departments of Government. Why it is not as competent for the people of Rhode Island at the present time, to adopt a written Constitution, as it was for the people of New Hampshire in 1792, no friend of popular rights is able to understand. As an independent State of this Union, New Hampshire cannot fail to regard with deep solicitude every movement, come from whatever quarter it may, tending to abide the sovereignty of the people—to bring their political influence within the control of exclusive privileges. Living as we do under a constitution, the deliberate choice of the people, and appreciating the blessing of political and individual independence which spring from it, our warmest sympathies must be excited for those who are struggling for the same advantages. Their case must in the end prevail, and our earnest prayer must be that these great blessings may be obtained at the smallest sacrifice of internal peace and private happiness.” 

[peopleofnewhampshire]

Charles T. Jackson, First Annual Report on the Geology of the State of New Hampshire, 1841

This bed of limestone is of incalculable importance to the people of New Hampshire, and will save an immense sum from expenditure for foreign line. The present known limits of the bed are evidently far short of its real extent, but enough is already exposed to furnish a constant supply of lime for ages. The whole width cannot be less then 400 feet, and its length, as at present seen, is 800 feet; but it reaches in a linear direction to an unknown extent, such wide beds rarely narrowing, when traced even for the distance of miles. The natural drainage is such that it is easy to excavate the rock to the depth of 25 or 30 feet without any aid from pumps or syphons, so that the situation in this respect is favorable for working.

[peopleofnewhampshire]

Speech of Mr. Henry Hubbard of New Hampshire on the Permanent Prospective Pre-emption Bill, 1841

Page 1: I am perfectly certain that I cannot be mistaken in the sentiments of the people of my own State, in relation to this question. They have been recently promulgated though her Legislature, and I am happy to add, that in communicating to the Senate my own views, as I purpose to do, I shall but declare the wishes, the feelings, and opinions of the people of New Hampshire.

Page 13: The tables with which I have been furnished, show the precise duty on each of the articles for each year; but the proportion is very nearly the same in each, as that given in 1836, and the result of the whole matter is, that nearly one-third of all the revenue derived from customs, is derived from these three articles of indispensable necessity. Add to these the duty on molasses, and more than one-third of the revenue is annually collected from the consumers of these four necessaries of life. And who are the consumers of these dutiable articles? Certainly the people of my own State, in a much greater proportion to the whole consumption than her population bears to the population of the whole country. And why to I say so? Because no one of these essential articles, to any great extent, is manufactured within the limits of New Hampshire. While Pennsylvania makes her own iron—while New York manufactures not only the salt consumed within her limits west of Utica, but also most of that consumed in the States northwest of the Ohio—while Louisiana manufactures her own sugar, the people of New Hampshire are compelled to consume articles of this description, the production of foreign countries, and subject to their odious, unequal, and oppressive system of indirect taxation. There can be no doubt, then, that the people of my own State, from their peculiar location, pay more than their just proportion of the revenue derived from customs. 

[peopleofnewhampshire]

Nathaniel Parker Willis, American Scenery, 1840

A considerable tract of land in New Hampshire was granted to two individuals of the names of Nash and Sawyer, for the discovery of “the Notch.” This pass, the only one by which the inhabitants of a large extent of country, north-westward of these mountains, can, without a great circuit, make their way to the eastern shore, was known to the savages, who used to conduct their prisoners, taken on the coast, through this gap to Canada. By the people of New Hampshire, it was either unknown, or had been forgotten. Nash discovered it; but Sawyer persuaded nash to admit him to an equal share of the benefits resulting from the discovery. It was, however, little advantage to either. They were both hunters, and with the thoughtlessness of men devoted to that employment, squandered the property soon after it was granted.

[peopleofnewhampshire]

George Bancroft, History of the United States, 1839

Page 286: Soon after the promulgation of its “liberties,” the territory of Massachusetts was extended to the Piscataqua, for which the strict interpretation of its charter offered an excuse. The people of New Hampshire had long been harassed by vexatious proprietary claims; dreading the perils of anarchy, they provided a remedy for the evils of a disputed jurisdiction by the immediate exercise of their natural rights; and, on the 14th of April, 1642, by their own voluntary act, they were annexed to their powerful neighbor, not as a province, but on equal terms, as an integral portion of the state. The change was effected with great deliberation. The banks of the Piscataqua had not been peopled by Puritans; and the system of Massachusetts could not properly be applied to the new acquisitions. In September, the general court adopted the measure which justice recommended; neither the freemen nor the deputies of New Hampshire were required to be church members. Thus political harmony was maintained, though the settlements long retained marks of the difference of their origin.

