DARTMOUTH COLLEGE LIBRARY BULLETIN NOVEMBER 1977 VOLUME XVIII (Ns) NUMBER 1 ISSN 0011-6750

Contents

Baker and Paddock 2 by Genevieve B. Williamson

The Dresden Imprints · II 6 by]. Kevin Graffagnino

Fyodorov in Baker Library: II · The Bibliography; 16 an Addendum by Taras D. Zakydalsky

Notes from the Special Collections Indian Students in the Post-Wheelock Years 20 by Kenneth C. Cramer

Thesis Topics: Ready-Made A Signi£cant Court Case 24 Times Change-Do We? 26

Note on a journey's End' 30

Journey's End 31 The Dresden Imprints · II

J. KEVIN GRAFFAGNINO

The first part of Mr. Graffagnino's article appeared in the April 1977 issue.

y far the most important group of Dresden imprints is the one B produced by the opposing sides in the East Union dispute, the western faction and the upper Connecticut River/ Dresden Party. These two groups, whose designs and interests were diamet­ rically opposed, carried on a brief but significant 'war of the printed word' in late 1778 and early 1779, the products of which were all printed by the Dresden Press. Throughout the conflict, the Dresden Press remained in the middle, printing the works of both sides on the various aspects of the East Union and the Dresden Party's drive for a river-centered state. The invol ~ement of the Dresden Press' services in the East Union matter began in October 1 778 just after the twenty-seven upper Connecticut River town representatives resigned from the Vermont General Assembly. The twenty-seven resigned on 22 October; there­ after they were not acting on behalf of Vermont or the General Assembly, as some scholars have assumed. The river town delegates formed a voluntary convention at Windsor the day after their resig­ nations and discussed a number of proposals for forming a new river-centered state. The upper Connecticut River/ Dresden Party pamphlets written in October 1778 came from members of this in­ formal convention (ex-members of the Vermont General Assembly), who were now acting directly against the western-controlled State of Vermont. Three important Dresden imprints came out of the 23 October Windsor meeting of the ex-members of the Assembly. The first, a three-page leaflet entitled Remarks on the Proceedings of the General Assembly of the State of Vermont, at their Sessions in October, A.D. 1778 (McCorison no. 5 *), is a sharp criticism of the previous day's votes refusing the towns admission into Vermont. Claim­ ing that the votes were illegal under the Vermont Constitution and

*Marcus A. McCorison, Vermont Imprints 1778-1820 (Worcester, [Mass.]: Amer­ ican Antiquarian Society, 1963). 6 that the members left in the Assembly were acting illegally after the walkout since they were short of the number required for a quorum, the Remarks calls on the people of Vermont to force the remaining members of the Assembly to account for their actions. The pam­ phlet closes by calling for a convention of Grants towns on both sides of the Connecticut at Cornish on the second Wednesday in Decem­ ber (the 9th), 'to consult and agree upon measures whereby we may all be united together, by being and remaining a distinct State, on such foundation that we may be admitted into Confederacy with the United States of America, and under their protection &c. - or (if that cannot be effected by reasonable measures) to claim the antient Jurisdiction of the Government of New-Hampshire; and in that way defend ourselves against the pretended right of Jurisdiction of any other State - And thereby become one entire State according to the extent of New-Hampshire Province, as it stood before the decree in 1 764 took place.' The other two 23 October items printed at Dresden for the upper Connecticut River Party were apparently sent out together to the towns along both sides of the river. The first, a small broadside en­ titled To the Inhabitants of [Plainfield] on the New Hampshire Grants (McCorison no. 6), begins by noting the many ties among all the towns on the Grants, and goes on to state that the settlement of the Grants' limits is all that stands in the way of recognition by Congress. To the Inhabitants recommends 'the enclosed plan' as the best means of settling the borders of the Grants and echoes the call of the Re­ marks for a convention at Cornish on 9 December 1778. 'The enclosed plan' mentioned in To the Inhabitants is the broadside Outlines ofa Plan agreed by the General Assembly ofthe State of Vermont, at their Sessions at Windsor, in October, A.D. 1778, to be pursued for the establishment of the State (McCorison no. 4). The Outlines, which ap­ parently was the plan drawn up for the East Union before the votes locking the New Hampshire towns out ofVermont, begins by deny­ ing the legality of the King's 1764 decree that the Grants belonged to New York, saying that it was obtained 'under the influence of false and exparte representation,' making it 'void from the beginning.' The Outlines goe5 on to state the desire of the New Hampshire towns to join Vermont and the willingness of Vermont to admit them, suggesting that New Hampshire be informed of the proposed union. The Outlines closes with the idea that the articles of union be written

