Benjamin Chesley and Neighbors Band Together to Petition the Government in 1780s-1810s
Benjamin Chesley: 1743-1831 (Maternal Fifth Great-Uncle)
I recently discovered a new resource on Ancestry: a database
titled “New Hampshire, U.S., Government Petitions, 1700-1826”. While the
database had been available since 2021, I had never seen an Ancestry hint
related to it, so had never examined the documents. While researching my
fifth-great-uncle Benjamin Chesley, I found a hint that showed he was a
signatory on a petition sent to the state government objecting to a planned
road project in 1792. The document was fascinating, and I was able to find eight
additional petitions my ancestor signed around the same time period. The
petitions provide a window into the way neighbors and communities banded
together to address concerns in the early decades of our nation.
 |
| Petitions bearing Benjamin Chesley's signature |
Benjamin Chesley was born in Durham, New Hampshire on
January 24, 1743, to parents Thomas Chesley and Mary Hill Chesley. He was one
of their eight children. He married Deborah Randall, another of my
fifth-great-grandaunts. He farmed and owned land in several locations. Benjamin
and Deborah had eleven children, and lived in the Durham area.
The earliest petition I found that contained Benjamin’s
signature was dated March 30, 1787. The
petition was simple and direct: the concerned residents of Strafford County
asked that “his Excellency the President and the Honourable Council of the
State of New Hampshire” to appoint Ebenezer Smith to the vacant office of
Register of Probate. Smith was, the petitioners wrote, “a person well qualified
for the office and whom we desire to be appointed…” A year before the U.S.
Constitution was ratified, the citizens of a small county in New Hampshire
already had enough confidence in their state officials that they believed
petitioning them regarding appointments would have effect.
Another petition from 1787 speaks to some conflict within
the community.
“The subscriber inhabitants of the County of Stafford
being informed that some persons have petitioned your Honors to remove the
Hon.ble George Frost Esq from his seat a Judge of the Inferior Court of
Commonplace for said County which we conceive to be owing to
prejudice---therefore we beg leave to suggest to your honors…from our knowledge
and observation the sd [said]Frost has acted in his office afor’d [aforementioned]
impartially and to general satisfaction and that his removal therefrom will not
in our opinion be for the interest of said County. Wherefore we pray your
honors he may be continued in office and we as in Duty Bound will pray so.”
Benjamin Chesley's signature is top center
Benjamin was the topmost signator, with his relative George
Chesley signing directly beneath him. I recognize numerous other names among
the signators who were either relatives by marriage or neighbors of the
Chesleys, including Winthrop and John Bickford, Robert Burnham, Valentine and
Benjamin Mathes and Christopher Nutter. This was obviously a situation they all
felt strongly about. Someone in the area was trying to cause trouble for this judge
out of “prejudice”. Perhaps the judge had ruled against the “persons” in question
and they were seeking revenge, or they anticipated he would rule unfavorably against
them in a future case. The community obviously did not approve of the tactics
these “persons” were employing, and decided to make an end run around them.
The 1792 petition, the first one I had discovered on Ancestry,
reveals some conflict between communities and regions. The petition objects to
proposed road construction plans, suggesting that the portion through their
community of Durham was ill-advised and poorly planned and will not benefit
them. It reads as follows:
“The subscribers, being inhabitants of the Town of Durham
in said State—will that every necessary alteration should be made in our Public
highways—and anxious that the intended communication between Concord & this
Town should take place—Yet, must beg leave, humbly to remonstrate against the
alterations proposed by your Honor’s Committee in running through said Town—
The nature of our ground is such, that very little of it
can be improved for Roads, without great expense—And we think it almost
impracticable ever to make a good road on the land they have run upon—but are
certain, that it will require many years, with large sums of money, to make it
possible with safety—
Besides, we cannot conceive the advantages that will
accrue to the Public from the amendments, will be adequate to the injury the
Ton must sustain—as we shall be obliged to purchase the land for the new road
at an extravagant price, and likewise forced, not only to support that, but
also the old one for the benefits of individuals long since settled upon it, as
greater parts of whose interests must fall a sacrifice to the proposed
exchange—When the saving in distance will never exceed one hundred rods. If that’s
soon to be lost by the Travelor in passing over hills and through mires, which
abundantly be found. The way now occupied is free from hills, and with much
labour for a hundred years, is now a very good Road—vastly better, we presume,
than the new one will be the same number of years hence.
For those reasons we humbly pray that much of the Report
of your Honour’s Committee as respects the alteration of highways in said
Durham may not be received or accepted by your Hounours and we as in duty will
ever pray---
Durham 21st May 1792”
1792 peitition signature page
As we can see, the problems of 1892 are much like those of
2026, with taxpayers objecting to how the government intends to spend tax
dollars, demanding that the money be spent wisely and without extravagance or
waste, and that the projects benefit everyone.
The final petition that caught my eye was one of the last
ones Benjamin signed. Apparently, much like today, people were being nominated
to hold office in 1813 merely on the basis of their political allegiances,
without questioning whether they possess any skill or experience for the job. The
residents who would suffer as a result of the political appointment, objected,
writing in part:
“…your petitioners humbly share that there is a petition
about to be presented to your Excellency and the honorable counsel recommending
a man by the name of John Jenkins Jr of Barnstead in said county of Strafford
as a suitable person for a justice of the peace--- and as your Excellency and
the honorable council are unacquainted with both petitioners and candidate we
have thought it our duty to lay before you the true character of the said John
Jenkens as he is surley [surely] a partey man and instead of being a peacemaker
he often meddles with matters that he ought not and (as Solomon saith) “is like
one who taketh a dog by the ears” and if he finds at any time that any two
persons are at variance he will generally be meddling either as a pettafoger
[pettifogger] or like a busybody in other mens matters in order to enhance the
dispute and blow up the flame of discord and keep the fire burning therefore we
do think that it would be derogatory to the character of your Excellency and
the character of the honourable council that we are not induced to make this
remonstrance by any prepossession of prejudice against the said John Jenkins Jr
or influenced by political divisions but we think we are influenced by the love
of peace & harmony and for the benefit of society and we most earnestly
hope that the name of your Excellency and the name of the honorable Secretary
will not be so debased as to be placed on a commission with the name of the
aforesaid John Jenkins Jr .”
These petitions show how, in the very early history of our
nation, the citizens felt confidence in the country’s institutions and the rule
of law to bring their concerns before their government and ask for redress.
They did not fear reprisal—they confidently signed their names. These petitions
were probably passed from person to person in a community, which is why the
signatures of family members and neighbors were clustered together.
I wish I shared my ancestor’s confidence that our government
cares about our concerns. While I send emails to my senators, my Congressional
representative, and my President and Vice President, I doubt that they care.
They all seem far more concerned with lining their own pockets and those of the
extremely wealthy than in serving the interests of their constituents. I hope
that someday I will once again believe, like my fifth great-granduncle Benjamin
Chesley did, that my government truly is of the people, by the people and for
the people.
Benjamin Chesley died in 1835 at the age of eighty-eight. He
is buried in Durham, New Hampshire.
Sources:
New Hampshire, U.S., Government Petitions, 1700-1826.
Box 46: 1819. May 1819; Box 23: Dec 30, 1786-Aug 1787, March
1787. Accessed on Ancestry.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment