PRESIDENTIAL EDITION

THE WINNING OF THE WEST

BY

THEODORE ROOSEVELT

VOLUME THREE

THE FOUNDING OF THE TRANS-ALLEGHANY COMMONWEALTHS

1784-1790

WITH MAP

THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED, WITH HIS PERMISSION

TO

FRANCIS PARKMAN

TO WHOM AMERICANS WHO FEEL A PRIDE IN THE PIONEER HISTORY OF THEIRCOUNTRY ARE SO GREATLY INDEBTED

PREFACE TO THIRD VOLUME. 

The material used herein is that mentioned in the preface to the firstvolume, save that I have also drawn freely on the Draper Manuscripts, inthe Library of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, at Madison. For the privilege of examining these valuable manuscripts I am indebtedto the generous courtesy of the State Librarian, Mr. Reuben GoldThwaites; I take this opportunity of extending to him my hearty thanks. 

The period covered in this volume includes the seven years immediatelysucceeding the close of the Revolutionary War. It was during these sevenyears that the Constitution was adopted, and actually went into effect;an event if possible even more momentous for the West than the East. Thetime was one of vital importance to the whole nation; alike to thepeople of the inland frontier and to those of the seaboard. The courseof events during these years determined whether we should become amighty nation, or a mere snarl of weak and quarrelsome littlecommonwealths, with a history as bloody and meaningless as that of theSpanish-American states. 

At the close of the Revolution the West was peopled by a few thousandsettlers, knit by but the slenderest ties to the Federal Government. Aremarkable inflow of population followed. The warfare with the Indians, and the quarrels with the British and Spaniards over boundary questions, reached no decided issue. But the rifle-bearing freemen who foundedtheir little republics on the western waters gradually solved thequestion of combining personal liberty with national union. For yearsthere was much wavering. There were violent separatist movements, andattempts to establish complete independence of the eastern States. Therewere corrupt conspiracies between some of the western leaders andvarious high Spanish officials, to bring about a disruption of theConfederation. The extraordinary little backwoods state of Franklinbegan and ended a career unique in our annals. But the current, thougheddying and sluggish, set towards Union. By 1790 a firm government hadbeen established west of the mountains, and the trans-Alleghanycommonwealths had become parts of the Federal Union. 

THEODORE ROOSEVELT. 

SAGAMORE HILL, LONG ISLAND, _October_, 1894. 

CONTENTS

CHAPTER

I. THE INRUSH OF SETTLERS, 1784-1787

II. THE INDIAN WARS, 1784-1787

III. THE NAVIGATION OF THE MISSISSIPPI; SEPARATIST MOVEMENTS AND SPANISHINTRIGUES, 1784-1788

IV. THE STATE OF FRANKLIN, 1784-1788

V. KENTUCKY'S STRUGGLE FOR STATEHOOD, 1784-1790

VI. THE NORTHWEST TERRITORY; OHIO, 1787-1790

VII. THE WAR IN THE NORTHWEST, 1787-1790

VIII. THE SOUTHWEST TERRITORY; TENNESSEE, 1788-1890

[Illustration: The Western Land Claims at the Close of the Revolution. Showing also the state of Franklin, Kentucky, and the CumberlandSettlements, or Miro District. _Source:_ Based on a map by G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York and London. ]

THE WINNING OF THE WEST. 

CHAPTER I. 

THE INRUSH OF SETTLERS, 1784-1787. 

At the beginning of 1784 peace was a definite fact, and the UnitedStates had become one among the nations of the earth; a nation young andlusty in her youth, but as yet loosely knit, and formidable in promiserather than in actual capacity for performance. 

 The Western Frontier. 

On the western frontier lay vast and fertile vacant spaces; for theAmericans had barely passed the threshold of the continent predestinedto be the inheritance of their children and children's children. Forgenerations the great feature in the nation's history, next only to thepreservation of its national life, was to be its westward growth; andits distinguishing work was to be the settlement of the immensewilderness which stretched across to the Pacific. But before the landcould be settled it had to be won. 

The valley of the Ohio already belonged to the Americans by right ofconquest and of armed possession; it was held by rifle-bearing backwoodsfarmers, hard and tenacious men, who never lightly yielded what oncethey had grasped. North and south of the valley lay warlike and powerfulIndian confederacies, now at last thoroughly alarmed and angered by thewhite advance; while behind these warrior tribes, urging them tohostility, and furnishing them the weapons and means wherewith to fight, stood the representatives of two great European nations, both bitterlyhostile to the new America, and both anxious to help in every way thered savages who strove to stem the tide of settlement. The closealliance between the soldiers and diplomatic agents of polishedold-world powers and the wild and squalid warriors of the wilderness wasan alliance against which the American settlers had always to make headin the course of their long march westward. The kings and the peoples ofthe old world ever showed themselves the inveterate enemies of theirblood-kin in the new; they always strove to delay the time when theirown race should rise to wellnigh universal supremacy. In mere blindselfishness, or in a spirit of jealousy still blinder, the Europeansrefused to regard their kinsmen who had crossed the ocean to found newrealms in new continents as entitled to what they had won by their owntoil and hardihood. They persisted in treating the bold adventurers whowent abroad as having done so simply for the benefit of the men whostayed at home; and they shaped their transatlantic policy in accordancewith this idea. The Briton and the Spaniard opposed the American settlerprecisely as the Frenchman had done before them, in the interest oftheir own merchants and fur-traders. They endeavored in vain to bar himfrom the solitudes through which only the Indians roved. 

All the ports around the Great Lakes were held by the British;[Footnote: State Dep. MSS. , No. 150, vol. Ii. , March, 1788. Report ofSecretary Knox. ] their officers, military and civil, still keptpossession, administering the government of the scattered French hamlets, and preserving their old-time relations with the Indian tribes, whom theycontinued to treat as allies or feudatories. To the south and west theSpaniards played the same part. They scornfully refused to heed theboundary established to the southward by the treaty between England andthe United States, alleging that the former had ceded what it did notpossess. They claimed the land as theirs by right of conquest. Theterritory which they controlled stretched from Florida along a vaguelydefined boundary to the Mississippi, up the east bank of the latter atleast to the Chickasaw Bluffs, and thence up the west bank; while theCreeks and Choctaws were under their influence. The Spaniards dreadedand hated the Americans even more than did the British, and they wereright; for three fourths of the present territory of the United Statesthen lay within the limits of the Spanish possessions. [Footnote: StateDep. MSS. , No. 81, vol. Ii. , pp. 189, 217. No. 120, vol. Ii. , June 30, 1786. ]

Thus there were foes, both white and red, to be overcome, either byforce of arms or by diplomacy, before the northernmost and thesouthernmost portions of the wilderness lying on our western bordercould be thrown open to settlement. The lands lying between had alreadybeen conquered, and yet were so sparsely settled as to seem almostvacant. While they offered every advantage of soil and climate to thefarmer and cultivator, they also held out peculiar attractions toambitious men of hardy and adventurous temper. 

 The Rush of Settlers

With the ending of the Revolutionary War the rush of settlers to thesewestern lauds assumed striking proportions. The peace relieved thepressure which had hitherto restrained this movement, on the one hand, while on the other it tended to divert into the new channel of pioneerwork those bold spirits whose spare energies had thus far found anoutlet on stricken fields. To push the frontier westward in the teeth ofthe forces of the wilderness was fighting work, such as suited wellenough many a stout soldier who had worn the blue and buff of theContinental line, or who, with his fellow rough-riders, had followed inthe train of some grim partisan leader. 

The people of the New England States and of New York, for the most part, spread northward and westward within their own boundaries; and Georgialikewise had room for all her growth within her borders; but in theStates between there was a stir of eager unrest over the tales told ofthe beautiful and fertile lands lying along the Ohio, the Cumberland, and the Tennessee. The days of the early pioneers, of the men who didthe hardest and roughest work, were over; farms were being laid out andtowns were growing up among the felled forests from which the game andthe Indians had alike been driven. There was still plenty of room forthe rude cabin and stump-dotted clearing of the ordinary frontiersettler, the wood-chopper and game hunter. Folk of the common backwoodstype were as yet more numerous than any others among the settlers. Inaddition there were planters from among the gentry of the sea-coast;there were men of means who had bought great tracts of wild land; therewere traders with more energy than capital; there were young lawyers;there were gentlemen with a taste for an unfettered life of greatopportunity; in short there were adventurers of every kind. 

All men who deemed that they could swim in troubled waters were drawntowards the new country. The more turbulent and ambitious spirits sawroads to distinction in frontier warfare, politics, and diplomacy. Merchants dreamed of many fortunate ventures, in connection with theriver trade or the overland commerce by packtrain. Lawyers not onlyexpected to make their living by their proper calling, but also to riseto the first places in the commonwealths, for in these new communities, as in the older States, the law was then the most honored of theprofessions, and that which most surely led to high social and politicalstanding. But the one great attraction for all classes was the chance ofprocuring large quantities of fertile land at low prices. 

 Value of the Land. 

To the average settler the land was the prime source of livelihood. Aman of hardihood, thrift, perseverance, and bodily strength could surelymake a comfortable living for himself and his family, if only he couldsettle on a good tract of rich soil; and this he could do if he went tothe new country. As a matter of course, therefore, vigorous youngfrontiersmen swarmed into the region so recently won. 

These men merely wanted so much land as they could till. Others, however, looked at it from a very different standpoint. The land was thereal treasury-chest of the country. It was the one commodity whichappealed to the ambitious and adventurous side of the industrialcharacter at that time and in that place. It was the one commodity themanagement of which opened chances of procuring vast wealth, andespecially vast speculative wealth. To the American of the end of theeighteenth century the roads leading to great riches were as few asthose leading to a competency were many. He could not prospect for minesof gold and of silver, of iron, copper, and coal; he could not discoverand work wells of petroleum and natural gas; he could not build up, sell, and speculate in railroad systems and steamship companies; hecould not gamble in the stock market; he could not build hugemanufactories of steel, of cottons, of woollens; he could not be abanker or a merchant on a scale which is dwarfed when called princely;he could not sit still and see an already great income double andquadruple because of the mere growth in the value of real estate in someteeming city. The chances offered him by the fur trade were veryuncertain. If he lived in a sea-coast town, he might do something withthe clipper ships that ran to Europe and China. If he lived elsewhere, his one chance of acquiring great wealth, and his best chance to acquireeven moderate wealth without long and plodding labor, was to speculatein wild land. 

 Land Speculators

Accordingly the audacious and enterprising business men who wouldnowadays go into speculation in stocks, were then forced intospeculation in land. Sometimes as individuals, sometimes as largecompanies, they sought to procure wild lands on the Wabash, the Ohio, the Cumberland, the Yazoo. In addition to the ordinary methods ofsettlement by, or purchase from private persons, they endeavored toprocure grants on favorable terms from the national and Statelegislatures, or even from the Spanish government. They often made aregular practice of buying the land rights which had accrued in lieu ofarrears of pay to different bodies of Continental troops. They even attimes purchased a vague and clouded title from some Indian tribe. Aswith most other speculative business investments, the great landcompanies rarely realized for the originators and investors anythinglike what was expected; and the majority were absolute failures in everysense. Nevertheless, a number of men made money out of them, often onquite a large scale; and in many instances, where the people who plannedand carried out the scheme made nothing for themselves, they yet lefttheir mark in the shape of settlers who had come in to purchase theirlands, or even in the shape of a town built under their auspices. 

Land speculation was by no means confined to those who went into it on alarge scale. The settler without money might content himself withstaking out an ordinary-sized farm; but the new-comer of any means wassure not only to try to get a large estate for his own use, but also toprocure land beyond any immediate need, so that he might hold on to ituntil it rose in value. He was apt to hold commissions to purchase landfor his friends who remained east of the mountains. The land was turnedto use by private individuals and by corporations; it was held forspeculative purposes; it was used for the liquidation of debts of everykind. The official surveyors, when created, did most of their work bydeputy; Boone was deputy surveyor of Fayette County, in Kentucky. [Footnote: Draper MSS. ; Boone MSS. Entry of August court for 1783. ] Somemen surveyed and staked out their own claims; the others employedprofessional surveyors, or else hired old hunters like Boone and Kenton, whose knowledge of woodcraft and acquaintance with the most fertilegrounds enabled them not only to survey the land, but to choose theportions best fit for settlement. The lack of proper government surveys, and the looseness with which the records were kept in the land office, put a premium on fraud and encouraged carelessness. People could makeand record entries in secret, and have the land surveyed in secret, ifthey feared a dispute over a title; no one save the particular deputysurveyor employed needed to know. [Footnote: Draper MSS. In WisconsinState Hist. Ass. Clark papers. Walter Darrell to Col. William Fleming, St. Asaphs, April 14, 1783. These valuable Draper MSS, have been openedto me by Mr. Reuben Gold Thwaites, the State Librarian; I take thisopportunity of thanking him for his generous courtesy, to which I am sogreatly indebted. ] The litigation over these confused titles dragged onwith interminable tediousness. Titles were often several deep on one"location, " as it was called; and whoever purchased land too oftenpurchased also an expensive and uncertain lawsuit. 

The two chief topics of thought and conversation, the two subjects whichbeyond all others engrossed and absorbed the minds of the settlers, werethe land and the Indians. We have already seen how on one occasion Clarkcould raise no men for an expedition against the Indians until he closedthe land offices round which the settlers were thronging. Every hunterkept a sharp lookout for some fertile bottom on which to build a cabin. The volunteers who rode against the Indian towns also spied out the landand chose the best spots whereon to build their blockhouses andpalisaded villages as soon as a truce might be made, or the foe drivenfor the moment farther from the border. Sometimes settlers squatted onland already held but not occupied under a good title; sometimes a manwho claimed the land under a defective title, or under pretence oforiginal occupation, attempted to oust or to blackmail him who hadcleared and tilled the soil in good faith; and these were both fruitfulcauses not only of lawsuits but of bloody affrays. Among themselves, thesettlers' talk ran ever on land titles and land litigation, and schemesfor securing vast tracts of rich and well watered country. These werethe subjects with which they filled their letters to one another and totheir friends at home, and the subjects upon which these same friendschiefly dwelt when they sent letters in return. [Footnote: Clay MSS. AndDraper MSS. , _passim: e. G. _, in former, J. Mercer to George Nicholas, Nov. 28, 1789; J. Ware to George Nicholas, Nov. 29, 1789; letter to Mrs. Byrd, Jan. 16, 1786, etc. , etc. , etc. ] Often well-to-do men visited thenew country by themselves first, chose good sites for their farms andplantations, surveyed and purchased them, and then returned to their oldhomes, whence they sent out their field hands to break the soil and putup buildings before bringing out their families. 

 Lines Followed in the Western Movement. 

The westward movement of settlers took place along several differentlines. The dwellers in what is now eastern Tennessee were in close touchwith the old settled country; their Western farms and little townsformed part of the chain of forest clearings which stretched unbrokenfrom the border of Virginia down the valleys of the Watauga and theHolston. Though they were sundered by mountain ranges from the peopledregions in the State to which they belonged, North Carolina, yet theseranges were pierced by many trails, and were no longer haunted byIndians. There were no great obstacles to be overcome in moving in tothis valley of the upper Tennessee. On the other hand, by this time itheld no very great prizes in the shape of vast tracts of rich andunclaimed land. In consequence there was less temptation to speculationamong those who went to this part of the western country. It grewrapidly, the population being composed chiefly of actual settlers whohad taken holdings with the purpose of cultivating them, and of buildinghomes thereon. The entire frontier of this region was continuallyharassed by Indians; and it was steadily extended by the home-plantingof the rifle-bearing backwoodsmen. 

 The Cumberland Country. 

The danger from Indian invasion and outrage was, however, far greater inthe distant communities which were growing up in the great bend of theCumberland, cut off, as they were, by immense reaches of forest from theseaboard States. The settlers who went to this region for the most partfollowed two routes, either descending the Tennessee and ascending theCumberland in flotillas of flat-boats and canoes, or else striking outin large bodies through the wilderness, following the trails that ledwestward from the settlements on the Holston. The population on theCumberland did not increase very fast for some years after the close ofthe Revolutionary War; and the settlers were, as a rule, harsh, sturdybackwoodsmen, who lived lives of toil and poverty. Nevertheless, therewas a good deal of speculation in Cumberland lands; great tracts of tensof thousands of acres were purchased by men of means in the olddistricts of North Carolina, who sometimes came out to live on theirestates. The looseness of the system of surveying in vogue is shown bythe fact that where possible these lands were entered and paid for undera law which allowed a warrant to be shifted to new soil if it wasdiscovered that the first entry was made on what was already claimed bysome one else. [Footnote: Clay MSS. , Jesse Benton to Thos. Hart, April 3, 1786. ]

Hamlets and homesteads were springing up on the left bank of the upperOhio, in what is now West Virginia; and along the streams flowing intoit from the east. A few reckless adventurers were building cabins on theright bank of this great river. Others, almost as adventurous, werepushing into the neighborhood of the French villages on the Wabash andin the Illinois. At Louisville men were already planning to colonize thecountry just opposite on the Ohio, under the law of the State ofVirginia, which rewarded the victorious soldiers of Clark's famouscampaign with grants in the region they had conquered. 