7 up and presented to the General Assembly for approval, then trans­ mitted to New Hampshire and the . While the Outlines is unsigned, both the Remarks and To the In­ habitants are authorized 'By order of said Committee,' and signed by . It has long been assumed that 'the said Committee' was a committee chaired by Marsh that was appointed before 22 October by the Vermont General Assembly. However, Marsh, from Hartford, Vermont, who had been elected the first lieutenant gover­ nor of Vermont in March 1778, had resigned with the other river town representatives on 22 October. The committee ofwhich he was chairman when these three imprints were written, and which au­ thorized them, was, as both the Remarks and To the Inhabitants state, 'a Committee of the protesting Members,' appointed by the 23 October 'voluntary Convention' of the ex-members of the Vermont General Assembly. While the authorship of the three 23 October Dresden Party im­ prints cannot be ascertained with any positive proof, it would seem reasonable to assume that Joseph Marsh was responsible for them. Marsh, by virtue of his position as a prominent political and military leader on the Connecticut (Hartford was only about eight miles from Dresden), would seem to stand out as the most likely of the candidates for authorship. While all the Dresden Party imprints are 'By order of said Committee,' Marsh's name as chairman is the only one to appear on three of them. Aside from this, his position as the most experienced and most powerful member of the 23 October 'voluntary Convention' would have seemingly made him the natural choice to write the official printed statements setting forth the cause of the upper river towns. Although he had supported New York's claim of jurisdiction in the early 177os, serving as a delegate from Cumberland County to the New York Provincial Congress in 1 776, Marsh switched allegiances in 1777 and quickly assumed an impor­ tant role in the formation of Vermont, serving as vice-president of the July 1777 convention at Windsor that drew up the State Con­ stitution. After the East Union controversy died down, Marsh went back into Vermont politics, representing Hartford in the General Assembly in 1780 and 1781, serving on the first Vermont Council of Censors in 178 5 and as lieutenant governor again from 1787 to 1790. The reaction ofthe Arlington Junta to the 23 October imprints sent out by the Dresden Party was not long in coming. In a three-page 8 leaflet entitled To the Inhabitants of the State of Vermont (McCorison no. 1), dated 27 November at Dresden, Ira Allen struck back in print, his most effective means of fighting. In To the Inhabitants, Allen writes of his trip to Exeter on 10 November, at which the New Hampshire Governor and Council told him they would not oppose Vermont's joining the United States as long as the East Union was not renewed. Noting the proposed 9 December convention at Cor­ nish, he argues that the towns east of the Connecticut, because they are able to send representatives to the New Hampshire Assembly, could not therefore form a union with anyone but New Hampshire. To the Inhabitants closes with a warning to the residents of Vermont that one proposal of the upcoming Cornish convention will be to ask New Hampshire to claim all of the Grants, which would leave Ver­ mont interests very much in the minority in New Hampshire's sys­ tem of assembly representation. While the logic of some of its points may well be debatable, the warning in To the Inhabitants of a possible takeover by New Hampshire probably did have some effect on those sitting on the fence in Vermont on the East Union question. The called-for convention of the Connecticut River towns opened on 9 December at Cornish and was attended by delegates from eight Vermont and fourteen New Hampshire towns on the upper river. Along with its determinations either to form a new river-centered state or to have New Hampshire claim all of the Grants, the conven­ tion (of which Joseph Marsh was the chairman) also unanimously approved the fifty-six-page pamphlet A Public Defence of the right of the New-Hampshire Grants (so called) on both Sides Connecticut-River, to associate together, and form themselves into an Independent State (Mc­ Corison no. 21). The most substantial of the Connecticut River Party's printed statements, A Public Defence is dated 1 December 1 778 and signed by Jacob Bayley, , and Bezaleel Woodward, 'the major part' of a committee of five (Ethan Allen and Jonas Fay were the other two members) appointed by the Vermont General Assembly on 20 October to draw up a declaration 'setting forth the political state of the New-Hampshire Grants.' A Public Defence is quite different from what the three authors would have written had they still been members of the General Assembly; beginning by asserting the independence of the Connecticut River towns from both New York and New Hampshire, it sharply criticizes Ethan Allen for recommending the dissolution of the East Union and calls

