Item 63: A Copy by Zebulon Butler, 1790 March 17, of a Letter from Samuel Johnson to “Unknown,” (Removed to Legal Box #2), 1790 March 6
Item — Box: 12, Folder: 103
Dates
- Created: 1790 March 6
Creator
Access:
All series and subseries within this collection are open for research, with the exception of a few files within the Academia series that are restricted. The Academia series contains financial and sensitive institutional records from Wilkes College, and financial report records from Princeton University that will remain restricted for 80 years upon creation.
Extent
1 items
Language of Materials
From the Collection: English
Type of Material:
Letter
Condition Note:
Good. Paper shows signs of age.
Measurements:
12 ¾ in. x 7 ¾ in.
Description:
The following item depicts a copy by Zebulon Butler, dated March 17, 1790, of an original letter written by William Samuel Johnson to an unknown recipient, dated March 6, 1790. In the original letter, Johnson is writing his concerns about the recent discussion on repealing the Confirming Act, a legislative act of compromise between the Connecticut and Pennsylvania settlers following the Yankee Pennamite Wars. Johnson writes that he believes it is the very piece of legislation that is continuing the peace between the respective settler parties and should it be removed he warns of continued or revived conflict within the valley. Johnson begins the letter by explaining that Connecticut never held a valid right within the valley, for they worked by their own rules in an attempt to settle their own government. Thus, they established the Susquehanna Company, by Johnson’s words, to appeal to the British crown for favor in establishing this new governing body within the region and purchased titles of the neighboring indigenous tribes. This, Johnson stresses, was reversed and underscored for its vulnerability come the trial at Trenton, or the Decree of Trenton, where Connecticut could not bring forth the means to solidify their claim.
The letter mentions a Governor Dickerson, most likely Dickinson, which may allude to the Pennsylvania sitting governor, John Dickinson.
These conflicts are taking place during the Yankee Pennamite Wars, particularly the Third Yankee Pennamite War in 1784. The Yankee Pennamite Wars were a three part war between Connecticut and Pennsylvania, as they attempted to resolve a dispute over the land in the upper regions of what is now Pennsylvania. King Charles II granted the land twice, once to Connecticut in 1662, and again to William Penn as he founded Pennsylvania in 1681. The Third Yankee Pennamite War was a military conflict following the Decree of Trenton decision to grant Pennsylvania ownership to the lands after decades of conflict between Connecticut and Pennsylvania. While the Decree of Trenton gave Pennsylvania the right to soil, it did not however give them the right to title. Yet, under the command of the Pennsylvania Assembly and Patterson, Pennsylvania would forcibly remove “one-hundred and fifty” Connecticut families from their homes. They forced the families to “find their way through the wilderness of the Lackawaxen to the Delaware Valley, a distance of about eighty miles,” without supplies or clothing to sustain them (Gnichtel, The Trenton Decree of 1782). The violence and brutality levied by Patterson’s troops was so severe that it drew attention from neighboring states, and condemnation on the governing bodies of Pennsylvania. That critique ultimately led the Pennsylvania Assembly to remove Patterson from his position within the valley around July 1784, replacing him with colonel John Armstrong.
Following the resolution of these conflicts, there were many petitions made by the Connecticut settlers for reinstatement to their previous titles and possessions. The letter seems to be addressing the attempts made to avoid these troubles.
Location:
New York
Transcription:
N[ew] York March 6th 1790
Sir
I have just ^now received your favour of the 3d Ins’t [instant] and
as I shall have no time seasonably to answer it Except
a few minutes this evening I instantly set down to acquaint
you that the Susquehannah (sic) [Susquehanna] Comp[an]y Settlers had no
formal grant from Connecticut the reason of which
was that their Original Plan Was to Establish a new
government or Colony in that part of the Country under
the Crown of great Britain. they therefore with the
approbation of the then governor of Conn[ecticu]t. first
Purchased of the Indians and then Obtained from
the Gen[era]l assembly of Conn[ecticu]t. an approbation of
their proceedings and a recommendation of them
to the Crown for the purpose of their bring into
a Government & application was accordingly made
to the crown for that purpose but meeting with
many Delays at the count of Great Britain, they
again applied the Assembly of Conn[ecticu]t. who having
by that time determin[e]d to Vindicate their Claim
to the whole western part of their Patent they by
Several Acts of Legislature, took the Susquehannah
settlers under their protection, extended the Jurisdiction
amongst them. This was considered by the Colony
and the Settlers as so full a ratification of all their
Proceedings & especially of their Indian purchase as
rendered any formal grant (which at most could
amount only to a right of preemption, or a liberty
to purchase of the natives) altogether unnecessary &
therefore none was ever applied for those Legislative
approbations being considered as securing their
Tittles (sic) [Titles] under the Colony more effectually (sic) [effectively] than any
grant or deed could do. In fact by the Law of Connec[ecticu]t.