 Movement of Settlers to Kentucky. 

The great growth of the west took place in Kentucky. The Kentuckycountry was by far the most widely renowned for its fertility; it wasmuch more accessible and more firmly held, and its government was on amore permanent footing than was the case in the Wabash, Illinois, andCumberland regions. In consequence the majority of the men who went westto build homes fixed their eyes on the vigorous young community whichlay north of the Ohio, and which already aspired to the honors ofstatehood. 

 The Wilderness Road to Kentucky. 

The immigrants came into Kentucky in two streams, following twodifferent routes--the Ohio River, and Boone's old Wilderness Trail. Those who came overland, along the latter road, were much fewer innumber than those who came by water; and yet they were so numerous thatthe trail at times was almost thronged, and much care had to be taken inorder to find camping places where there was enough feed for the horses. The people who travelled this wilderness road went in the usualbackwoods manner, on horseback, with laden packtrains, and often withtheir herds and flocks. Young men went out alone or in parties; andgroups of families from the same neighborhood often journeyed together. They struggled over the narrow, ill-made roads which led from thedifferent back settlements, until they came to the last outposts ofcivilization east of the Cumberland Mountains; scattered block-houses, whose owners were by turns farmers, tavern-keepers, hunters, and Indianfighters. Here they usually waited until a sufficient number hadgathered together to furnish a band of riflemen large enough to beat offany prowling party of red marauders; and then set off to traverse byslow stages the mountains and vast forests which lay between them andthe nearest Kentucky station. The time of the journey depended, ofcourse, upon the composition of the travelling party, and upon themishaps encountered; a party of young men on good horses might do it inthree days, while a large band of immigrants, who were hampered bywomen, children, and cattle, and dogged by ill-luck, might take threeweeks. Ordinarily six or eight days were sufficient. Before startingeach man laid in a store of provisions for himself and his horse;perhaps thirty pounds of flour, half a bushel of corn meal, and threebushels of oats. There was no meat unless game was shot. Occasionallyseveral travellers clubbed together and carried a tent; otherwise theyslept in the open. The trail was very bad, especially at first, where itclimbed between the gloomy and forbidding cliffs that walled inCumberland Gap. Even when undisturbed by Indians, the trip wasaccompanied by much fatigue and exposure; and, as always in frontiertravelling, one of the perpetual annoyances was the necessity forhunting up strayed horses. [Footnote: Durrett MSS. Journal of Rev. JamesSmith, 1785. ]

 The Travel down the Ohio. 

The chief highway was the Ohio River; for to drift down stream in a scowwas easier and quicker, and no more dangerous, than to plod throughthick mountain forests. Moreover, it was much easier for the settler whowent by water to carry with him his household goods and implements ofhusbandry; and even such cumbrous articles as wagons, or, if he was richand ambitious, the lumber wherewith to build a frame house. All kinds ofcraft were used, even bark canoes and pirogues, or dugouts; but thekeel-boat, and especially the flat-bottomed scow with square ends, werethe ordinary means of conveyance. They were of all sizes. The passengersand their live stock were of course huddled together so as to take up aslittle room as possible. Sometimes the immigrants built or bought theirown boat, navigated it themselves, and sold it or broke it up onreaching their destination. At other times they merely hired a passage. A few of the more enterprising boat owners speedily introduced a regularemigrant service, making trips at stated times from Pittsburg or perhapsLimestone, and advertising the carriage capacity of their boats and thetimes of starting. The trip from Pittsburg to Louisville took a week orten days; but in low water it might last a month. 

 Numbers of the Immigrants. 

The number of boats passing down the Ohio, laden with would-be settlersand their belongings, speedily became very great. An eye-witness statedthat between November 13th and December 22d, of 1785, thirty-nine boats, with an average of ten souls in each, went down the Ohio to the Falls;and there were others which stopped at some of the settlements fartherup the river. [Footnote: Draper MSS. , _Massachusetts Gazette_, March 13, 1786; letter from Kentucky, December 22, 1785. ] As time went on thenumber of immigrants who adopted this method of travel increased; largerboats were used, and the immigrants took more property with them. In thelast half of the year 1787 there passed by Fort Harmar 146 boats, with3196 souls, 1371 horses, 165 wagons, 191 cattle, 245 sheep, and 24 hogs. [Footnote: Harmar Papers, December 9, 1787. ] In the year ending inNovember, 1788, 967 boats, carrying 18, 370 souls, with 7986 horses, 2372cows, 1110 sheep, and 646 wagons, [Footnote: _Columbian Magazine_, January, 1789. Letter from Fort Harmar, November 26, 1788. By what isevidently a clerical error the time is put down as one month instead ofone year. ] went down the Ohio. For many years this great river was themain artery through which the fresh blood of the pioneers was pumpedinto the west. 

There are no means of procuring similar figures for the number ofimmigrants who went over the Wilderness Road; but probably there werenot half as many as went down the Ohio. Perhaps from ten to twentythousand people a year came into Kentucky during the period immediatelysucceeding the close of the Revolution; but the net gain to thepopulation was much less, because there was always a smaller, but almostequally steady, counter-flow of men who, having failed as pioneers, werestruggling wearily back toward their deserted eastern homes. 

 Kentucky's Growth. 

The inrush being so great Kentucky grew apace. In 1785 the populationwas estimated at from twenty [Footnote: "Journey in the West in 1785, "by Lewis Brantz. ] to thirty thousand; and the leading towns, Louisville, Lexington, Harrodsburg, Booneboro, St. Asaph's, were thriving littlehamlets, with stores and horse grist-mills, and no longer mere clustersof stockaded cabins. At Louisville, for instance, there were already anumber of two-story frame houses, neatly painted, with verandahs runningthe full length of each house, and fenced vegetable gardens alongside[Footnote: "Lettres d'un cultivateur américan, " St. John de Crêve Coeur. Summer of 1784. ]; while at the same time Nashville was a town of logs, with but two houses that deserved the name, the others being mere huts. [Footnote: Brantz. ] The population of Louisville amounted to about 300souls, of whom 116 were fighting men [Footnote: State Department MSS. Papers Continental Congress, No. 150, vol. Ii. , p. 21. Letter from MajorW. North, August 23, 1786. ]; between it and Lexington the whole countrywas well settled; but fear of the Indians kept settlers back from theOhio. 

The new-comers were mainly Americans from all the States of the Union;but there were also a few people from nearly every country in Europe, and even from Asia. [Footnote: Letter in _Massachusetts Gazette_, abovequoted. ] The industrious and the adventurous, the homestead winners andthe land speculators, the criminal fleeing from justice, and the honestman seeking a livelihood or a fortune, all alike prized the wild freedomand absence of restraint so essentially characteristic of their newlife; a life in many ways very pleasant, but one which on the border ofthe Indian country sank into mere savagery. 

Kentucky was "a good poor man's country" [Footnote: State DepartmentMSS. Madison Papers. Caleb Wallace to Madison, July 12, 1785. ] providedthe poor man was hardy and vigorous. The settlers were no longer indanger of starvation, for they already raised more flour than they couldconsume. Neither was there as yet anything approaching to luxury. Butbetween these two extremes there was almost every grade of misery andwell-being, according to the varying capacity shown by the differentsettlers in grappling with the conditions of their new life. Among theforeign-born immigrants success depended in part upon race; acontemporary Kentucky observer estimated that, of twelve families ofeach nationality, nine German, seven Scotch, and four Irish prospered, while the others failed. [Footnote: "Description of Kentucky, " 1792, byHarry Toulmin, Secretary of State. ] The German women worked just as hardas the men, even in the fields, and both sexes were equally saving. Naturally such thrifty immigrants did well materially; but they nevertook any position of leadership or influence in the community until theyhad assimilated themselves in speech and customs to their Americanneighbors. The Scotch were frugal and industrious; for good or for badthey speedily became indistinguishable from the native-born. The greaterproportion of failures among the Irish, brave and vigorous though theywere, was due to their quarrelsomeness, and their fondness for drink andlitigation; besides, remarks this Kentucky critic, "they soon take tothe gun, which is the ruin of everything. " None of these foreign-bornelements were of any very great importance in the development ofKentucky; its destiny was shaped and controlled by its men of nativestock. 

 Character of the Frontier Population. 

In such a population there was of course much loosening of the bands, social, political, moral, and religious, which knit a society together. A great many of the restraints of their old life were thrown off, andthere was much social adjustment and readjustment before their relationsto one another under the new conditions became definitely settled. Butthere came early into the land many men of high purpose and pure lifewhose influence upon their fellows, though quiet, was very great. Moreover, the clergyman and the school-teacher, the two beings who haddone so much for colonial civilization on the seaboard, were alreadybecoming important factors in the life of the frontier communities. Austere Presbyterian ministers were people of mark in many of the towns. The Baptist preachers lived and worked exactly as did their flocks;their dwellings were little cabins with dirt floors and, instead ofbedsteads, skin-covered pole-bunks; they cleared the ground, splitrails, planted corn, and raised hogs on equal terms with theirparishioners. [Footnote: "History of Kentucky Baptists, " by J. H. Spencer. ] After Methodism cut loose from its British connections in1785, the time of its great advance began, and the circuit-riders werespeedily eating bear meat and buffalo tongues on the frontier. [Footnote: "History of Methodism in Kentucky, " by John B. McFerrier. ]

Rough log schools were springing up everywhere, beside the rough logmeeting-houses, the same building often serving for both purposes. Theschool-teacher might be a young surveyor out of work for the moment, aNew Englander fresh from some academy in the northeast, an Irishman witha smattering of learning, or perhaps an English immigrant of the upperclass, unfit for and broken down by the work of a new country. [Footnote: Durrett MSS. "Autobiography of Robert McAfee. "] The boys andgirls were taught together, and at recess played together--tag, pawns, and various kissing games. The rod was used unsparingly, for the elderboys proved boisterous pupils. A favorite mutinous frolic was to "barout" the teacher, taking possession of the school-house and holding itagainst the master with sticks and stones until he had either forced anentrance or agreed to the terms of the defenders. Sometimes this barringout represented a revolt against tyranny; often it was a conventional, and half-acquiesced-in, method of showing exuberance of spirit, justbefore the Christmas holidays. In most of the schools the teaching wasnecessarily of the simplest, for the only books might be a Testament, aprimer, a spelling book, and a small arithmetic. 

 Frontier Society. 

In such a society, simple, strong, and rude, both the good features andthe bad were nakedly prominent; and the views of observers in referencethereto varied accordingly as they were struck by one set ofcharacteristics or another. One traveller would paint the frontiersmenas little better than the Indians against whom they warred, and theirlife as wild, squalid, and lawless; while the next would lay especialand admiring stress on their enterprise, audacity, and hospitableopenhandedness. Though much alike, different portions of the frontierstock were beginning to develop along different lines. The Holstonpeople, both in Virginia and North Carolina, were by this timecomparatively little affected by immigration from without those States, and were on the whole homogeneous; but the Virginians and Carolinians ofthe seaboard considered them rough, unlettered, and not of very goodcharacter. One travelling clergyman spoke of them with particulardisfavor; he was probably prejudiced by their indifference to hispreaching, for he mentions with much dissatisfaction that thecongregations he addressed "though small, behaved extremely bad. "[Footnote: Durrett MSS. Rev. James Smith, "Tour in Western Country, "1785. ] The Kentuckians showed a mental breadth that was due largely tothe many different sources from which even the predominating Americanelements in the population sprang. The Cumberland people seemed totravellers the wildest and rudest of all, as was but natural, for thesefierce and stalwart settlers were still in the midst of a warfare assavage as any ever waged among the cave-dwellers of the Stone Age. 

The opinion of any mere passer-through a country is always less valuablethan that of an intelligent man who dwells and works among the people, and who possesses both insight and sympathy. At this time one of therecently created Kentucky judges, an educated Virginian, in writing tohis friend Madison, said: "We are as harmonious amongst ourselves as canbe expected of a mixture of people from various States and of variousSentiments and Manners not yet assimilated. In point of Morals the bulkof the inhabitants are far superior to what I expected to find in anynew settled country. We have not had a single instance of Murder, andbut one Criminal for Felony of any kind has yet been before the SupremeCourt. I wish I could say as much to vindicate the character of ourLand-jobbers. This Business has been attended with much villainy inother parts. Here it is reduced to a system, and to take the advantageof the ignorance or of the poverty of a neighbor is almost grown intoreputation. " [Footnote: Wallace's letter, above quoted. ]

 The Gentry. 

Of course, when the fever for land speculation raged so violently, manywho had embarked too eagerly in the purchase of large tracts became landpoor; Clark being among those who found that though they owned greatreaches of fertile wild land they had no means whatever of gettingmoney. [Footnote: Draper MSS. G. R. Clark to Jonathan Clark, April20, 178. ] In Kentucky, while much land was taken up under Treasurywarrants, much was also allotted to the officers of the Continentalarmy; and the retired officers of the Continental line were the best ofall possible immigrants. A class of gentlefolks soon sprang up in theland, whose members were not so separated from other citizens as to bein any way alien to them, and who yet stood sufficiently above the massto be recognized as the natural leaders, social and political, of theirsturdy fellow-freemen. These men by degrees built themselvescomfortable, roomy houses, and their lives were very pleasant; at alittle later period Clark, having abandoned war and politics, describeshimself as living a retired life with, as his chief amusements, reading, hunting, fishing, fowling, and corresponding with a few chosen friends. [Footnote: _Do. _, letter of Sept. 2, 1791. ] Game was still veryplentiful: buffalo and elk abounded north of the Ohio, while bear anddeer, turkey, swans, and geese, [Footnote: _Magazine of AmericanHistory_, I. , Letters of Laurence Butler from Kentucky, Nov. 20, 1786, etc. ] not to speak of ducks and prairie fowl swarmed in the immediateneighborhood of the settlements. 

 The Army Officers. 

The gentry offered to strangers the usual open-handed hospitalitycharacteristic of the frontier, with much more than the average frontierrefinement; a hospitality, moreover, which was never marred orinterfered with by the frontier suspiciousness of strangers whichsometimes made the humbler people of the border seem churlish totravellers. When Federal garrisons were established along the Ohio theofficers were largely dependent for their social pleasures on thegentle-folks of the several rather curious glimpses of the life of thetime. [Footnote: Major Erkuries Beattie. In the _Magazine of Am. Hist. _, I. , p. 175. ] He mentions being entertained by Clark at "a veryelegant dinner, " [Footnote: 2 Aug. 25, 1786. ] a number of gentlemenbeing present. After dinner the guests adjourned to the dancing school, "where there were twelve or fifteen young misses, some of whom had madeconsiderable improvement in that polite accomplishment, and indeed weremiddling neatly dressed considering the distance from where luxuries areto be bought and the expense attending the purchase of them here"--forthough beef and flour were cheap, all imported goods sold for at leastfive times as much as they cost in Philadelphia or New York. Theofficers sometimes gave dances in the forts, the ladies and theirescorts coming in to spend the night; and they attended the greatbarbecues to which the people rode from far and near, many of the mencarrying their wives or sweethearts behind them on the saddle. At such abarbecue an ox or a sheep, a bear, an elk, or a deer, was split in twoand roasted over the coals; dinner was eaten under the trees; and therewas every kind of amusement from horse-racing to dancing. 

 Friction with the Backwoodsmen. 

Though the relations of the officers of the regular troops with thegentry were so pleasant there was always much friction between them andthe ordinary frontiersmen; a friction which continued to exist as longas the frontier itself, and which survives to this day in the wilderparts of the country. The regular army officer and the frontiersman aretrained in fashions so diametrically opposite that, though the two menbe brothers, they must yet necessarily in all their thoughts andinstincts and ways of looking at life, be as alien as if they belongedto two different races of mankind. The borderer, rude, suspicious, andimpatient of discipline, looks with distrust and with a mixture ofsneering envy and of hostility upon the officer; while the latter, withhis rigid training and his fixed ideals, feels little sympathy for theother's good points, and is contemptuously aware of his numerousfailings. The only link between the two is the scout, the man who, though one of the frontiersmen, is accustomed to act and fight incompany with the soldiers. In Kentucky, at the close of the Revolution, this link was generally lacking; and there was no tie of habitual, eventhough half-hostile, intercourse to unite the two parties. Inconsequence the ill-will often showed itself by acts of violence. Thebackwoods bullies were prone to browbeat and insult the officers if theyfound them alone, trying to provoke them to rough-and-tumble fighting;and in such a combat, carried on with the revolting brutalitynecessarily attendant upon a contest where gouging and biting wereconsidered legitimate, the officers, who were accustomed only to usetheir fists, generally had the worst of it; so that at last they made apractice of carrying their side-arms--which secured them frommolestation. 

 Pursuits of the Settlers. 

Besides raising more than enough flour and beef to keep themselves inplenty, the settlers turned their attention to many other forms ofproduce. Indian corn was still the leading crop; but melons, pumpkins, and the like were grown, and there were many thriving orchards; whiletobacco cultivation was becoming of much importance. Great droves ofhogs and flocks of sheep flourished in every locality whence the bearsand wolves had been driven; the hogs running free in the woods with thebranded cattle and horses. Except in the most densely settled partsmuch of the beef was still obtained from buffaloes, and much of thebacon from bears. Venison was a staple commodity. The fur trade, largelycarried on by French trappers, was still of great importance in Kentuckyand Tennessee. North of the Ohio it was the attraction which temptedwhite men into the wilderness. Its profitable nature was the chiefreason why the British persistently clung to the posts on the Lakes, andstirred up the Indians to keep the American settlers out of all landsthat were tributary to the British fur merchants. From Kentucky and theCumberland country the peltries were sometimes sent east by packtrain, and sometimes up the Ohio in bateaus or canoes. 