9 on more Vermont and New Hampshire towns to join them in a new state on the upper Connecticut River separate from and independent of New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. Failing that, A Public Defence recommends asking New Hampshire to take over all the Grants, centering New Hampshire on the river. As has been stated before, political loyalty to any one state was not overly important to the Dresden Party; it wanted a state centered on the Connecticut and did not particularly care which state it turned out to be. A Public De­ fence closes with a strong statement of the determination of the upper river towns to remain united and defend themselves until one of their proposals is adopted. A Public Defence is the Connecticut River Party product that has most strongly been assumed to have been authorized and printed by the State ofVermont. Although its contents and the resignation from the General Assembly of its authors would seemingly make it the least likely thing for Vermont to print, there is a charge on the printer's bill to Vermont1 under the date 10 February 1779 for '30 Public Defenses &c' (not 300, as McCorison states). No other 'Public Defense' is known; this has long been cited as proof that the Con­ necticut River Party items printed at Dresden were authorized and paid for by the State of Vermont. Since A Public Defence is the only one of the upper river towns' imprints that can definitely be identi­ fied on the existing printer's bills to Vermont, the matter pretty much rests on this one point: if Vermont authorized and paid for A Public Defence, it would seem reasonable to assume the State author­ ized and paid for the others, as well. However, the bibliographers who have listed A Public Defence under 'Vermont' (McCorison, for one) solely on the basis of the charge on the printer's bill appear to have overlooked one important piece of evidence. On page 31 of his A Vindication of the Conduct of the General Assembly of the State of Vermont, Ira Allen prints the fol­ lowing extract from the manuscript minutes of the Cornish conven­ tion: 'A major part of the Committee appointed to draw at large, a declaration proposed in the report of a Committee of Assembly of Vermont, on the 19th of October last, laid before this Convention a pamphlet, drawn by them, in pursuance of said appointment, which was repeatedly read, and unanimously approved--Whereupon