the Susquehannah settlers were previous to the Trenton
Trial, in holding those lands regularly under the Colony
of Connec[ecticu]t. & had she been able at that Trial to have
Back: established her Tittle (sic) [Title] no Questions would or could have been made but that the said Settlers had as good a little to their Lands as any settlers in North America— As to the Confirming Act I cannot help being surprised that any Gentlemen can Immagine (sic) [Imagine] it can now be replaced, consistant (sic) [consistent] with Justice prudence Sound policy. the History of the Case demonstrates that it ought to be considered as you have Stated it, in nature of a contact or treaty between the parties, especially after having been so far carried into execution as you mention. The settlers had a right to have their tittle (sic) [title] tried by a federal court, notwithstanding the decision of the court at Trenton; which that Court acknowledged and ever declared when they determined that it was not Necessary to cite them to appear and Defend at Trenton. The settlers accordingly determined to try it. but as it was understood that they (sic) [these/their] Judges had recommended their case to the then Gov[erno]r Mr Dickerson and he had engaged to recommend it to the Legislature they were advised to acquiesce & trust to the Justice and Generosity of the legislature of Pennsylvania, afterwards you know when they conceived the Legislature were not Likely to do them Justice they in fact did apply to Congress for a Trial and the contest was kept up in various shapes till as I conceived it terminated in the confirming Act to repeal therefore would not only be unjust but would unavoidably revive a Disagreeable and Dangerous Controversy which all good men hoped was by that Act happily and effectually (sic) [effectively] quietted. The Honor, the Justice and the peace of Pennsylvania equally I apprehend & Strongly require that the Act should be completely— executed. with great esteem I am Sir your most Ob[edien]t Humble Serv[an]t W[illia]m Samuel Johnson
A copy of the original Taken at Philad March 17th 1790 – by Z[ebulon] Butler
Back: established her Tittle (sic) [Title] no Questions would or could have been made but that the said Settlers had as good a little to their Lands as any settlers in North America— As to the Confirming Act I cannot help being surprised that any Gentlemen can Immagine (sic) [Imagine] it can now be replaced, consistant (sic) [consistent] with Justice prudence Sound policy. the History of the Case demonstrates that it ought to be considered as you have Stated it, in nature of a contact or treaty between the parties, especially after having been so far carried into execution as you mention. The settlers had a right to have their tittle (sic) [title] tried by a federal court, notwithstanding the decision of the court at Trenton; which that Court acknowledged and ever declared when they determined that it was not Necessary to cite them to appear and Defend at Trenton. The settlers accordingly determined to try it. but as it was understood that they (sic) [these/their] Judges had recommended their case to the then Gov[erno]r Mr Dickerson and he had engaged to recommend it to the Legislature they were advised to acquiesce & trust to the Justice and Generosity of the legislature of Pennsylvania, afterwards you know when they conceived the Legislature were not Likely to do them Justice they in fact did apply to Congress for a Trial and the contest was kept up in various shapes till as I conceived it terminated in the confirming Act to repeal therefore would not only be unjust but would unavoidably revive a Disagreeable and Dangerous Controversy which all good men hoped was by that Act happily and effectually (sic) [effectively] quietted. The Honor, the Justice and the peace of Pennsylvania equally I apprehend & Strongly require that the Act should be completely— executed. with great esteem I am Sir your most Ob[edien]t Humble Serv[an]t W[illia]m Samuel Johnson
A copy of the original Taken at Philad March 17th 1790 – by Z[ebulon] Butler
Creator
Repository Details
Part of the Wilkes University Archives Repository
Contact:
84 W South St.
Wilkes-Barre PA 18701 US
570-408-2000
570-408-7823 (Fax)
ask.archives@wilkes.edu
84 W South St.
Wilkes-Barre PA 18701 US
570-408-2000
570-408-7823 (Fax)
ask.archives@wilkes.edu