 Boone's Trading Ventures. 

In addition to furs, quantities of ginseng were often carried to theeastern settlements at this period when the commerce of the west was inits first infancy, and was as yet only struggling for an outlet down theMississippi. One of those who went into this trade was Boone. Althoughno longer a real leader in Kentucky life he still occupied quite aprominent position, and served as a Representative in the VirginiaLegislature, [Footnote: Draper's MSS. , Boone MSS. , from Bourbon Co. Thepapers cover the years from 1784 on to '95. ] while his fame as a hunterand explorer was now spread abroad in the United States, and evenEurope. To travellers and new-comers generally, he was always pointed outas the first discoverer of Kentucky; and being modest, self-containedand self-reliant he always impressed them favorably. He spent most ofhis time in hunting, trapping, and surveying land warrants for men ofmeans, being paid, for instance, two shillings current money per acrefor all the good laud he could enter on a ten-thousand acre Treasurywarrant. [Footnote: _Do_. , certificate of G. Imlay, 1784. ] He alsotraded up and down the Ohio River, at various places, such as PointPleasant and Limestone; and at times combined keeping a tavern withkeeping a store. His accounts contain much quaint information. Evidentlyhis guests drank as generously as they ate; he charges one four poundssixteen shillings for two months' board and two pounds four shillingsfor liquor. He takes the note of another for ninety-three gallons ofcheap corn whiskey. Whiskey cost sixpence a pint, and rum one shilling;while corn was three shillings a bushel, and salt twenty-four shillings, flour, thirty-six shillings a barrel, bacon sixpence and fresh pork andbuffalo beef threepence a pound. Boone procured for his customers or forhimself such articles as linen, cloth, flannel, corduroy, chintz, calico, broadcloth, and velvet at prices varying according to thequality, from three to thirty shillings a yard; and there was alsoevidently a ready market for "tea ware, " knives and forks, scissors, buttons, nails, and all kinds of hardware. Furs and skins usually appearon the debit sides of the various accounts, ranging in value from theskin of a beaver, worth eighteen shillings, or that of a bear worth ten, to those of deer, wolves, coons, wildcats, and foxes, costing two tofour shillings apiece. Boone procured his goods from merchants inHagerstown and Williamsport, in Maryland, whither he and his sons guidedtheir own packtrains, laden with peltries and with kegs of ginseng, andaccompanied by droves of loose horses. He either followed somewell-beaten mountain trail or opened a new road through the wildernessas seemed to him best at the moment. [Footnote: _Do. , passim. _]

Boone's creed in matters of morality and religion was as simple andstraightforward as his own character. Late in life he wrote to one ofhis kinsfolk: "All the religion I have is to love and fear God, believein Jesus Christ, do all the good to my neighbors and myself that I can, and do as little harm as I can help, and trust on God's mercy for therest. " The old pioneer always kept the respect of red man and white, offriend and foe, for he acted according to his belief. Yet there was oneevil to which he was no more sensitive than the other men of his time. 

Among his accounts there is an entry recording his purchase, for anotherman, of a negro woman for the sum of ninety pounds. [Footnote: _3 Do_. , March 7, 1786. ] There was already a strong feeling in the westernsettlements against negro slavery, [Footnote: See Journals of Rev. JamesSmith. ] because of its moral evil, and of its inconsistency with alltrue standards of humanity and Christianity, a feeling which continuedto exist and which later led to resolute efforts to forbid or abolishslave-holding. But the consciences of the majority were too dull, and, from the standpoint of the white race, they were too shortsighted totake action in the right direction. The selfishness and mental obliquitywhich imperil the future of a race for the sake of the lazy pleasure oftwo or three generations prevailed; and in consequence the white peopleof the middle west, and therefore eventually of the southwest, clutchedthe one burden under which they ever staggered, the one evil which hasever warped their development, the one danger which has ever seriouslythreatened their very existence. Slavery must of necessity exercise themost baleful influence upon any slave-holding people, and especiallyupon those members of the dominant caste who do not themselves ownslaves. Moreover, the negro, unlike so many of the inferior races, doesnot dwindle away in the presence of the white man. He holds his own;indeed, under the conditions of American slavery he increased fasterthan the white, threatening to supplant him. He actually has supplantedhim in certain of the West Indian islands, where the sin of the white inenslaving the black has been visited upon the head of the wrongdoer byhis victim with a dramatically terrible completeness of revenge. Whathas occurred in Hayti is what would eventually have occurred in our ownsemi-tropical States if the slave-trade and slavery had continued toflourish as their shortsighted advocates wished. Slavery is ethicallyabhorrent to all right-minded men; and it is to be condemned withoutstint on this ground alone. From the standpoint of the master caste itis to condemned even more strongly because it invariably in the endthreatens the very existence of that master caste. From this point ofview the presence of the negro is the real problem; slavery is merelythe worst possible method of solving the problem. In their earlierstages the problem and its solution, in America, were one. There may bedifferences of opinion as to how to solve the problem; but there can benone whatever as to the evil wrought by those who brought about thatproblem; and it was only the slave-holders and the slave-traders whowere guilty on this last count. The worst foes, not only of humanity andcivilization, but especially of the white race in America, were thosewhite men who brought slaves from Africa, and who fostered the spread ofslavery in the States and territories of the American Republic. 

CHAPTER II. 

THE INDIAN WARS, 1784-1787. 

 Lull in the Border War. 

After the close of the Revolution there was a short, uneasy lull in theeternal border warfare between the white men and the red. The Indianswere for the moment daunted by a peace which left them without allies;and the feeble Federal Government attempted for the first time to aidand control the West by making treaties with the most powerful frontiertribes. Congress raised a tiny regular army, and several companies weresent to the upper Ohio to garrison two or three small forts which werebuilt upon its banks. Commissioners (one of whom was Clark himself) wereappointed to treat with both the northern and southern Indians. Councilswere held in various places. In 1785 and early in 1786 utterly fruitlesstreaties were concluded with Shawnees, Wyandots, and Delawares at one orother of the little forts. [Footnote: State Department MSS. , No. 56, p. 333, Letter of G. Clark, Nov. 10, 1785; p. 337, Letter of G. Clark to R. Butler, etc. ; No. 16, p. 293; No. 32, p. 39. ]

 Treaty of Hopewell. 

About the same time, in the late fall of 1785, another treaty somewhatmore noteworthy, but equally fruitless, was concluded with the Cherokeesat Hopewell, on Keowee, in South Carolina. In this treaty theCommissioners promised altogether too much. They paid little heed to therights and needs of the settlers. Neither did they keep in mind thepowerlessness of the Federal Government to enforce against thesesettlers what their treaty promised the Indians. The pioneers along theupper Tennessee and the Cumberland had made various arrangements withbands of the Cherokees, sometimes acting on their own initiative, andsometimes on behalf of the State of North Carolina. Many of thesedifferent agreements were entered into by the whites with honesty andgood faith, but were violated at will by the Indians. Others wereviolated by the whites, or were repudiated by the Indians as well, because of some real or fancied unfairness in the making. Under themlarge quantities of land had been sold or allotted, and hundreds ofhomes had been built on the lands thus won by the whites or ceded by theIndians. As with all Indian treaties, it was next to impossible to sayexactly how far these agreements were binding, because no persons, noteven the Indians themselves, could tell exactly who had authority torepresent the tribes. [Footnote: American State Papers, Public Lands, I. , p. 40, vi. ] The Commissioners paid little heed to these treaties, and drew the boundary so that quantities of land which had been enteredunder regular grants, and were covered by the homesteads of thefrontiersmen, were declared to fall within the Cherokee line. Moreover, they even undertook to drive all settlers off these lands. 

Of course, such a treaty excited the bitter anger of the frontiersmen, and they scornfully refused to obey its provisions. They hated theIndians, and, as a rule, were brutally indifferent to their rights, while they looked down on the Federal Government as impotent. Nor wasthe ill-will to the treaty confined to the rough borderers. Many men ofmeans found that land grants which they had obtained in good faith andfor good money were declared void. Not only did they denounce thetreaty, and decline to abide by it, but they denounced the motives ofthe Commissioners, declaring, seemingly without justification, that theyhad ingratiated themselves with the Indians to further land speculationsof their own. [Footnote: Clay MSS. Jesse Benton to Thos. Hart, April 3, 1786. ]

 Violation of the Treaty. 

As the settlers declined to pay any heed to the treaty the Indiansnaturally became as discontented with it as the whites. In the followingsummer the Cherokee chiefs made solemn complaint that, instead ofretiring from the disputed ground, the settlers had encroached yetfarther upon it, and had come to within five miles of the beloved townof Chota. The chiefs added that they had now made several such treaties, each of which established boundaries that were immediately broken, andthat indeed it had been their experience that after a treaty the whitessettled even faster on their lands than before. [Footnote: StateDepartment MSS. , No. 56. Address of Corn Tassel and Hanging Maw, Sept. 5, 1786. ] Just before this complaint was sent to Congress the samechiefs had been engaged in negotiations with the settlers themselves, who advanced radically different claims. The fact was that in thisunsettled time the bond of Governmental authority was almost as laxamong the whites as among the Indians, and the leaders on each side whowished for peace were hopelessly unable to restrain their fellows whodid not. Under such circumstances, the sword, or rather the tomahawk, was ultimately the only possible arbiter. 

 Treaties with Northwestern Indians. 

The treaties entered into with the northwestern Indians failed forprecisely the opposite reason. The treaty at Hopewell promised so muchto the Indians that the whites refused to abide by its terms. In thecouncils on the Ohio the Americans promised no more than they could anddid perform; but the Indians themselves broke the treaties at once, andin all probability never for a moment intended to keep them, merelysigning from a greedy desire to get the goods they were given as anearnest. They were especially anxious for spirits, for they farsurpassed even the white borderers in their crazy thirst for strongdrink. "We have smelled your liquor and it is very good; we hope youwill give us some little kegs to carry home, " said the spokesmen of aparty of Chippewas, who had come from the upper Great Lakes. [Footnote:_Do. _, Letters of H. Knox, No. 150, vol. I. , p. 445. ] These franksavages, speaking thus in behalf of their far northern brethren, utteredwhat was in the minds of most of the Indians who attended the councilsheld by the United States Commissioners. They came to see what theycould get, by begging, or by promising what they had neither the willnor the power to perform. Many of them, as in the case of the Chippewas, were from lands so remote that they felt no anxiety about whiteencroachments, and were lured into hostile encounter with the Americanschiefly by their own overmastering love of plunder and bloodshed. 

Nevertheless, there were a few chiefs and men of note in the tribes whosincerely wished peace. One of these was Cornplanter, the Iroquois. Thepower of the Six Nations had steadily dwindled; moreover, they did not, like the more western tribes, lie directly athwart the path which thewhite advance was at the moment taking. Thus they were not drawn intoopen warfare, but their continual uneasiness, and the influence theystill possessed with the other Indians, made it an object to keep onfriendly terms with them. Cornplanter, a valiant and able warrior, whohad both taken and given hard blows in warring against the Americans, was among the chiefs and ambassadors who visited Fort Pitt during thetroubled lull in frontier war which succeeded the news of the peace of1783. His speeches showed, as his deeds had already shown, in a highdegree, that loftiness of courage, and stern, uncomplaining acceptanceof the decrees of a hostile fate, which so often ennobled the otherwisegloomy and repellent traits of the Indian character. He raised no plaintover what had befallen his race; "the Great Spirit above directs us sothat whatever hath been said or done must be good and right, " he said ina spirit of strange fatalism well known to certain creeds, bothChristian and heathen. He was careful to dwell on the fact that inaddressing the representatives of "the Great Council who watch theThirteen Fires and keep them bright, " he was anxious only to ward offwoe from the women and little ones of his people and was defiantlyindifferent to what might personally be before him. "As for me my lifeis short, 't is already sold to the Great King over the water, " he said. But it soon appeared that the British agents had deceived him, tellinghim that the peace was a mere temporary truce, and keeping concealed thefact that under the treaty the British had ceded to the Americans allrights over the Iroquois and western Indians, and over their land. Greatwas his indignation when the actual text of the treaty was read him, andhe discovered the double-dealing of his far-off royal paymaster. Incommenting on it he showed that, like the rest of his race, he had beenmuch impressed by the striking uniforms of the British officers. Heevidently took it for granted that the head of these officers must own ayet more striking uniform; and treachery seemed doubly odious in one whopossessed so much. "I assisted the great King, " he said, "I fought hisbattles, while he sat quietly in his forts; nor did I ever suspect thatso great a person, one too who wore a red coat sufficient of itself totempt one, could be guilty of such glaring falsehood. " [Footnote: StateDept. MSS. , No. 56, March 7, 1786, p. 345, also p. 395. ] After thisCornplanter remained on good terms with the Americans and helped to keepthe Iroquois from joining openly in the war. The western tribes tauntedthem because of this attitude. They sent them word in the fall of 1785that once the Six Nations were a great people, but that now they had letthe Long Knife throw them; but that the western Indians would set themon their feet again if they would join them; for "the western Indianswere determined to wrestle with Long Knife in the spring. " [Footnote:_Do. _, No. 150, vol. I. , Major Finley's Statement, Dec. 6, 1785. ]

 Failure of the Treaties. 

Some of the Algonquin chiefs, notably Molunthee the Shawnee, likewisesincerely endeavored to bring about a peace. But the western tribes as awhole were bent on war. They were constantly excited and urged on by theBritish partisan leaders, such as Simon Girty, Elliot, and Caldwell. These leaders took part in the great Indian councils, at which eventribes west of the Mississippi were represented; and though they spokewithout direct authority from the British commanders at the lake posts, yet their words carried weight when they told the young red warriorsthat it was better to run the risk of dying like men than of starvinglike dogs. Many of the old men among the Wyandotes and Delawares spokeagainst strife; but the young men were for war, and among the Shawnees, the Wabash Indians, and the Miamis the hostile party was still stronger. A few Indians would come to one of the forts and make a treaty on behalfof their tribe, at the very moment that the other members of the sametribe were murdering and ravaging among the exposed settlements or wereharrying the boats that went down the Ohio. All the tribes that enteredinto the treaties of peace were represented among the different partiesof marauders. Over the outlaw bands there was no pretence of control;and their successes, and the numerous scalps and quantities of plunderthey obtained, made them very dangerous examples to the hot-bloodedyoung warriors everywhere. Perhaps the most serious of all obstacles topeace was the fact that the British still kept the lake posts. [Footnote: _Do. _, Letters of H. Knox, No. 150, vol. I. , pp. 107, 112, 115, 123, 149, 243, 269, etc. ]

The Indians who did come in to treat were sullen, and at first alwaysinsisted on impossible terms. They would finally agree to mutualconcessions, would promise to keep their young men from marauding, andto allow surveys to be made, provided the settlers were driven off alllands which the Indians had not yielded; and after receiving many gifts, would depart. The representatives of the Federal Government would thenat once set about performing their share of the agreement, the mostimportant part of which was the removal of the settlers who had builtcabins on the Indian lands west of the Ohio. The Federal authorities, both military and civil, disliked the intruders as much as they did theIndians, stigmatizing them as "a banditti who were a disgrace to humannature. " There was no unnecessary harshness exercised by the troops inremoving the trespassers; but the cabins were torn down and the sullensettlers themselves were driven back across the river, though theyprotested and threatened resistance. Again and again this was done; notalone in the interest of the Indians, but in part also because Congresswished to reserve the lands for sale, with the purpose of paying off thepublic debt. At the same time surveying parties were sent out. But ineach case, no sooner had the Federal Commissioners and theirsubordinates begun to perform their part of the agreement, than theywere stopped by tidings of fresh outrages on the part of the veryIndians with whom they had made the treaty; while the surveying partieswere driven in and forced to abandon their work. [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , No. 30, p. 265; No. 56, p. 327; No. 163, pp. 416, 418, 422, 426. ]

 Both Sides Bent on War. 