1. This bill is in Vermont State Papers, Secretary of State's Office, MS. volume 8, p. 307. 10 voted, that 1500 of the above mentioned pamphlets be printed ... .' The printed minutes of the Cornish convention, appended in much­ abridged form to A Public Defence, state only that the pamphlet 'was repeatedly read, and unanimously approved,' with no mention of the vote to have it printed. Although 1500 copies would have been a lot for the small Dresden Press to print and the number may have been lowered, it would seem obvious that the pamphlet was orig­ inally authorized and printed by the Connecticut River Party. This places the thirty copies printed for Vermont on 10 February in a somewhat different light; instead of being the original and only printing, they would now seem to have been a secondary printing of a small number of copies by Vermont, probably to allow the western leaders to read the claims of their opponents and for counter­ propaganda purposes. The State of Vermont's reply to the claim and statements of the Cornish convention and A Public Defence was the already-mentioned Vindication ofthe Conduct ofth e General Assembly (McCorison no. 12), by Ira Allen, who wrote all four of the State's printed contributions to the East Union dispute. Dated 9 January 1779 at Arlington, the Vindication ofthe Conduct was printed at Dresden on 10 February in an edition of 450 copies. Forty-eight pages long, the Vindication of the Conduct begins by detailing the protests of New Hampshire against the East Union and states that many persons in the sixteen New Hampshire towns did not want to break away from New Hamp­ shire's jurisdiction. Denying the claim of the Dresden Party that the Vermont General Assembly acted illegally without a quorum after the 22 October walkout, Allen continually argues that the delegates who resigned were not protesting through legal channels and thus had no right to criticize any actions the Assembly chose to take. In­ forming his readers that he 'providentially happened' to be at Cor­ nish on 9 December, Allen states, 'I there attended a Convention that was called at the request of those Gentlemen that withdrew from the Council and Assembly of the State of Vermont... .' After re­ printing some of the resolves and minutes of the Cornish convention, Allen asserts that the arguments of the upper river towns are based on lies and inaccuracies, and that New Hampshire's western border is the Connecticut River, so that the river towns can neither join any other state nor ask New Hampshire to claim all the Grants. Aware of precisely who his opponents were, Allen hits the nail on the head 11 when he writes, 'the first seed of discord between New-Hampshire and it's [sic] disaffected towns, sprang from Dartmouth-College,' whose leaders 'would either connect a considerable part of the Grants east of Connecticut-river with this State, and thereby bring the seat of government on said river, or get in such connections with this State, as to break it up, and connect the whole to New-Hampshire, which would also bring the seat of government on said river' (pp. 41, 42). The final three pages of the Vindication of the Conduct are de­ voted to an open letter from Ethan Allen to the inhabitants of Ver­ mont, promising that New Hampshire will not interfere with Ver­ mont as long as no more East Unions are formed. The next Dresden imprint dealing with the East Union contro­ versy was also printed for Vermont, on 21 April 1 779. Ira Allen's two-page letter To the Inhabitants of the State of Vermont (McCorison no. 11), dated 19 April 1779 at Norwich, Vermont, tells of his visit to the New Hampshire Assembly at Exeter in late March. Jacob Bayley and Davenport Phelps, two delegates of the Dresden Party, were also in Exeter (and were probably the reason for Allen's pres­ ence there), and To the Inhabitants prints the petition they presented to New Hampshire from the upper river towns asking that New Hampshire claim all of the Grants. This petition would have pre­ sented a serious potential problem for the Arlington Junta, and Allen quickly points out in his letter that only eight Vermont towns sent delegates to the Cornish convention that authorized the petition, hardly a representation of the majority of the inhabitants of the area New Hampshire was being asked to take over. To the Inhabitants also reports that, largely through the efforts of Allen himself, the New Hampshire Assembly decided to delay action on the petition until its next session. In closing, Allen notes that the Connecticut River Party has been circulating criticism against Vermont for confiscating the estates of Tories and points out that the leaders of the upper river party had participated fully in the confiscation of such estates before their October resignations, righteously adding that of the money thus collected by Vermont, 'a very considerable part of it has been paid to the brave Officers and Soldiers who have served in the de­ fence of this and the United States.' The Dresden Party continued to work for New Hampshire con­ trol of all the Grants in the early months of 1779. About a month after presenting their petition at Exeter in March, a committee which 12 had been set up (with Joseph Marsh as chairman) at the Cornish con­ vention sent a Dresden Press broadside (McCorison no. 22), dated 23 April at Dresden, out to each of the towns along both sides of the upper river, asking for a vote on whether or not the towns were willing to accept New Hampshire's jurisdiction over all the Grants. The only known remaining copy of this broadside (at Plainfield, New Hampshire) has been lost, but the responses of at least two Ver­ mont towns to the question are still available. On 13 May 1779, the town of Newbury (Jacob Bayley's town) 'Voted that New Hamp­ shire lay their claim on the whole of the Grants.'2 The town of Royalton held a town meeting on 15 May to decide on a response and expressed a hope that a new river-centered state could still be established separate from New Hampshire and Vermont: 'The Ques­ tion sent us By the Commitee apinted by the Convention held at Cornish December Last Viz Was Putt Whether this town is Willing that the assembly of New Hampshire Extend their Claime and juris­ diction over the Whole of the Grants New Hampshire at the Same time Submitting to Congress whether a New State Shall be Estab­ lished on the Grants &c but we Resarved to ouerSelves a Right To Vendecait ouer claime to be a New State.3 This broadside was the last known Dresden imprint put out by the upper river towns. Although the Dresden Party continued to press for New Hampshire control of all the Grants, it concentrated its efforts in the last half of 1779 on Exeter and Philadelphia rather than on the Grants themselves. By the time it became clear that New Hampshire would not act against Vermont without approval from Congress and that a ruling from Philadelphia might take years, the Dresden Press had been closed down and the products of the re­ newed local efforts of the Dresden Party had to be printed at the new Vermont State Press at Westminster, an inconvenient fifty miles south of the center of the Dresden Party. The final known Dresden imprint on the East Union dispute was another oflra Allen's To the Inhabitants of the State of Vermont (Mc­ Corison no. 10). Dated 13 July 1779 at Norwich, Vermont, the two­ page letter deals with Allen's visit to the New Hampshire Assembly at Exeter in late June. Once again at Exeter to observe and oppose the

