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 Vermont 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 New Hampshire 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 Continental Congress. While the Outlines is unsigned, both the Remarks and To the In­ habitants are authorized 'By order of said Committee,' and signed by Joseph Marsh. 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.