The truth was that while the Federal Government sincerely desired peace, and strove to bring it about, the northwestern tribes were resolutelybent on war; and the frontiersmen themselves showed nearly as muchinclination for hostilities as the Indians. [Footnote: _Do. _, IndianAffairs. Letter of P. Mühlenberg, July 5, 1784. ] They were equallyanxious to intrude on the Government and on the Indian lands; for theywere adventurous, the lands were valuable, and they hated the Indians, and looked down on the weak Federal authority. [Footnote: _Do. _, Reportof H. Knox, April, 1787. ] They often made what were legally worthless"tomahawk claims, " and objected almost as much as the Indians to thework of the regular Government surveyors. [Footnote: _Do. _, 150, vol. Ii. , p. 548. ] Even the men of note, men like George Rogers Clark, wereoften engaged in schemes to encroach on the land north of the Ohio:drawing on themselves the bitter reproaches not only of the Federalauthorities, but also of the Virginia Government, for their cruelreadiness to jeopardize the country by incurring the wrath of theIndians. [Footnote: draper MSS. Benj. Harrison to G. R. Clark, August19, 1784. ] The more lawless whites were as little amenable to authorityas the Indians themselves; and at the very moment when a peace was beingnegotiated one side or the other would commit some brutal murder. Whilethe chiefs and old Indians were delivering long-winded speeches to thePeace Commissioners, bands of young braves committed horrible ravagesamong the lonely settlements. [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , No. 56, pp. 279 and 333; No. 60, p. 297, etc. ] Now a drunken Indian at Fort Pittmurdered an innocent white man, the local garrison of regular troopssaving him with difficulty from being lynched [Footnote: Denny'sJournal, p. 259. ]; now a band of white ruffians gathered to attack somepeaceable Indians who had come in to treat [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , No. 56, p. 255. ]; again a white man murdered an unoffending Indian, andwas seized by a Federal officer, and thrown into chains, to the greatindignation of his brutal companions [Footnote: _Do_. , No. 150, vol. Ii. , p. 296. ]; and yet again another white man murdered an Indian, andescaped to the woods before he could be arrested. [Footnote: Draper MSS. Clark, Croghan, and Others to Delawares, August 28, 1785. ]

 Bloodshed Begun. 

Under such conditions the peace negotiations were doomed from theoutset. The truce on the border was of the most imperfect description;murders and robberies by the Indians, and acts of vindictive retaliationor aggression by the whites, occurred continually and steadily increasedin number. In 1784 a Cherokee of note, when sent to warn the intrudingsettlers on the French Broad that they must move out of the land, wasshot and slain in a fight with a local militia captain. Cherokee warbands had already begun to harry the frontier and infest the KentuckyWilderness Road. [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , No. 48, p. 277. ] At thesame time the northwestern Indians likewise committed depredations, andwere only prevented from making a general league against the whites bytheir own internal dissensions--the Chickasaws and Kickapoos beingengaged in a desperate war. [Footnote: _Do_. , Mühlenberg's Letter. ] TheWabash Indians were always threatening hostilities. The Shawnees forsome time observed a precarious peace, and even, in accordance withtheir agreement, brought in and surrendered a few white prisoners; andamong the Delawares and Wyandots there was also a strong friendly party;but in all three tribes the turbulent element was never under realcontrol, and it gradually got the upper hand. Meanwhile the Georgiansand Creeks in the south were having experiences of precisely the samekind--treaties fraudulently procured by the whites, or fraudulentlyentered into and violated by the Indians; encroachments by whitesettlers on Indian lands, and bloody Indian forays among the peacefulsettlements. [Footnote: _Do_. , No. 73, pp. 7, 343. Gazette of the Stateof Georgia, Aug. 5, 1784, May 25, June 1, Nov. 2, Nov. 30, 1786. ]

The more far-sighted and resolute among all the Indians, northern andsouthern, began to strive for a general union against the Americans. [Footnote: _Do_. , No. 20, pp. 321 and 459; No. 18, p. 140; No. 12, vol. Ii. , June 30. 1786. ] In 1786 the northwestern Indians almost formed sucha union. Two thousand warriors gathered at the Shawnee towns and agreedto take up the hatchet against the Americans; British agents werepresent at the council; and even before the council was held, warparties were bringing into the Shawnee towns the scalps of Americansettlers, and prisoners, both men and women, who were burned at thestake. [Footnote: _Do_. , No. 60, p. 277, Sept. 13, 1786. ] But thejealousy and irresolution of the tribes prevented the actual formationof a league. 

The Federal Government still feebly hoped for peace; and in the vainendeavors to avoid irritating the Indians forbade all hostileexpeditions into the Indian country--though these expeditions offeredthe one hope of subduing the savages and preventing their inroads. By1786 the settlers generally, including all their leaders, such as Clark, [Footnote: _Do_. , No. 50, p. 279. Clark to R. H. Lee. ] had becomeconvinced that the treaties were utterly futile, and that the only rightpolicy was one of resolute war. 

 The War Inevitable. 

In truth the war was unavoidable. The claims and desires of the twoparties were irreconcilable. Treaties and truces were palliatives whichdid not touch the real underlying trouble. The white settlers wereunflinchingly bent on seizing the land over which the Indians roamed butwhich they did not in any true sense own or occupy. In return theIndians were determined at all costs and hazards to keep the men ofchain and compass, and of axe and rifle, and the forest-felling settlerswho followed them, out of their vast and lonely hunting-grounds. Nothingbut the actual shock of battle could decide the quarrel. The display ofovermastering, overwhelming force might have cowed the Indians; but itwas not possible for the United States, or for any European power, everto exert or display such force far beyond the limits of the settledcountry. In consequence the warlike tribes were not then, and never havebeen since, quelled save by actual hard fighting, until they wereoverawed by the settlement of all the neighboring lands. 

Nor was there any alternative to these Indian wars. It is idle folly tospeak of them as being the fault of the United States Government; and itis even more idle to say that they could have been averted by treaty. Here and there, under exceptional circumstances or when a given tribewas feeble and unwarlike, the whites might gain the ground by a treatyentered into of their own free will by the Indians, without the leastduress; but this was not possible with warlike and powerful tribes whenonce they realized that they were threatened with serious encroachmenton their hunting-grounds. Moreover, looked at from the standpoint of theultimate result, there was little real difference to the Indian whetherthe land was taken by treaty or by war. In the end the Delaware fared nobetter at the hands of the Quaker than the Wampanoag at the hands of thePuritan; the methods were far more humane in the one case than in theother, but the outcome was the same in both. No treaty could besatisfactory to the whites, no treaty served the needs of humanity andcivilization, unless it gave the land to the Americans as unreservedlyas any successful war. 

 Our Dealings with the Indians. 

As a matter of fact, the lands we have won from the Indians have beenwon as much by treaty as by war; but it was almost always war, or elsethe menace and possibility of war, that secured the treaty. In thesetreaties we have been more than just to the Indians; we have beenabundantly generous, for we have paid them many times what they wereentitled to; many times what we would have paid any civilized peoplewhose claim was as vague and shadowy as theirs. By war or threat of war, or purchase we have won from great civilized nations, from France, Spain, Russia, and Mexico, immense tracts of country already peopled bymany tens of thousands of families; we have paid many millions ofdollars to these nations for the land we took; but for every dollar thuspaid to these great and powerful civilized commonwealths, we have paidten, for lands less valuable, to the chiefs and warriors of the redtribes. No other conquering and colonizing nation has ever treated theoriginal savage owners of the soil with such generosity as has theUnited States. Nor is the charge that the treaties with the Indians havebeen broken, of weight in itself; it depends always on the individualcase. Many of the treaties were kept by the whites and broken by theIndians; others were broken by the whites themselves; and sometimesthose who broke them did very wrong indeed, and sometimes they didright. No treaties, whether between civilized nations or not, can everbe regarded as binding in perpetuity; with changing conditions, circumstances may arise which render it not only expedient, butimperative and honorable, to abrogate them. 

 Necessity of the Conquest. 

Whether the whites won the land by treaty, by armed conquest, or, as wasactually the case, by a mixture of both, mattered comparatively littleso long as the land was won. It was all-important that it should be won, for the benefit of civilization and in the interests of mankind. It isindeed a warped, perverse, and silly morality which would forbid acourse of conquest that has turned whole continents into the seats ofmighty and flourishing civilized nations. All men of sane and wholesomethought must dismiss with impatient contempt the plea that thesecontinents should be reserved for the use of scattered savage tribes, whose life was but a few degrees less meaningless, squalid, andferocious than that of the wild beasts with whom they held jointownership. It is as idle to apply to savages the rules of internationalmorality which obtain between stable and cultured communities, as itwould be to judge the fifth-century English conquest of Britain by thestandards of today. Most fortunately, the hard, energetic, practical menwho do the rough pioneer work of civilization in barbarous lands, arenot prone to false sentimentality. The people who are, are the peoplewho stay at home. Often these stay-at-homes are too selfish andindolent, too lacking in imagination, to understand the race-importanceof the work which is done by their pioneer brethren in wild and distantlands; and they judge them by standards which would only be applicableto quarrels in their own townships and parishes. Moreover, as each newland grows old, it misjudges the yet newer lands, as once it was itselfmisjudged. The home-staying Englishman of Britain grudges to theAfricander his conquest of Matabeleland; and so the home-stayingAmerican of the Atlantic States dislikes to see the western miners andcattlemen win for the use of their people the Sioux hunting-grounds. Nevertheless, it is the men actually on the borders of the longed-forground, the men actually in contact with the savages, who in the endshape their own destinies. 

 Righteousness of the War. 

The most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages, thoughit is apt to be also the most terrible and inhuman. The rude, fiercesettler who drives the savage from the land lays all civilized mankindunder a debt to him. American and Indian, Boer and Zulu, Cossack andTartar, New Zealander and Maori, --in each case the victor, horriblethough many of his deeds are, has laid deep the foundations for thefuture greatness of a mighty people. The consequences of struggles forterritory between civilized nations seem small by comparison. Looked atfrom the standpoint of the ages, it is of little moment whether Lorraineis part of Germany or of France, whether the northern Adriatic citiespay homage to Austrian Kaiser or Italian King; but it is of incalculableimportance that America, Australia, and Siberia should pass out of thehands of their red, black, and yellow aboriginal owners, and become theheritage of the dominant world races. 

 Horrors of the War. 

Yet the very causes which render this struggle between savagery and therough front rank of civilization so vast and elemental in itsconsequence to the future of the world, also tend to render it incertain ways peculiarly revolting and barbarous. It is primeval warfare, and it is waged as war was waged in the ages of bronze and of iron. Allthe merciful humanity that even war has gained during the last twothousand years is lost. It is a warfare where no pity is shown tonon-combatants, where the weak are harried without ruth, and thevanquished maltreated with merciless ferocity. A sad and evil feature ofsuch warfare is that the whites, the representatives of civilization, speedily sink almost to the level of their barbarous foes, in point ofhideous brutality. The armies are neither led by trained officers normade up of regular troops--they are composed of armed settlers, fierceand wayward men, whose ungovernable passions are unrestrained bydiscipline, who have many grievous wrongs to redress, and who look ontheir enemies with a mixture of contempt and loathing, of dread andintense hatred. When the clash comes between these men and their sombrefoes, too often there follow deeds of enormous, of incredible, ofindescribable horror. It is impossible to dwell without a shudder on themonstrous woe and misery of such a contest. 

 The Lake Posts. 

The men of Kentucky and of the infant Northwest would have found theirstruggle with the Indians dangerous enough in itself; but there was anadded element of menace in the fact that back of the Indians stood theBritish. It was for this reason that the frontiersmen grew to regard asessential to their well-being the possession of the lake posts; so thatit became with them a prime object to wrest from the British, whether byforce of arms or by diplomacy, the forts they held at Niagara, Detroit, and Michilimakinac. Detroit was the most important, for it served as theheadquarters of the western Indians, who formed for the time being thechief bar to American advance. The British held the posts with a stronggrip, in the interest of their traders and merchants. To them the landderived its chief importance from the fur trade. This was extremelyvaluable, and, as it steadily increased in extent and importance, theconsequence of Detroit, the fitting-out town for the fur traders, grewin like measure. It was the centre of a population of several thousandCanadians, who lived by the chase and by the rude cultivation of theirlong, narrow farms; and it was held by a garrison of three or fourhundred British regulars, with auxiliary bands of American loyalist andFrench Canadian rangers, and, above all, with a formidable butfluctuating reserve force of Indian allies. [Footnote: Haldimand Papers, 1784, 5, 6. ]

 The British Aid the Indians. 

It was to the interest of the British to keep the American settlers outof the land; and therefore their aims were at one with those of theIndians. All the tribes between the Ohio and the Missouri weresubsidized by them, and paid them a precarious allegiance. Fickle, treacherous, and ferocious, the Indians at times committed acts ofoutrage even on their allies, so that these allies had to be ever ontheir guard; and the tribes were often at war with one another. Warinterrupted trade and cut down profits, and the British endeavored tokeep the different tribes at peace among themselves, and even with theAmericans. Moreover they always discouraged barbarities, and showed whatkindness was in their power to any unfortunate prisoners whom theIndians happened to bring to their posts. But they helped the Indians inall ways save by open military aid to keep back the American settlers. They wished a monopoly of the fur trade; and they endeavored to preventthe Americans from coming into their settlements. [Footnote: _Do. _ JohnHay to Haldimand, Aug. 13, 1784; James McNeil, Aug 1 1785. ] Englishofficers and agents attended the Indian councils, endeavored to attachthe tribes to the British interests, and encouraged them to stand firmagainst the Americans and to insist upon the Ohio as the boundarybetween the white man and the red. [Footnote: _Do. _ Letter of A. McKee, Dec. 24, 1786; McKee to Sir John Johnson, Feb. 25, 1786; Major Ancrum, May 8, 1786. ] The Indians received counsel and advice from the British, and drew from them both arms and munitions of war, and while the higherBritish officers were usually careful to avoid committing any overtbreach of neutrality, the reckless partisan leaders sought to inflamethe Indians against the Americans, and even at times accompanied theirwar parties. 

 Life at a Frontier Post. 

The life led at a frontier post like Detroit was marked by sharpcontrasts. The forest round about was cleared away, though blackenedstumps still dotted the pastures, orchards, and tilled fields. The townitself was composed mainly of the dwellings of the French _habitans_;some of them were mere hovels, others pretty log cottages, all swarmingwith black-eyed children; while the stoutly-made, swarthy men, at oncelazy and excitable, strolled about the streets in their picturesque andbright-colored blanket suits. There were also a few houses of loyalistrefugees; implacable Tories, stalwart men, revengeful, and goaded by thememory of many wrongs done and many suffered, who proved the worstenemies of their American kinsfolk. The few big roomy buildings, whichserved as storehouses and residences for the merchants, were built notonly for the storage of goods and peltries, but also as strongholds incase of attack. The heads of the mercantile houses were generallyEnglishmen; but the hardy men who traversed the woods for months and forseasons, to procure furs from the Indians, were for the most partFrench. The sailors, both English and French, who manned the vessels onthe lakes formed another class. The rough earthworks and stockades ofthe fort were guarded by a few light guns. Within, the red-coatedregulars held sway, their bright uniforms varied here and there by thedingy hunting-shirt, leggings, and fur cap of some Tory ranger or Frenchpartisan leader. Indians lounged about the fort, the stores, and thehouses, begging, or gazing stolidly at the troops as they drilled, atthe creaking carts from the outlying farms as they plied through thestreets, at the driving to and fro from pasture of the horses and milchcows, or at the arrival of a vessel from Niagara or a brigade offur-laden bateaux from the upper lakes. 

 The Indians. 

In their paint and their cheap, dirty finery, these savages did not lookvery important; yet it was because of them that the British kept uptheir posts in these far-off forests, beside these great lonely waters;it was for their sakes that they tried to stem the inrush of thesettlers of their own blood and tongue; for it was their presence alonewhich served to keep the wilderness as a game preserve for the furmerchants; it was their prowess in war which prevented French villageand British garrison from being lapped up like drops of water before thefiery rush of the American advance. The British themselves, thoughfighting with and for them, loved them but little; like allfrontiersmen, they soon grew to look down on their mean and triviallives, --lives which nevertheless strongly attracted white men of eviland shiftless, but adventurous, natures, and to which white children, torn from their homes and brought up in the wigwams, became passionatelyattached. Yet back of the lazy and drunken squalor lay an element of theterrible, all the more terrible because it could not be reckoned with. Dangerous and treacherous allies, upon whom no real dependence couldever placed, the Indians were nevertheless the most redoubtable of allfoes when the war was waged in their own gloomy woodlands. 

 The British Officers

At such a post those standing high in authority were partly civilofficials, partly army officers. Of the former, some represented theprovincial government, and others acted for the fur companies. They hadmuch to do, both in governing the French townsfolk and countryfolk, inkeeping the Indians friendly, and in furthering the peculiar commerce onwhich the settlements subsisted. But the important people were the armyofficers. These were imperious, able, resolute men, well drilled, andwith a high military standard of honor. They upheld with jealous pridethe reputation of an army which in that century proved again and againthat on stricken fields no soldiery of continental Europe could standagainst it. They wore a uniform which for the last two hundred years hasbeen better known than any other wherever the pioneers of civilizationtread the world's waste spaces or fight their way to the overlordship ofbarbarous empires; a uniform known to the southern and the northernhemispheres, the eastern and the western continents, and all the islandsof the sea. Subalterns wearing this uniform have fronted dangers andresponsibilities such as in most other services only gray-headedgenerals are called upon to face; and, at the head of handfuls oftroops, have won for the British crown realms as large, and often aspopulous, as European kingdoms. The scarlet-clad officers who serve themonarchy of Great Britain have conquered many a barbarous people in allthe ends of the earth, and hold for their sovereign the lands of Moslemand Hindoo, of Tartar and Arab and Pathan, of Malay, Negro, andPolynesian. In many a war they have overcome every European rivalagainst whom they have been pitted. Again and again they have marched tovictory against Frenchman and Spaniard through the sweltering heat ofthe tropics; and now, from the stupendous mountain masses of mid Asia, they look northward through the wintry air, ready to bar the advance ofthe legions of the Czar. Hitherto they have never gone back save once;they have failed only when they sought to stop the westward march of amighty nation, a nation kin to theirs, a nation of their own tongue andlaw, and mainly of their own blood. 