2. Stevens Transcripts, Vermont Secretary of State's Office, MS. volume 2, p. 238 . 3. Evelyn M. Wood Lovejoy, History ofRoyalton, Vermont, with Family Genealogies 1769-1911 (Burlington: Free Press Printing Co., 1911), p. 33. 13 delegates of the Dresden Party, Allen relates that on 24 June Colonel and Bezaleel Woodward appeared before the New Hampshire Assembly and reported that they had polled the Grants towns on both sides of the upper river (through the 23 April broad­ side) and that, 'so far as they had been able to collect the Sentiments of the People, they were very generally on the east Side of the Green Mountain, and a Number on the west Side said Mountain, for con­ necting with New-Hampshire.' To the Inhabitants goes on to say that Allen told the New Hampshire Assembly that the report by Olcott and Woodward was untrue and that the great majority of the people on the west side of the Connecticut were opposed to joining New Hampshire, with the result that the Assembly voted to claim Ver­ mont on paper but not to attempt to enforce its claim west of the river until Congress ruled on the matter. Allen also warns his readers that many New Hampshire leaders would like very much to add Vermont to New Hampshire's territory. In concluding his letter, Allen makes the excellent point that the same upper Connecticut River towns, that had claimed New Hampshire had no legal author­ ity over any land west of Concord when they were pressing first for the East Union and then for a new river-centered state, were now claiming that New Hampshire had a right to jurisdiction over the entire Grants. Although a total of only nine Dresden imprints came out of the Arlington Junta-Dresden Party dispute in 1778-1779, their influence and impact on the affairs ofVermont and New Hampshire were con­ siderable. The Dresden Party's printed arguments kept the upper river area in both Vermont and New Hampshire in a potentially explosive state and forced both states and the Continental Congress to devote a great deal of time and energy to dealing with the de­ mands and claims coming out of Dresden in 1778 and 1 779. Ira Allen's Dresden-printed writings on the subject show that the Dres­ den Party constituted a serious threat to the control of the Arlington Junta over the government and territory of Vermont. Had New Hampshire been willing to assert its Dresden Party-prompted claim over Vermont, the upper river towns might well have been able to realize their desire for a river-centered state. The closing of the Dres­ den Press undoubtedly hurt the cause of the Dresden Party. Although it could and did have material printed at Westminster after 1779, the loss of a press on the east side of the upper Connecticut in the center 14 of the towns comprising the Dresden Party could not have failed to work against the upper river towns and in favor of the designs of the State of Vermont's western leaders. Although the Dresden Press produced a total of only thirty or so imprints, those imprints offer an interesting and valuable perspective on the early history of Vermont that should not be overlooked. Aside from their positions as bibliographic firsts and antiquarian rarities, the products of the Dresden Press also help to fill in some of the many gaps in our knowledge of the Dresden Party, Dartmouth College, and Vermont's early years of independence. Without the Dresden imprints, our understanding of some of the important issues and events in Vermont and along the upper Connecticut River in 1 778-1 779 would be much more incomplete than it is.

15