Page 397: On the first apprehension that the claim of Mason would be revived, the people of New Hampshire, in their town meetings, expressed their content with the government of Massachusetts. But the popular wish availed little in the decision of a question of law; the patent of Mason was found on investigation to confer no jurisdiction; the unappropriated lands were allowed to belong to him; but the rights of the settlers to the soil which they actually occupied were reserved for litigation in colonial courts. In July, 1679, New Hampshire was separated from Massachusetts, and organized as a royal province. It was the earliest royal government in New England. The king, reserving a negative voice to himself and his officers, engaged to continue the privilege of an assembly, unless he or his heirs should deem that privilege “an inconvenience.” The persons he first named to the offices of president and council were residents of the colony, and friends to the colonists; but, perceiving that their appointment had no other object than to render the transition to a new form of government less intolerable, they accepted office reluctantly.

Page 400: In 1684, an attempt was made to impose taxes by the vote of the council. That the people might the less reluctantly pay them, a report of a war with the eastern Indians was spread abroad; and Cranfield made a visit to New York, under pretense of concerting measures with the governor of that province. The committee of plantations had been warned that, “without some visible force to keep the people of New Hampshire under, it would be a difficult or impossible thing to execute his majesty’s commands or the laws of trade.” Associations were formed for mutual support in resisting the collection of illegal taxes. At Exeter, the sheriff was driven off with clubs, and the farmers’ wives threatened to scald his officer if he should attempt to attach property in the house. If rioters were committed, they were rescued by a new riot; when, in January, 1685, the troop of horse was ordered out, not a man obeyed the summons. 

[peopleofnewhampshire]

Journal of the House of Representatives of the States of New Hampshire, 1838

Page 11: By no direct vote of the people of New Hampshire within my knowledge has the principle been sanctioned that other powers are given to the National government than those particularly named and specified in the Constitution; nor has the Legislature at any time, on a full discussion of the question of approval of such an assumed power, given sanction to any other doctrine than that of strict construction. In the year 1821, an attempt was made to procure the passage of a declaratory resolution that Congress had power to create a National Bank. That attempt was made before good or evil form such a bank had been extensively felt in this State—it may be said to have been made at the instance of the bank itself through one of its officers, then a member of the House of Representatives. An elaborate report in answer to resolutions against the bank of the Legislature of the State of Ohio, was made; and resolutions in approbation of the report, without discussion, were passed in the House of Representatives. The Senate, however, after a full discussion and understanding of the question, by a vote of 7 to 5, then denied both the constitutionality and the expediency of such an institution. In that discussion and vote seventeen years ago I participated: my opinion then, as it had been in 1811 and 1816, was as it now is in relation to a Bank of the United States. The report, the resolutions, and the votes of the two branches of the Legislature, will be found in the printed journals of that year.

Page 362: It was intended by the constitution, that the talents of the Governor should be exclusively devoted to the good of the State—that he was to act as such untrammeled by any prejudices or partialities relative to the men or measures of the General Government or any other power. It is the interest of the people of New Hampshire, which he is bound to consult—it is their prosperity which he must promote, and it was to guard against the agitation of questions foreign form his official duty, that this part of the constitution was adopted. It occurs to us that a striking illustration of the wisdom of this instrument, in this particular, is at hand. It will readily occur to all who are conversant with the State papers of this State, that the annual messages of the Governor for the last thee years, instead of being devoted to suggestions upon topics upon which the Legislature can act and which a regard to the interests of the State requires the legislature to consider, have been in no small degree devoted to the discussion of topics, upon which this House can take no definite action, and which belong to another government to consider. It is certainly a fact upon which we take no satisfaction in commenting, that the annual message of the Governor of this State have in a great measure been devoted, to arguments against a National Bank, to the prostration of which institution, the chief Executive Magistrate of this State owes and appointment under another government, the emoluments of which, in all probability, are greater than those of the office, to which he is elected by the people of this State. 

[peopleofnewhampshire]

Facts and Suggestions in Relation to the Present State of the Times, 1838

To the People of New Hampshire. Your election has passed, and with it, we may hope, so much of that political excitement, as might interfere with a candid consideration of the great questions, connected with the public welfare, which are now before the country. One of your fellow citizens, whose interest, if it may be less in amount, is one in common with you all, in the National prosperity, asks your unprejudiced attention to a few plain facts and suggestions in relation to the present state of the times.