 The Frontiersmen and the British. 

The British officers and the American border leaders found themselvesface to face in the wilderness as rivals of one another. Sundered byinterest and ambition, by education and the habits of thought, trained to widely different ways of looking at life, and with thememories of the hostile past fresh in their minds, they were in no humorto do justice to one another. Each side regarded the other with jealousyand dislike, and often with bitter hatred. Each often unwisely scornedthe other. Each kept green in mind the wrongs suffered at the other'shands, and remembered every discreditable fact in the other's recenthistory--every failure, every act of cruelty or stupidity, every deedthat could be held as the consequence of the worst moral and mentalshortcomings. Neither could appreciate the other's many and realvirtues. The policies for which they warred were hostile andirreconcilable; the interests of the nations they represented were, asregards the northwestern wilderness, not only incompatible butdiametrically opposed. The commanders of the British posts, and the menwho served under them, were moved by a spirit of stern loyalty to theempire, the honor of whose flag they upheld, and endeavored faithfullyto carry out the behests of those who shaped that empire's destinies; inobedience to the will of their leaders at home they warred to keep theNorthwest a wilderness, tenanted only by the Indian hunter and the whitefur trader. The American frontiersmen warred to make this wilderness theheart of the greatest of all Republics; they obeyed the will of nosuperior, they were not urged onward by any action of the supremeauthorities of the land; they were moved only by the stirring ambitionof a masterful people, who saw before them a continent which theyclaimed as their heritage. The Americans succeeded, the British failed;for the British fought against the stars in their courses, while theAmericans battled on behalf of the destiny of the race. 

Between the two sets of rivals lay leagues on leagues of forest, inwhich the active enemies of the Americans lived and hunted and marchedto war. The British held the posts on the lakes; the frontiersmen heldthe land south of the Ohio. In the wilderness between dwelt theShawnees, Wyandots, and Delawares, the Wabash Indians, the Miamis, andmany others; and they had as allies all the fiercest and mostadventurous of the tribes farther off, the Chippewas, the Winnebagos, the Sacs and Foxes. On the side of the whites the war was still urged byirregular levies of armed frontiersmen. The Federal garrisons on theOhio were as yet too few and feeble to be of much account; and in thesouth, where the conflict was against Creek and Cherokee, there were noregular troops whatever. 

 Indian Inroads. 

The struggle was at first one of aggression on the part of thenorthwestern Indians. They were angered and alarmed at the surveyors andthe few reckless would-be settlers, who had penetrated their country;but there was no serious encroachment on their lands, and Congress forsome time forbade any expedition being carried on against them in theirhome. They themselves made no one formidable attack, sent no oneovermastering force against the whites. But bands of young braves fromall the tribes began to cross the Ohio, and ravage the settlements, fromthe Pennsylvania frontier to Kentucky. They stole horses, burned houses, and killed or carried into a dreadful captivity men, women, andchildren. The inroads were as usual marked by stealth, rapine, andhorrible cruelty. It is hard for those accustomed only to treat ofcivilized warfare to realize the intolerable nature of these ravages, the fact that the loss and damage to the whites was out of allproportion to the strength of the Indian war parties, and the extremedifficulty in dealing an effective counter stroke. 

The immense tangled forests increased beyond measure the difficulties ofthe problem. Under their shelter the Indians were able to attack at willand without warning, and though they would fight to the death againstany odds when cornered, they invariably strove to make their attacks onthe most helpless, on those who were powerless to resist. It was not thearmed frontier levies, it was the immigrants coming in by pack train orby flat boat, --it was the unsuspecting settlers with their wives andlittle ones who had most to fear from an Indian fray; while, when oncethe blow was delivered, the savages vanished as smoke vanishes in theopen. A small war party could thus work untold harm in a districtprecisely as a couple of man-eating jaguars may depopulate a forestvillage in tropical America; and many men and much time had to be spentbefore they could be beaten into submission, exactly as it needs a greathunting party to drive from their fastness and slay the big man-eatingcats, though, if they came to bay in the open, they could readily bekilled by a single skilful and resolute hunter. 

 Warfare of the Settlers. 

Each settlement or group of settlements had to rely on the prowess ofits own hunter-soldiers for safety. The real war, the war in which byfar the greatest loss was suffered by both sides, was that thus wagedman against man. These innumerable and infinitely varied skirmishes, aspetty as they were bloody, were not so decisive at the moment as thecampaigns against the gathered tribes, but were often more important intheir ultimate results. Under the incessant strain of the incessantwarfare there arose here and there Indian fighters of special note, menwho warred alone, or at the head of small parties of rangers, and whonot only defended the settlements, but kept the Indian villages and theIndian war parties in constant dread by their vengeful retaliatoryinroads. These men became the peculiar heroes of the frontier, and theirnames were household words in the log cabins of the children, andchildren's children, of their contemporaries. They were warriors of thetype of the rude champions who in the ages long past hunted the mammothand the aurochs, and smote one another with stone-headed axes; theirfeats of ferocious personal prowess were of the kind that gave honor andglory to the mighty men of time primeval. Their deeds were not put intobooks while the men themselves lived; they were handed down bytradition, and grew dim and vague in the recital. What one fiercepartisan leader had done might dwindle or might grow in the telling ormight finally be ascribed to some other; or else the same feat wastwisted into such varying shapes that it became impossible to recognizewhich was nearest the truth, or what man had performed it. 

 The Border Leaders. 

Often in dealing with the adventures of one of these old-time borderwarriors--Kenton, Wetzel, Brady, Mansker, Castleman, --all we can say isthat some given feat was commonly attributed to him, but may have beenperformed by somebody else, or indeed may only have been the kind offeat which might at any time have been performed by men of his stamp. Thus one set of traditions ascribe to Brady an adventure in which whenbound to a stake, he escaped by suddenly throwing an Indian child intothe fire, and dashing off unhurt in the confusion; but other traditionsascribe the feat not to Brady, but to some other wild hunter of the day. Again one of the favorite tales of Brady is his escape from a band ofpursuing Indians, by an extraordinary leap across a deep ravine, at thebottom of which flowed a rapid stream; but in some traditions this leapappears as made by another frontier hero, or even by an Indian whomBrady himself was pursuing. It is therefore a satisfaction to comeacross, now and then, some feat which is attested by contemporaneoustestimony. There is such contemporary record for one of Brady's deeds, which took place towards the close of the Revolutionary war. 

 Brady's Feats. 

Brady had been on a raid in the Indian country and was returning. Hisparty had used all their powder and had scattered, each man goingtowards his own home, as they had nearly reached the settlements. Onlythree men were left with Brady, the four had but one charge of powderapiece, and even this had been wet in crossing a stream, though it hadbeen carefully dried afterwards. They had with them a squaw whom theyhad captured. When not far from home they ran into a party of sevenIndians, likewise returning from a raid, and carrying with them asprisoners a woman and her child. Brady spied the Indians first andinstantly resolved to attack them, trusting that they would bepanic-struck and flee; though after a single discharge of their rifleshe and his men would be left helpless. Slipping ahead he lay in ambushuntil the Indians were close up. He then fired, killing the leader, whereat the others fled in terror, leaving the woman and child. In theconfusion, however, the captive squaw also escaped and succeeded injoining the fleeing savages, to whom she told the small number and wofulplight of their assailants; and they at once turned to pursue them. Brady, however, had made good use of the time gained, and was in fullflight with his two rescued prisoners; and before he was overtaken heencountered a party of whites who were themselves following the trail ofthe marauders. He at once turned and in company with them hurried afterthe Indians; but the latter were wary, and, seeing the danger, scatteredand vanished in the gloomy woodland. The mother and child, thus rescuedfrom a fearful fate, reached home in safety. The letter containing theaccount of this deed continues: "This young officer, Captain Brady, hasgreat merit as a partizan in the woods. He has had the address tosurprise and beat the Indians three different times since I came to theDepartment--he is brave, vigilant, and successful. " [Footnote: DraperMSS. Alex. Fowler to Edward Hand, Pittsburgh, July 22, 1780. ]

For a dozen years after the close of the Revolution Brady continued tobe a tower of strength to the frontier settlers of Pennsylvania andVirginia. At the head of his rangers he harassed the Indians greatly, interfering with and assailing their war parties, and raiding on theirvillages and home camps. Like his foes he warred by ambush and surprise. Among the many daring backwoodsmen who were his followers and companionsthe traditions pay particular heed to one Phouts, "a stout, thickDutchman of uncommon strength and activity. "

In spite of the counter strokes of the wild wood-rangers, the Indianravages speedily wrapped the frontier in fire and blood. In such a warthe small parties were really the most dangerous, and in the aggregatecaused most damage. It is less of a paradox than it seems, to say thatone reason why the Indians were so formidable in warfare was becausethey were so few in numbers. Had they been more numerous they wouldperforce have been tillers of the soil, and it would have been fareasier for the whites to get at them. They were able to wage a war soprotracted and murderous, only because of their extreme elusiveness. There was little chance to deliver a telling blow at enemies who hadhardly anything of value to destroy, who were so comparatively few innumber that they could subsist year in and year out on game, and whosemode of life rendered them as active, stealthy, cautious, and ferociousas so many beasts of prey. 

 Ravages in Kentucky. 

Though the frontiers of Pennsylvania and of Virginia proper sufferedmuch, Kentucky suffered more. The murderous inroads of the Indians atabout the close of the Revolutionary war caused a mortality such ascould not be paralleled save in a community struck down by some awfulpestilence; and though from thence on our affairs mended, yet for manyyears the most common form of death was death at the hands of theIndians. A resident in Kentucky, writing to a friend, dwelt on the needof a system of vestries to take care of the orphans, who, as thingswere, were left solely to private charity; though, continues the writer, "of all countries I am acquainted with this abounds most with theseunhappy objects. " [Footnote: Draper MSS. , Clark MSS. Darrell to Fleming, April 14, 1783. ]

 Attacks on Incoming Settlers. 

The roving war bands infested the two routes by which the immigrantscame into the country; for the companies of immigrants could usually betaken at a disadvantage, and yielded valuable plunder. The parties whotravelled the Wilderness Road were in danger of ambush by day and ofonslaught by night. But there was often some protection for them, forwhenever the savages became very bold, bodies of Kentucky militia weresent to patrol the trail, and these not only guarded the trains ofincomers, but kept a sharp look-out for Indian signs, and, if any werefound, always followed and, if possible, fought and scattered themarauders. 

The Indians who watched the river-route down the Ohio had much less tofear in the way of pursuit by, or interference from, the frontiermilitia; although they too were now and then followed, overtaken, andvanquished. While in midstream the boats were generally safe, thoughoccasionally the savages grew so bold that they manned flotillas ofcanoes and attacked the laden flat-boats in open day. But when any partylanded, or wherever the current swept a boat inshore, within rifle rangeof the tangled forest on the banks, there was always danger. The whiteriflemen, huddled together with their women, children, and animals onthe scows, were utterly unable to oppose successful resistance to foeswho shot them down at leisure, while themselves crouching in thesecurity of their hiding-places. The Indians practised all kinds oftricks and stratagems to lure their victims within reach. A favoritedevice was to force some miserable wretch whom they had already capturedto appear alone on the bank when a boat came in sight, signal to it, andimplore those on board to come to his rescue and take him off; the decoyinventing some tale of wreck or of escape from Indians to account forhis presence. If the men in the boat suffered themselves to be overcomeby compassion and drew inshore, they were sure to fall victims to theirsympathy. 

The boat once assailed and captured, the first action of the Indians wasto butcher all the wounded. If there was any rum or whiskey on boardthey drank it, feasted on the provisions, and took whatever goods theycould carry off. They then set off through the woods with theirprisoners for distant Indian villages near the lakes. They travelledfast, and mercilessly tomahawked the old people, the young children, andthe women with child, as soon as their strength failed under the strainof the toil and hardship and terror. When they had reached theirvillages they usually burned some of their captives and made slaves ofthe others, the women being treated as the concubines of their captors, and the children adopted by the families who wished them. Of thecaptives a few might fall into the hands of friendly traders, or of theBritish officers at Detroit; a few might escape, or be ransomed by theirkinsfolk, or be surrendered in consequence of some treaty. The otherssuccumbed to the perils of their new life, or gradually sank into astate of stolid savagery. 

 Forays on the Settlements. 

Naturally the ordinary Indian foray was directed against the settlementsthemselves; and of course the settlements of the frontier, as itcontinually shifted westward, were those which bore the brunt of theattack and served as a shield for the more thickly peopled and peacefulregion behind. Occasionally a big war party of a hundred warriors orover would come prepared for a stroke against some good-sized village orfort; but, as a rule, the Indians came in small bands, numbering from acouple to a dozen or score of individuals. Entirely unencumbered bybaggage or by impediments of any kind, such a band lurked through thewoods, leaving no trail, camping wherever night happened to overtake it, and travelling whithersoever it wished. The ravages committed by theseskulking parties of murderous braves were monotonous in their horror. All along the frontier the people on the outlying farms were ever indanger, and there was risk for the small hamlets and block-houses. Intheir essentials the attacks were alike: the stealthy approach, thesudden rush, with its accompaniment of yelling war-whoops, the butcheryof men, women, and children, and the hasty flight with whateverprisoners were for the moment spared, before the armed neighbors couldgather for rescue and revenge. 

In most cases there was no record of the outrage; it was not put intoany book; and, save among the survivors, all remembrance of it vanishedas the logs of the forsaken cabin rotted and crumbled. 

 Incidents of the War on the Frontier. 

Yet tradition, or some chance written record kept alive the memory ofsome of these incidents, and a few such are worth reciting, if only toshow what this warfare of savage and settler really was. Most of thetales deal merely with some piece of unavenged butchery. 

In 1785, on June 29th, the house of a settler named Scott, in WashingtonCounty, Virginia, was attacked. The Indians, thirteen in number, burstin the door just as the family were going to bed. Scott was shot; hiswife was seized and held motionless, while all her four children weretomahawked, and their throats cut, the blood spouting over her clothes. The Indians loaded themselves with plunder, and, taking with them thewretched woman, moved off, and travelled all night. Next morning eachman took his share and nine of the party went down to steal horses onthe Clinch. The remaining four roamed off through the woods, and tendays later the woman succeeded in making her escape. For a month shewandered alone in the forest, living on the young cane and sassafras, until, spent and haggard with the horror and the hardship, she at lastreached a small frontier settlement. 

At about the same time three girls, sisters, walking together nearWheeling Creek, were pounced upon by a small party of Indians. Aftergoing a short distance the Indians halted, talked together for a fewmoments, and then without any warning a warrior turned and tomahawkedone of the girls. The second instantly shared the same fate; the thirdjerked away from the Indian who held her, darted up a bank, and, extraordinary to relate, eluded her pursuer, and reached her home insafety. Another family named Doolin, suffered in the same year; andthere was one singular circumstance connected with their fate. TheIndians came to the door of the cabin in the early morning; as the manrose from bed the Indians fired through the door and shot him in thethigh. They then burst in, and tomahawked him and two children; yet forreasons unknown they did not harm the woman, nor the child in her arms. 

No such mercy was shown by a band of six Indians who attacked the loghouses of two settlers, brothers, named Edward and Thomas Cunningham. The two cabins stood side by side, the chinks between the logs allowingthose in one to see what was happening in the other. One June evening, in 1785, both families were at supper. Thomas was away. His wife andfour children were sitting at the table when a huge savage slipped inthrough the open door. Edward in the adjoining cabin, saw him enter, andseized his rifle. The Indian fired at him through a chink in the wall, but missed him, and, being afraid to retreat through the door, whichwould have brought him within range of Edward's rifle, he seized an axeand began to chop out an opening in the rear wall. Another Indian made adash for the door, but was shot down by Edward; however, he managed toget over the fence and out of range. Meanwhile the mother and her fourchildren remained paralyzed with fear until the Indian inside the roomhad cut a hole through the wall. He then turned, brained one of thechildren with his tomahawk, threw the body out into the yard through theopening, and motioned to her to follow it. In mortal fear she obeyed, stepping out over the body of one of her children, with two othersscreaming beside her, and her baby in her arms. Once outside he scalpedthe murdered boy, and set fire to the house, and then drove the womanand the remaining children to a knoll where the wounded Indian lay withthe others around him. The Indians hoped the flames would destroy bothcabins; but Edward Cunningham and his son went into their loft, andthrew off the boards of the roof, as they kindled, escaping unharmedfrom the shots fired at them; and so, though scorched by the flame andchoked by the smoke, they saved their house and their lives. Seeing thefailure of their efforts the savages then left, first tomahawking andscalping the two elder children. The shuddering mother, with her baby, was taken along with them to a cave, in which they hid her and thewounded Indian; and then with untold fatigue, hardship, and suffering, for her brutal captors gave her for food only a few papaw nuts and thehead of a wild turkey, she was taken to the Indian towns. Some monthsafterwards Simon Girty ransomed her and sent her and tried to follow thetrail; but the crafty forest warriors had concealed it with such carethat no effective pursuit could be made. 

 Retaliation of the Settlers. 

In none of the above-mentioned raids did the Indians suffer any loss oflife, and in none was there any successful pursuit. But in one instancein this same year and same neighborhood the assailed settlersretaliated, with effect. It was near Wheeling. A lad named John Wetzel, one of a noted border family of coarse, powerful, illiterate Indianfighters, had gone out from the fortified village in which his kinsfolkwere living to hunt horses. Another boy went with him. There wereseveral stray horses, one being a mare which belonged to Wetzel'ssister, with a colt, and the girl had promised him the colt if he wouldbring the mare back. The two boys were vigorous young fellows, accustomed to life in the forest, and they hunted high and low, andfinally heard the sound of horse-bells in a thicket. Running joyfullyforward they fell into the hands of four Indians, who had caught thehorses and tied them in the thicket, so that by the tinkling of theirbells they might lure into the ambush any man who came out to hunt themup. Young Wetzel made a dash for liberty, but received a shot whichbroke his arm, and then surrendered and cheerfully accompanied hiscaptors; while his companion, totally unnerved, hung back crying, andwas promptly tomahawked. Early next morning the party struck the Ohio, at a point where there was a clearing. The cabins on this clearing weredeserted, the settlers having taken refuge in a fort because of theIndian ravages; but the stock had been left running in the woods. One ofthe Indians shot a hog and tossed it into a canoe they had hidden underthe bank. The captive was told to enter the canoe and lie down; threeIndians then got in, while the fourth started to swim the stolen horsesacross the river. 

Fortunately for the captured boy three of the settlers had chosen thisday to return to the abandoned clearing and look after the loose stock. They reached the place shortly after the Indians, and just in time tohear the report of the rifle when the hog was shot. The owner of thehogs, instead of suspecting that there were Indians near by, jumped tothe conclusion that a Kentucky boat had landed, and that the immigrantswere shooting his hogs--for the people who drifted down the Ohio inboats were not, when hungry, over-scrupulous concerning the right tostray live stock. Running forward, the three men had almost reached theriver, when they heard the loud snorting of one of the horses as it wasforced into the water. As they came out on the bank they saw the canoe, with three Indians in it, and in the bottom four rifles, the dead hog, and young Wetzel stretched at full length; the Indian in the stern wasjust pushing off from the shore with his paddle; the fourth Indian wasswimming the horses a few yards from shore. Immediately the foremostwhite man threw up his rifle and shot the paddler dead; and a secondlater one of his companions coming up, killed in like fashion the Indianin the bow of the canoe. The third Indian, stunned by the suddenonslaught, sat as if numb, never so much as lifting one of the riflesthat lay at his feet, and in a minute he too was shot and fell over theside of the canoe, but grasped the gunwale with one hand, keepinghimself afloat. Young Wetzel, in the bottom of the canoe, would haveshared the same fate, had he not cried out that he was white and aprisoner; whereupon they bade him knock loose the Indian's hand from theside of the canoe. This he did, and the Indian sank. The current carriedthe canoe on a rocky spit of land, and Wetzel jumped out and wadedashore, while the little craft spun off and again drifted towardsmidstream. One of the men on shore now fired at the only remainingIndian, who was still swimming his horse for the opposite bank. Thebullet splashed the water on his naked skin, whereat he slipped off hishorse, swam to the empty canoe, and got into it. Unhurt he reached thefarther shore, where he leaped out and caught the horse as it swam toland, mounted it, rifle in hand, turned to yell defiance at his foes, and then vanished in the forest-shrouded wilderness. He left behind himthe dead bodies of his three friends, to be washed on the shallows bythe turbid flood of the great river. [Footnote: De Haas, pp. 283-292. DeHaas gathered the facts of these and numerous similar incidents from thepioneers themselves in their old age; doubtless they are ofteninaccurate in detail, but on the whole De Haas has more judgment and maybe better trusted than the other compilers. In the Draper MSS. Arevolumes of such traditional stories, gathered with no discriminationwhatever. ]

 Monotonous Horror of the Ravages. 

These are merely some of the recorded incidents which occurred in thesingle year 1785, in one comparatively small portion of the vast stretchof territory which then formed the Indian frontier. Many such occurredon all parts of this frontier in each of the terrible years of Indianwarfare. They varied infinitely in detail, but they were monotonouslyalike in their characteristics of stealthy approach, of sudden onfall, and of butcherly cruelty; and there was also a terrible sameness in thebrutality and ruthlessness with which the whites, as occasion offered, wreaked their revenge. Generally the Indian war parties were successful, and suffered comparatively little, making their attacks by surprise, andby preference on unarmed men cumbered with women and children. Occasionally they were beaten back; occasionally parties of settlers orhunters stumbled across and scattered the prowling bands; occasionallythe Indian villages suffered from retaliatory inroads. 

 Attack on the Lincoln Family. 

One attack, simple enough in its incidents, deserves notice for otherreasons. In 1784 a family of "poor white" immigrants who had justsettled in Kentucky were attacked in the daytime, while in the immediateneighborhood of their squalid cabin. The father was shot, and one Indianwas in the act of tomahawking the six-year-old son, when an elderbrother, from the doorway of the cabin, shot the savage. The Indiansthen fled. The boy thus rescued grew up to become the father of AbrahamLincoln. [Footnote: Hay and Nicolay. ]

Now and then the monstrous uniformity of horror in assault and reprisalwas broken by some deed out of the common; some instance where despairnerved the frame of woman or of half-grown boy; some strange incident inthe career of a backwoods hunter, whose profession perpetually exposedhim to Indian attack, but also trained him as naught else could to evadeand repel it. The wild turkey was always much hunted by the settlers;and one of the common Indian tricks was to imitate the turkey call andshoot the hunter when thus tolled to his foe's ambush; but it was onlyless common for a skilled Indian fighter to detect the ruse and himselfcreep up and slay the would-be slayer. More than once, when a cabin wasattacked in the absence or after the death of the men, some brawnyfrontierswoman, accustomed to danger and violent physical exertion, andfavored by peculiar circumstances, herself beat off the assailants. 

 Prowess of Frontier Women. 

In one such case, two or three families were living together in ablock-house. One spring day, when there were in the house but two menand one woman, a Mrs. Bozarth, the children who had been playing in theyard suddenly screamed that Indians were coming. One of the men sprangto the door only to fall back with a bullet in his breast, and inanother moment an Indian leaped over the threshold and attacked theremaining man before he could grasp a weapon. Holding his antagonist thelatter called out to Mrs. Bozarth to hand him a knife; but instead shesnatched up an axe and killed the savage on the spot. But that instantanother leaped into the doorway, and firing, killed the white man whohad been struggling with his companion; but the woman instantly turnedon him, as he stood with his smoking gun, and ripped open his body witha stroke of her axe. Yelling for help he sank on the threshold, and hiscomrades rushed to his rescue; the woman, with her bloody weapon, cleftopen the skull of the first, and the others fell back, so that she wasable to shut and bar the door. Then the savages moved off, but they hadalready killed the children in the yard. 

A similar incident took place in Kentucky, where the cabin of a mannamed John Merrill was attacked at night. He was shot in several places, and one arm and one thigh broken, as he stood by the open door, and fellcalling out to his wife to close it. This she did; but the Indianschopped a hole in the stout planks with their tomahawks, and tried tocrawl through. The woman, however, stood to one side and struck at thehead of each as it appeared, maiming or killing the first two or three. Enraged at being thus baffled by a woman, two of the Indians clamberedon the roof of the cabin, and prepared to drop down the wide chimney;for at night the fire in such a cabin was allowed to smoulder, the coalsbeing kept alive in the ashes. But Mrs. Merrill seized a feather-bedand, tearing it open, threw it on the embers; the flame and stiflingsmoke leaped up the chimney, and in a moment both Indians came down, blinded and half smothered, and were killed by the big resolute womanbefore they could recover themselves. No further attempt was made tomolest the cabin or its inmates. 

One of the incidents which became most widely noised along the borderswas the escape of the two Johnson boys, in the fall of 1788. Theirfather was one of the restless pioneers along the upper Ohio who werealways striving to take up claims across the river, heedless of theIndian treaties. The two boys, John and Henry, were at the time thirteenand eleven years old respectively. One Sunday, about noon, they went tofind a hat which they had lost the day before at the spot where they hadbeen working, three quarters of a mile from the house. Having found thehat they sat down by the roadside to crack nuts, and were surprised bytwo Indians; they were not harmed, but were forced to go with theircaptors, who kept travelling slowly through the woods on the outskirtsof the settlements, looking for horses. The elder boy soon made friendswith the Indians, telling them that he and his brother were ill-treatedat home, and would be glad to get a chance to try Indian life. Bydegrees they grew to believe he was in earnest, and plied him with allkinds of questions concerning the neighbors, their live stock, theirguns, the number of men in the different families, to all of which hereplied with seeming eagerness and frankness. At night they stopped tocamp, one Indian scouting through the woods, while the other kindled afire by flashing powder in the pan of his rifle. For supper they hadparched corn and pork roasted over the coals; there was then somefurther talk, and the Indians lay down to sleep, one on each side of theboys. After a while, supposing that their captives were asleep, andanticipating no trouble from two unarmed boys, one Indian got up and laydown on the other side of the fire, where he was soon snoring heavily. Then the lads, who had been wide awake, biding their time, whispered toone another, and noiselessly rose. The elder took one of the guns, silently cocked it, and, pointing it at the head of one Indian, directedthe younger boy to take it and pull trigger, while he himself stood overthe head of the other Indian with drawn tomahawk. The one boy thenfired, his Indian never moving after receiving the shot, while the otherboy struck at the same moment; but the tomahawk went too far back on theneck, and the savage tried to spring to his feet, yelling loudly. However the boy struck him again and again as he strove to rise, and hefell back and was soon dead. Then the two boys hurried off through thedarkness, fearing lest other Indians might be in the neighborhood. Notvery far away they struck a path which they recognized, and the elderhung up his hat, that they might find the scene of their feat when theycame back. Continuing their course they reached a block-house shortlybefore daybreak. On the following day a party of men went out with theelder boy and found the two dead Indians. [Footnote: De Haas. ]

After any Indian stroke the men of the neighborhood would gather undertheir local militia officers, and, unless the Indians had too long astart, would endeavor to overtake them, and either avenge the slain orrescue the prisoners. In the more exposed settlements bands of rangerswere kept continually patrolling the woods. Every man of note in theCumberland country took part in this duty. In Kentucky the countylieutenants and their subordinates were always on the lookout. Loganpaid especial heed to the protection of the immigrants who came in overthe Wilderness Road. Kenton's spy company watched the Ohio, andcontinually crossed it on the track of marauding parties, and, thoughvery often baffled, yet Kenton and his men succeeded again and again inrescuing hapless women and children, or in scattering--although usuallywith small loss--war parties bound against the settlements. 

 Feats of an Indian Fighter

One of the best known Indian fighters in Kentucky was William Whitley, who lived at Walnut Flat, some five miles from Crab Orchard. He had cometo Kentucky soon after its settlement, and by his energy and ability hadacquired property and leadership, though of unknown ancestry and withouteducation. He was a stalwart man, skilled in the use of arms, jovial andfearless; the backwoods fighters followed him readily, and he lovedbattle; he took part in innumerable Indian expeditions, and in his oldage was killed fighting against Tecumseh at the battle of the Thames. In1786 or '87 he built the first brick house ever built in Kentucky. Itwas a very handsome house for those days, every step in the hallstairway having carved upon it the head of an eagle bearing in its beakan olive branch. Each story was high, and the windows were placed veryhigh from the ground, to prevent the Indians from shooting through themat the occupants. The glass was brought from Virginia by pack train. Hefeasted royally the hands who put up the house; and to pay for thewhiskey they drank he had to sell one of his farms. 

In 1785 (the year of the above recited ravages on the upper Ohio in theneighborhood of Wheeling), Colonel Whitley led his rangers, once andagain, against marauding Indians. In January he followed a war party, rescued a captive white man, and took prisoner an Indian who wasafterwards killed by one of the militia--"a cowardly fellow, " saysWhitley. In October a party of immigrants, led by a man named McClure, who had just come over the Wilderness trace, were set upon at dawn byIndians, not far from Whitley's house; two of the men were killed. Mrs. McClure got away at first, and ran two hundred yards, taking her fourchildren with her; in the gloom they would all have escaped had not thesmallest child kept crying. This led the Indians to them. Three of thechildren were tomahawked at once; next morning the fourth shared thesame fate. The mother was forced to cook breakfast for her captors atthe fire before which the scalps were drying. She was then placed on ahalf-broken horse and led off with them. When word of the disaster wasbrought to Whitley's, he was not at home, but his wife, a worthyhelpmeet, immediately sent for him, and meanwhile sent word to hiscompany. On his return he was able to take the trail at once withtwenty-one riflemen, as true as steel. Following hard, but with stealthequal to their own, he overtook the Indians at sundown on the secondday, and fell on them in their camp. Most of them escaped through thethick forest, but he killed two, rescued six prisoners, and capturedsixteen horses and much plunder. 

Ten days after this another party of immigrants, led by a man namedMoore, were attacked on the Wilderness Road and nine persons killed. Whitley raised thirty of his horse-riflemen, and, guessing from themovements of the Indians that they were following the war tracenorthward, he marched with all speed to reach it at some point ahead ofthem, and succeeded. Finding they had not passed he turned and wentsouth, and in a thick canebrake met his foes face to face. The whiteswere spread out in line, while the Indians, twenty in number, came on insingle file, all on horseback. The cane was so dense that the twoparties were not ten steps apart when they saw one another. At the firstfire the Indians, taken utterly unaware, broke and fled, leaving eightof their number dead; and the victors also took twenty-eight horses. [Footnote: Draper MSS. Whitley's MSS. Narrative, apparently dictatedsome time after the events described. It differs somewhat from theprinted account in Collins. ]

 Death of Black Wolf and Col. Christian

In the following spring another noted Indian fighter, less lucky thanWhitley, was killed while leading one of these scouting parties. Earlyin 1786, the Indians began to commit and Col. Numerous depredations inKentucky, and the alarm and anger of the inhabitants became great. [Footnote: Draper MSS. Clark Papers, _passim_ for 1786. Wm. Finney to G. R. Clark, March 24 and 26, 1786. Also Wm. Croghan to G. R. Clark, Nov. 3, and Nov. 16, 1785. ] In April, a large party of savages under a chiefnamed Black Wolf, made a raid along Beargrass. Col. William Christian, avery gallant and honorable man, was in command of the neighboringmilitia. At once, as was his wont, he raised a band of twenty men, andfollowed the plunderers across the Ohio. Riding well in advance of hisfollowers, with but three men in company with him, he overtook the threerearmost Indians, among whom was Black Wolf. The struggle was momentarybut bloody. All three Indians were killed, but Colonel Christian and oneof his captains were also slain. [Footnote: State Department MSS. PapersContinental Congress. Sam McDowell to Governor of Virginia, April 18, 1786. John May to _Do. _, April 19, 1786. Clark MSS. Bradford's Notes onKentucky. John Clark to Johnathan Clark, April 21, 1786. ]

 Anger of the Kentuckians. 

The Kentuckians were by this time thoroughly roused, and were bent onmaking a retaliatory expedition in force. They felt that the effortsmade by Congress to preserve peace by treaties, at which the Indianswere loaded with presents, merely resulted in making them think that thewhites were afraid of them, and that if they wished gifts all they hadto do was to go to war. [Footnote: Draper MSS. Jon. Clark Papers. JohnClark to Johnathan Clark, March 29, 1786. Also, G. R. Clark to J. Clark, April 20, 1788. ] The only effective way to deal with the Indians was tostrike them in their own country, not to try to parry the strokes theythemselves dealt. Clark, who knew the savages well, scoffed at the ideathat a vigorous blow, driven well home, would rouse them to desperation;he realized that, formidable though they were in actual battle, andstill more in plundering raid, they were not of the temper to hazard allon the fate of war, or to stand heavy punishment, and that they wouldyield very quickly, when once they were convinced that unless they didso they and their families would perish by famine or thesword. [Footnote: State Department MSS. , No. 56, p. 282. G. R. Clark toR. H. Lee. ] At this time he estimated that some fifteen hundred warriorswere on the war-path and that they were likely to be joined by manyothers. 

 Anarchy on the Wabash. 

The condition of affairs at the French towns of the Illinois and Wabashafforded another strong reason for war, or at least for decided measuresof some kind. Almost absolute anarchy reigned in these towns. The Frenchinhabitants had become profoundly discontented with the United StatesGovernment. This was natural, for they were neither kept in order norprotected, in spite of their petitions to Congress that some stablegovernment might be established. [Footnote: State Department MSS. , No. 30, p. 453, Dec. 8, 1784. Also p. 443, Nov. 10, 1784. Draper MSS. J. Edgar to G. R. Clark, Oct. 23, 1786. ] The quarrels between the Frenchand the intruding American settlers had very nearly reached the point ofa race war; and the Americans were further menaced by the Indians. Theselatter were on fairly good terms with the French, many of whom hadintermarried with them, and lived as they did; although the Frenchfamilies of the better class were numerous, and had attained to what wasfor the frontier a high standard of comfort and refinement. 

 Quarrels between French and Americans. 

The French complained with reason of the lawless and violent characterof many of the American new-comers, and also of the fact that alreadyspeculators were trying by fraud and foul means to purchase large tractsof land, not for settlement, but to hold until it should rise in value. On the other hand, the Americans complained no less bitterly of theFrench, as a fickle, treacherous, undisciplined race, in close alliancewith the Indians, and needing to be ruled with a rod of iron. [Footnote:State Dept. MSS. , No. 56. J. Edgar to G. R. Clark, Nov. 7, 1785. DraperMSS. Petition of Americans of Vincennes to Congress, June I, 1786. ] Itis impossible to reconcile the accounts the two parties gave of oneanother's deeds; doubtless neither side was guiltless of gravewrongdoing. So great was Clark's reputation for probity and leadershipthat both sides wrote him urgently, requesting that he would come tothem and relieve their distress. [Footnote: Draper MSS. Petition to G. R. Clark from Inhabitants of Vincennes, March 16, 1786. ] One of the mostfruitful sources of broils and quarrels was the liquor trade with theIndians. The rougher among the new-comers embarked eagerly in thisharmful and disreputable business, and the low-class French followedtheir example. The commandant, Monsieur J. M. P. Legrace, and the Creolecourt forbade this trade; a decision which was just and righteous, butexcited much indignation, as the other inhabitants believed that themembers of the court themselves followed it in secret. [Footnote: Do. , John Filson; MS. Journey of Two Voyages, etc. ]

In 1786 the ravages of the Indians grew so serious, and the losses ofthe Americans near Vincennes became so great, that they abandoned theiroutlying farms, and came into the town. [Footnote: Do. , Moses Henry to G. R. Clark, June 7, 1786. ] Vincennes then consisted of upwards of threehundred houses. The Americans numbered some sixty families, and hadbuilt an American quarter, with a strong blockhouse. They only venturedout to till their cornfields in bodies of armed men, while the Frenchworked their lands singly and unarmed. 

 Indians Attack Americans. 

The Indians came freely into the French quarter of the town, and evensold to the inhabitants plunder taken from the Americans; and whencomplaint of this was made to the Creole magistrates, they paid no heed. One of the men who suffered at the hands of the savages was a wanderingschoolmaster, named John Filson, [Footnote: _Do_. , John Small to G. R. Clark, June 23, 1786. ] the first historian of Kentucky, and the man whotook down, and put into his own quaint and absurdly stilted English, Boone's so-called "autobiography. " Filson, having drifted west, hadtravelled up and down the Ohio and Wabash by canoe and boat. He was muchstruck with the abundance of game of all kinds which he saw on thenorthwestern side of the Ohio, and especially by the herds of buffaloeswhich lay on the sand-bars; his party lived on the flesh of bears, deer, wild turkeys, coons, and water-turtles. In 1785 the Indians whom he metseemed friendly; but on June 2, 1786, while on the Wabash, his canoe wasattacked by the savages, and two of his men were slain. He himselfescaped with difficulty, and reached Vincennes after an exhaustingjourney, but having kept possession of his "two small trunks. "[Footnote: _Do_. , Filson's Journal. ]

Two or three weeks after this misadventure of the unlucky historian, aparty of twenty-five Americans, under a captain named DanielSullivan, [Footnote: _Do_. , Daniel Sullivan to G. R. Clark, June 23, 1786. Small's letter says June 21st. ] were attacked while working intheir cornfields at Vincennes. [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. PapersContinental Congress, No. 150, vol. Ii. , Letter of J. M. P. Legrace, "AuGénéral George Rogé Clarck a la Châte" (at the Falls-Louisville), July22, 1786. ] They rallied and drove back the Indians, but two of theirnumber were wounded. One of the wounded fell for a moment into the handsof the Indians and was scalped; and though he afterwards recovered, hiscompanions at the time expected him to die. They marched back toVincennes in furious anger, and finding an Indian in the house of aFrenchman, they seized and dragged him to their block-house, where thewife of the scalped man, whose name was Donelly, shot and scalped him. 

 French Threaten Americans. 

This greatly exasperated the French, who kept a guard over the otherIndians who were in town, and next day sent them to the woods. Thentheir head men, magistrates, and officers of the militia, summoned theAmericans before a council, and ordered all who had not regularpassports from the local court to leave at once, "bag and baggage. " Thiscreated the utmost consternation among the Americans, whom the Frenchoutnumbered five to one, while the savages certainly would havedestroyed them had they tried to go back to Kentucky. Their leadersagain wrote urgent appeals for help to Clark, asking that a generalguard might be sent them if only to take them out of the country. Filsonhad already gone overland to Louisville and told the authorities of thestraits of their brethren at Vincennes, and immediately an expeditionwas sent to their relief under Captains Hardin and Patton. 

 Indians Attempt to Destroy Americans. 

Meanwhile, on July 15th, a large band of several hundred Indians, bearing red and white flags, came down the river in forty-seven canoesto attack the Americans at Vincennes, sending word to the French that ifthey remained neutral they would not be molested. The French sent envoysto dissuade them from their purpose, but the war chiefs and sachemsanswered that the red people were at last united in opposition to "themen wearing hats, " and gave a belt of black wampum to the waveringPiankeshaws, warning them that all Indians who refused to join againstthe whites would thenceforth be treated as foes. However, their deeds byno means corresponded with their threats. Next day they assailed theAmerican block-house or stockaded fort, but found they could make noimpression and drew off. They burned a few outlying cabins andslaughtered many head of cattle, belonging both to the Americans and theFrench; and then, seeing the French under arms, held further parley withthem, and retreated, to the relief of all the inhabitants. 

 A Successful Skirmish. 

At the same time the Kentuckians, under Hardin and Patton, stumbled byaccident on a party of Indians, some of whom were friendly Piankeshawsand some hostile Miamis. They attacked them without making anydiscrimination between friend and foe, killed six, wounded seven, anddrove off the remainder. But they themselves lost one man killed andfour wounded, including Hardin, and fell back to Louisville withoutdoing anything more. [Footnote: Letter of Legrace and Filson's Journal. The two contradict one another as to which side was to blame. Legraceblames the Americans heavily for wronging both the French and theIndians; and condemns in the strongest terms, and probably with justice, many of their number, and especially Sullivan. He speaks, however, inhigh terms of Henry and Small; and both of these, in their lettersreferred to above, paint the conduct of the French and Indians in verydark colors, throwing the blame on them. Legrace is certainlydisingenuous in suppressing all mention of the wrongs done to theAmericans. For Filson's career and death in the woods, see the excellentLife of Filson, by Durrett, in the Filson club publications. ]

 Clark's Expedition. 

These troubles on the Wabash merely hardened the determination of theKentuckians no longer to wait until the Federal Government acted. Withthe approval of Governor Patrick Henry, they took the initiativethemselves. Early in August the field officers of the district ofKentucky met at Harrodsburg, Benjamin Logan presiding, and resolved onan expedition, to be commanded by Clark, against the hostile Indians onthe Wabash. Half of the militia of the district were to go; the men wereto assemble, on foot or on horseback, as they pleased, at Clarksville onSeptember 10th. [Footnote: Draper MSS. Minutes of meetings of theofficers of the district of Kentucky, Aug. 2, 1786. State Dept. MSS. , No. 150, vol. Ii. Letter of P. Henry, May 16, 1786. ] Besidespack-horses, salt, flour, powder, and lead were impressed, [Footnote:Draper MSS. J. Cox to George Rogers Clark, Aug. 8, 1786. ] not always instrict compliance with law, for some of the officers impressedquantities of spirituous liquors also. [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , Madison papers. Letter of Caleb Wallace Nov. 20, 1786. ] The troopsthemselves however came in slowly. [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , PapersContinental Congress. No. 150, vol. Ii. Letter of Major Wm. North, Sept. 15, 1786. ] Late in September when twelve hundred men had been gathered, Clark moved forward. But he was no longer the man he had been. He failedto get any hold on his army. His followers, on their side, displayed allthat unruly fickleness which made the militia of the Revolutionaryperiod a weapon which might at times be put to good use in the absenceof any other, but which was really trusted only by men whose militaryjudgment was as fatuous as Jefferson's. 

 Clark's Failure. 

After reaching Vincennes the troops became mutinous, and at last flatlyrefused longer to obey orders, and marched home as a disorderly mob, tothe disgrace of themselves and their leader. Nevertheless the expeditionhad really accomplished something, for it overawed the Wabash andIllinois Indians, and effectively put a stop to any active expressionsof disloyalty or disaffection on the part of the French. Clark sentofficers to the Illinois towns, and established a garrison of onehundred and fifty men at Vincennes, [Footnote: _Do_. Virginia StatePapers. G. R. Clark to Patrick Henry. Draper MSS. , Proceedings ofCommittee of Kentucky Convention, Dec. 19, 1786. ] besides seizing thegoods of a Spanish merchant in retaliation for wrongs committed onAmerican merchants by the Spaniards. 

 Logan's Expedition. 

This failure was in small part offset by a successful expedition led byLogan at the same time against the Shawnee towns. [Footnote: StateDepartment MSS. , Virginia State Papers, Logan to Patrick Henry, December17, 1786. ] On October 5th, he attacked them with seven hundred andninety men. There was little or no resistance, most of the warriorshaving gone to oppose Clark. Logan took ten scalps and thirty-twoprisoners, burned two hundred cabins and quantities of corn, andreturned in triumph after a fortnight's absence. One deed of infamysullied his success. Among his colonels was the scoundrel McGarry, who, in cold blood, murdered the old Shawnee chief, Molunthee, several hoursafter he had been captured; the shame of the barbarous deed beingaggravated by the fact that the old chief had always been friendly tothe Americans. [Footnote: Draper MSS. , Caleb Wallace to Wm. Fleming, October 23, 1786. State Department MSS. , No. 150, vol. Ii. , Harmar'sLetter, November 15, 1786. ] Other murders would probably have followed, had it not been for the prompt and honorable action of Colonels RobertPatterson and Robert Trotter, who ordered their men to shoot down anyone who molested another prisoner. McGarry then threatened them, andthey in return demanded that he be court-martialled for murder. [Footnote: Virginia State Papers, vol. Iv. , p. 212. ] Logan, to hisdiscredit, refused the court-martial, for fear of creating furthertrouble. The bane of the frontier military organization was thehelplessness of the elected commanders, their dependence on theirfollowers, and the inability of the decent men to punish the atrociousmisdeeds of their associates. 

These expeditions were followed by others on a smaller scale, but oflike character. They did enough damage to provoke, but not to overawe, the Indians. With the spring of 1787, the ravages began on an enlargedscale, with all their dreadful accompaniments of rapine, murder, andtorture. All along the Ohio frontier, from Pennsylvania to Kentucky, thesettlers were harried; and in some places they abandoned their clearingsand hamlets, so that the frontier shrank back. [Footnote: Durret MSS. , Daniel Dawson to John Campbell, Pittsburg, June 17, 1787. Virginia StatePapers, vol. Iv. , p. 419. ] Logan, Kenton, and many other leaders headedcounter expeditions, and now and then broke up a war party or destroyedan Indian town; [Footnote: Draper, MSS. , T. Brown to T. Preston, Danville, June 13, 1787. Virginia State Papers, vol. Iv. , pp. 254, 287, etc. ] but nothing decisive was accomplished, and Virginia paralyzed theefforts of the Kentuckians and waked them to anger, by forbidding themto follow the Indian parties beyond the frontier. [Footnote: VirginiaState Papers, vol. Iv. , p. 344. ]

The most important stroke given to the hostile Indians in 1787 was dealtby the Cumberland people. During the preceding three or four years, somescores of the settlers on the Cumberland had been slain by smallpredatory parties of Indians, mostly Cherokees and Creeks. No large warband attacked the settlements; but no hunter, surveyor, or traveller, nowood-chopper or farmer, no woman alone in the cabin with her children, could ever feel safe from attack. Now and then a savage was killed insuch an attack, or in a skirmish with some body of scouts; but nothingeffectual could be thus accomplished. 

 Ravages in Cumberland Country. 

The most dangerous marauders were some Creek and Cherokee warriors whohad built a town on the Coldwater, a tributary of the Tennessee near theMuscle Shoals, within easy striking distance of the Cumberlandsettlements. This town was a favorite resort of French traders from theIllinois and Wabash, who came up the Tennessee in bateaux. They providedthe Indians with guns and ammunition, and in return often received goodsplundered from the Americans; and they at least indirectly and in somecases directly encouraged the savages in their warfare against thesettlers. [Footnote: Robertson MSS. , Robertson to some French man ofnote in Illinois, June, 1787. This is apparently a copy, probably byRobertson's wife, of the original letter. In Robertson's own originalletters, the spelling and handwriting are as rough as they arevigorous. ]

 Robertson's Expedition against the Coldwater Town. 

Early in June, Robertson gathered one hundred and thirty men and marchedagainst the Coldwater town, with two Chickasaws as guides. Another smallparty started at the same time by water, but fell into an ambush, andthen came back. Robertson and his force followed the trail of amarauding party which had just visited the settlements. They marchedthrough the woods towards the Tennessee until they heard the voice ofthe great river as it roared over the shoals. For a day they lurked inthe cane on the north side, waiting until they were certain no spieswere watching them. In the night some of the men swam over and stole abig canoe, with which they returned. At daylight the troops crossed, afew in this canoe, the others swimming with their horses. After landing, they marched seven miles and fell on the town, which was in a ravine, with cornfields round about. Taken by surprise, the warriors, with noeffective resistance, fled to their canoes. The white riflemen throngedafter them. Most of the warriors escaped, but over twenty were slain; aswere also four or five French traders, while half a dozen Frenchmen andone Indian squaw were captured. All the cabins were destroyed, the livestock was slain, and much plunder taken. The prisoners were well treatedand released; but on the way home another party of French traders wereencountered, and their goods were taken from them. The two Chickasawswere given their full share of all the plunder. 

This blow gave a breathing spell to the Cumberland settlements. Robertson at once wrote to the French in the Illinois country, and alsoto some Delawares, who had recently come to the neighborhood, and werepreserving a dubious neutrality. He explained the necessity of theirexpedition, and remarked that if any innocent people, whether Frenchmenor Indians, had suffered in the attack, they had to blame themselves;they were in evil company, and the assailants could not tell the goodfrom the bad. If any Americans had been there, they would have sufferedjust the same. In conclusion he warned the French that if their traderscontinued to furnish the hostile Indians with powder and lead, theywould "render themselves very insecure"; and to the Indians he wrotethat, in the event of a war, "you will compell ous to retaliate, whichwill be a grate pridgedes to your nation. " [Footnote: Robertson MSS. Hisletter above referred to, and another, in his own hand, to theDelawares, of about the same date. ] He did not spell well; but hismeaning was plain, and his hand was known to be heavy. 

CHAPTER III. 

THE NAVIGATION OF THE MISSISSIPPI; SEPARATIST MOVEMENTS AND SPANISHINTRIGUES, 1784-1788. 

It was important for the frontiersmen to take the Lake Posts from theBritish; but it was even more important to wrest from the Spaniards thefree navigation of the Mississippi. While the Lake Posts were held bythe garrisons of a foreign power, the work of settling the northwesternterritory was bound to go forward slowly and painfully; but while thenavigation of the Mississippi was barred, even the settlements alreadyfounded could not attain to their proper prosperity and importance. 

 Need of Free Navigation of the Mississippi. 

The lusty young commonwealths which were springing into life on the Ohioand its tributaries knew that commerce with the outside world wasessential to their full and proper growth. The high, forest-clad rangesof the Appalachians restricted and hampered their mercantile relationswith the older States, and therefore with the Europe which lay beyond;while the giant river offered itself as a huge trade artery to bringthem close to all the outer world, if only they were allowed its freeuse. Navigable rivers are of great importance to a country's trade now;but a hundred years ago their importance was relatively far greater. Steam, railroads, electricity, have worked a revolution so stupendous, that we find it difficult to realize the facts of the life which ourforefathers lived. The conditions of commerce have changed much more inthe last hundred years than in the preceding two thousand. TheKentuckians and Tennesseans knew only the pack train, the wagon train, the river craft and the deep-sea ship; that is, they knew only suchmeans of carrying on commerce as were known to Greek and Carthaginian, Roman and Persian, and the nations of medieval Europe. Beasts of draughtand of burden, and oars and sails, --these, and these only, --were at theservice of their merchants, as they had been at the service of allmerchants from time immemorial. Where trade was thus limited theadvantages conferred by water carriage, compared to land carriage, wereincalculable. The Westerners were right in regarding as indispensablethe free navigation of the Mississippi. They were right also in theirdetermination ultimately to acquire the control of the whole river, fromthe source to the mouth. 

 Desire to Seize the Spanish Lands. 

However, the Westerners wished more than the privilege of sending downstream the products of their woods and pastures and tilled farms. Theyhad already begun to cast longing eyes on the fair Spanish possessions. Spain was still the greatest of colonial powers. In wealth, in extent, and in population--both native and European--her colonies surpassed eventhose of England; and by far the most important of her possessions werein the New World. For two centuries her European rivals, English, French, and Dutch, had warred against her in America, with the netresult of taking from her a few islands in the West Indies. On theAmerican mainland her possessions were even larger than they had been inthe age of the great Conquisadores; the age of Cortes, Pizarro, De Soto, and Coronado. Yet it was evident that her grasp had grown feeble. Everybold, lawless, ambitious leader among the frontier folk dreamed ofwresting from the Spaniard some portion of his rich and ill-guardeddomain. 

 Relations of the Frontiersmen to the Central Government. 

It was not alone the attitude of the frontiersmen towards Spain that wasnovel, and based upon a situation for which there was little precedent. Their relations with one another, with their brethren of the seaboard, and with the Federal Government, likewise had to be adjusted withoutmuch chance of profiting by antecedent experience. Many phases of theserelations between the people who stayed at home, and those who wanderedoff to make homes, between the frontiersmen as they formed young States, and the Central Government representing the old States, were entirelynew, and were ill-understood by both parties. Truths which all citizenshave now grown to accept as axiomatic were then seen clearly only by thevery greatest men, and by most others were seen dimly, if at all. Whatis now regarded as inevitable and proper was then held as somethingabnormal, unnatural, and greatly to be dreaded. The men engaged inbuilding new commonwealths did not, as yet, understand that they owedthe Union as much as did the dwellers in the old States. They were aptto let liberty become mere anarchy and license, to talk extravagantlyabout their rights while ignoring their duties, and to rail at theweakness of the Central Government while at the same time opposing withfoolish violence every effort to make it stronger. On the other hand, the people of the long-settled country found difficulty in heartilyaccepting the idea that the new communities, as they sprang up in theforest, were entitled to stand exactly on a level with the old, not onlyas regards their own rights, but as regards the right to shape thedestiny of the Union itself. 

 The Union still Inchoate. 

The Union was as yet imperfect. The jangling colonies had been weldedtogether, after a fashion, in the slow fire of the Revolutionary war;but the old lines of cleavage were still distinctly marked. The greatstruggle had been of incalculable benefit to all Americans. Under itsstress they had begun to develop a national type of thought andcharacter. Americans now held in common memories which they shared withno one else; for they held ever in mind the feats of a dozen crowdedyears. Theirs was the history of all that had been done by theContinental Congress and the Continental armies; theirs the memory ofthe toil and the suffering and the splendid ultimate triumph. Theycherished in common the winged words of their statesmen, the edged deedsof their soldiers; they yielded to the spell of mighty names whichsounded alien to all men save themselves. But though the successfulstruggle had laid deep the foundations of a new nation, it had also ofnecessity stirred and developed many of the traits most hostile toassured national life. All civil wars loosen the bands of orderlyliberty, and leave in their train disorder and evil. Hence those whocause them must rightly be held guilty of the gravest wrong-doing unlessthey are not only pure of purpose, but sound of judgment, and unless theresult shows their wisdom. The Revolution had left behind it among manymen love of liberty, mingled with lofty national feeling and broadpatriotism; but to other men it seemed that the chief lessons taught hadbeen successful resistance to authority, jealousy of the centralGovernment, and intolerance of all restraint. According as one or theother of these mutually hostile sets of sentiments prevailed, the actsof the Revolutionary leaders were to stand justified or condemned in thelight of the coming years. As yet the success had only been in tearingdown; there remained the harder and all-important task of building up. 

 Task of the Nation Builders. 

This task of building up was accomplished, and the acts of the men ofthe Revolution were thus justified. It was the after result of theRevolution, not the Revolution itself, which gave to the governmentalexperiment inaugurated by the Second Continental Congress its unique andlasting value. It was this result which marks most clearly thedifference between the careers of the English-speaking andSpanish-speaking peoples on this continent. The wise statesmanshiptypified by such men as Washington and Marshall, Hamilton, Jay, JohnAdams, and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, prevailed over the spirit ofseparatism and anarchy. Seven years after the war ended, theConstitution went into effect, and the United States became in truth anation. Had we not thus become a nation, had the separatists won theday, and our country become the seat of various antagonistic States andconfederacies, then the Revolution by which we won liberty andindependence would have been scarcely more memorable or noteworthy thanthe wars which culminated in the separation of the Spanish-Americancolonies from Spain; for we would thereby have proved that we did notdeserve either liberty or independence. 

 Over-Mastering Importance of the Union. 

The Revolutionary war itself had certain points of similarity with thestruggles of which men like Bolivar were the heroes; where the paralleltotally fails is in what followed. There were features in which thecampaigns of the Mexican and South American insurgent leaders resembledat least the partisan warfare so often waged by American Revolutionarygenerals; but with the deeds of the great constructive statesman of theUnited States there is nothing in the career of any Spanish-Americancommunity to compare. It was the power to build a solid and permanentUnion, the power to construct a mighty nation out of the wreck of acrumbling confederacy, which drew a sharp line between the Americans ofthe north and the Spanish-speaking races of the south. 

In their purposes and in the popular sentiment to which they haveappealed, our separatist leaders of every generation have borne anominous likeness to the horde of dictators and half-military, half-political adventurers who for three quarters of a century havewrought such harm in the lands between the Argentine and Mexico; but themen who brought into being and preserved the Union have had no compeersin Southern America. The North American colonies wrested theirindependence from Great Britain as the colonies of South America wrestedtheirs from Spain; but whereas the United States grew with giant stridesinto a strong and orderly nation, Spanish America has remained splitinto a dozen turbulent states, and has become a byword for anarchy andweakness. 

 The Separatist Feeling. 

The separatist feeling has at times been strong in almost every sectionof the Union, although in some regions it has been much stronger than inothers. Calhoun and Pickering, Jefferson and Gouverneur Morris, WendellPhillips and William Taney, Aaron Burr and Jefferson Davis--these andmany other leaders of thought and action, east and west, north andsouth, at different periods of the nation's growth, and at differentstages of their own careers, have, for various reasons, and with widelyvarying purity of motive, headed or joined in separatist movements. Manyof these men were actuated by high-minded, though narrow, patriotism;and those who, in the culminating catastrophe of all the separatistagitations, appealed to the sword, proved the sincerity of theirconvictions by their resolute courage and self-sacrifice. Neverthelessthey warred against the right, and strove mightily to bring about thedownfall and undoing of the nation. 

 Evils of the Disunion Movements. 

The men who brought on and took part in the disunion movements weremoved sometimes by good and sometimes by bad motives; but even whentheir motives were disinterested and their purposes pure, and even whenthey had received much provocation, they must be adjudged as lacking thewisdom, the foresight, and the broad devotion to all the land over whichthe flag floats, without which no statesman can rank as really great. The enemies of the Union were the enemies of America and of mankind, whose success would have plunged their country into an abyss of shameand misery, and would have arrested for generations the upward movementof their race. 

 Eastern Jealousy of the Young West. 

Yet, evil though the separatist movements were, they were at timesimperfectly justified by the spirit of sectional distrust and bitternessrife in portions of the country which at the moment were themselvesloyal to the Union. This was especially true of the early separatistmovements in the West. Unfortunately the attitude towards the Westernersof certain portions of the population in the older States, andespecially in the northeastern States, was one of unreasoning jealousyand suspicion; and though this mental attitude rarely crystallized intohostile deeds, its very existence, and the knowledge that it did exist, embittered the men of the West. Moreover the people among whom thesefeelings were strongest were, unfortunately, precisely those who on thequestions of the Union and the Constitution showed the broadest and mostfar-seeing statesmanship. New England, the towns of the middle Statesand Maryland, the tidewater region of South Carolina, and certain partsof Virginia were the seats of the soundest political thought of the day. The men who did this sane, wholesome political thinking were quite rightin scorning and condemning the crude unreason, often silly, oftenvicious, which characterized so much of the political thought of theiropponents. The strength of these opponents was largely derived from theignorance and suspicion of the raw country districts, and from the sourjealousy with which the backwoodsmen regarded the settled regions of theseaboard. 

But when these sound political thinkers permitted their distrust ofcertain sections of the country to lead them into doing injustice tothose sections, they in their turn deserved the same condemnation whichshould be meted to so many of their political foes. When they allowedtheir judgment to become so warped by their dissatisfaction with thetraits inevitably characteristic of the earlier stages of frontierdevelopment that they became opposed to all extension of the frontier;when they allowed their liking for the well-ordered society of their owndistricts to degenerate into indifference to or dislike of the growth ofthe United States towards continental greatness; then they themselvessank into the position of men who in cold selfishness sought to mar themagnificent destiny of their own people. 

 Blindness of the New Englanders as Regards the West. 

In the northeastern States, and in New England especially, this feelingshowed itself for two generations after the close of the RevolutionaryWar. On the whole the New Englanders have exerted a more profound andwholesome influence upon the development of our common country than hasever been exerted by any other equally numerous body of our people. Theyhave led the nation in the path of civil liberty and sound governmentaladministration. But too often they have viewed the nation's growth andgreatness from a narrow and provincial standpoint, and have grudginglyacquiesced in, rather than led the march towards, continental supremacy. In shaping the nation's policy for the future their sense of historicperspective seemed imperfect. They could not see the all-importance ofthe valley of the Ohio, or of the valley of the Columbia, to theRepublic of the years to come. The value of a county in Maine offset intheir eyes the value of these vast, empty regions. Indeed, in the daysimmediately succeeding the Revolution, their attitude towards thegrowing West was worse than one of mere indifference; it was one ofalarm and dislike. They for the moment adopted towards the West aposition not wholly unlike that which England had held towards theAmerican colonies as a whole. They came dangerously near repeating, intheir feeling towards their younger brethren on the Ohio, the veryblunder committed in reference to themselves by their elder brethren inBritain. For some time they seemed, like the British, unable to graspthe grandeur of their race's imperial destiny. They hesitated to throwthemselves with hearty enthusiasm into the task of building a nationwith a continent as its base. They rather shrank from the idea asimplying a lesser weight of their own section in the nation; not yetunderstanding that to an American the essential thing was the growth andwell-being of America, while the relative importance of the localitywhere he dwelt was a matter of small moment. 

 Eastern Efforts to Shear the West's Strength. 

The extreme representatives of this northeastern sectionalism not onlyobjected to the growth of the West at the time now under consideration, but even avowed a desire to work it harm, by shutting the Mississippi, so as to benefit the commerce of the Atlantic States--a manifestation ofcynical and selfish disregard of the rights of their fellow-countrymenquite as flagrant as any piece of tyranny committed or proposed by KingGeorge's ministers in reference to America. These intolerant extremistsnot only opposed the admission of the young western States into theUnion, but at a later date actually announced that the annexation by theUnited States of vast territories beyond the Mississippi offered justcause for the secession of the northeastern States. Even those who didnot take such an advanced ground felt an unreasonable dread lest theWest might grow to overtop the East in power. In their desire to preventthis (which has long since happened without a particle of damageresulting to the East), they proposed to establish in the Constitutionthat the representatives from the West should never exceed in numberthose from the East, --a proviso which would not have been merely futile, for it would quite properly have been regarded by the West asunforgivable. 

A curious feature of the way many honest men looked at the West wastheir inability to see how essentially transient were some of thecharacteristics to which they objected. Thus they were alarmed at theturbulence and the lawless shortcomings of various kinds which grew outof the conditions of frontier settlement and sparse population. Theylooked with anxious foreboding to the time when the turbulent andlawless people would be very numerous, and would form a dense andpowerful population; failing to see that in exact proportion as thepopulation became dense, the conditions which caused the qualities towhich they objected would disappear. Even the men who had too much goodsense to share these fears, even men as broadly patriotic as Jay, couldnot realize the extreme rapidity of western growth. Kentucky andTennessee grew much faster than any of the old frontier colonies hadever grown; and from sheer lack of experience, eastern statesmen couldnot realize that this rapidity of growth made the navigation of theMississippi a matter of immediate and not of future interest to theWest. 

 Failure to Perceive Truths Now Regarded as Self-Evident. 

In short, these good people were learning with reluctance and difficultyto accept as necessary certain facts which we regard as part of theorder of our political nature. We look at territorial expansion, and theadmission of new States, as part of a process as natural as it isdesirable. To our forefathers the process was novel, and, in some of itsfeatures, repugnant. Many of them could not divest themselves of thefeeling that the old States ought to receive more consideration than thenew; whereas nowadays it would never occur to anyone that Pennsylvaniaand Georgia ought to stand either above or below California and Montana. It is an inestimable boon to all four States to be in the Union, butthis is because the citizens of all of them are on a common footing. Ifthe new commonwealths in the Rocky Mountains and on the Pacific slopewere not cordially accepted by the original Thirteen States as havingexactly the same rights and privileges of every kind, it would be betterfor them to stand alone. As a matter of fact, we have become soaccustomed to the idea of the equality of the different States, that itnever enters our heads to conceive of the possibility of its beingotherwise. The feeling in its favor is so genuine and universal that weare not even conscious that it exists. Nobody dreams of treating thefact that the new commonwealths are offshoots of the old as furnishinggrounds for any discrimination in reference to them, one way or theother. There still exist dying jealousies between different States andsections, but this particular feeling does not enter into them in anyway whatsoever. 

 The East Distrusts the Trans-Alleghany People. 

At the time when Kentucky was struggling for statehood, this feeling, though it had been given its death-blow by the success of theRevolution, still lingered here and there on the Atlantic coast. It wasmanifest in the attitude of many prominent people--the leaders in theircommunities--towards the new commonwealths growing up beyond theAlleghanies. Had this intolerant sectional feeling ever prevailed andbeen adopted as the policy of the Atlantic States, the West would haverevolted, and would have been right in revolting. But the manifestationsof this sectionalism proved abortive; the broad patriotism of leaderslike Washington prevailed. In the actual event the East did full andfree justice to the West. In consequence we are now one nation. 

 Separatist and Disunion Feeling in the West. 

While many of the people on the eastern seaboard thus took anindefensible position in reference to the trans-Alleghany settlements, in the period immediately succeeding the Revolution, there were largebodies of the population of these same settlements, including very manyof their popular leaders, whose own attitude towards the Union was, ifanything, even more blameworthy. They were clamorous about their rights, and were not unready to use veiled threats of disunion when they deemedthese rights infringed; but they showed little appreciation of their ownduties to the Union. For certain of the positions which they assumed noexcuse can be offered. They harped continually on the feebleness of theFederal authorities, and the inability of these authorities to do themjustice or offer them adequate protection against the Indian and theSpaniard; yet they bitterly opposed the adoption of the veryConstitution which provided a strong and stable Federal Government, andturned the weak confederacy, despised at home and abroad, into one ofthe great nations of the earth. They showed little self-control, littlewillingness to wait with patience until it was possible to remedy any ofthe real or fancied wrongs of which they complained. They made noallowance for the difficulties so plentifully strewn in the path of theFederal authorities. They clamored for prompt and effective action, andyet clamored just as loudly against the men who sought to create anational executive with power to take this prompt and effective action. They demanded that the United States wrest from the British the LakePosts, and from the Spaniards the navigation of the Mississippi. Yetthey seemed incapable of understanding that if they separated from theUnion they would thereby forfeit all chance of achieving the verypurposes they had in view, because they would then certainly be at themercy of Britain, and probably, at least for some time, at the mercy ofSpain also. They opposed giving the United States the necessary civiland military power, although it was only by the possession and exerciseof such power that it would be possible to secure for the westernerswhat they wished. In all human probability, the whole country round theGreat Lakes would still be British territory, and the mouth of theMississippi still in the hands of some European power, had the folly ofthe separatists won the day and had the West been broken up intoindependent States. 

 Shortcomings of the Frontiersmen. 

These shortcomings were not special or peculiar to the frontiersmen ofthe Ohio valley at the close of the eighteenth century. All ourfrontiersmen have betrayed a tendency towards them at times, though theexhibitions of this tendency have grown steadily less and less decided. In Vermont, during the years between the close of the Revolution and theadoption of the Constitution, the state of affairs was very much what itwas in Kentucky at the same time. [Footnote: _Pennsylvania Magazine ofHistory and Biography_, xi. , No. 2, pp. 160-165, Letters of Levi Allen, Ethan Allen, and others, from 1787 to 1790. ] In each territory there wasacute friction with a neighboring State. In each there was a small knotof men who wished the community to keep out of the new American nation, and to enter into some sort of alliance with a European nation, Englandin one case, Spain in the other. In each there was a considerable butfluctuating separatist party, desirous that the territory should becomean independent nation on its own account. In each case the separatistmovements failed, and the final triumph lay with the men of broadlynational ideas, so that both Kentucky and Vermont became States of oneindissoluble Union. 

 Final Triumph of the Union Party. 

This final triumph of the Union party in these first-formed frontierStates was fraught with immeasurable good for them and for the wholenation of which they became parts. It established a precedent for theaction of all the other States that sprang into being as the frontierrolled westward. It decided that the interior of North America shouldform part of one great Republic, and should not be parcelled out among acrowd of English-speaking Uruguays and Ecquadors, powerful only todamage one another, and helpless to exact respect from alien foes or tokeep order in their own households. It vastly increased the significanceof the outcome of the Revolution, for it decided that its after-effectsshould be felt throughout the entire continent, not merely in the way ofexample, but by direct impress. The creation of a nation stretchingalong the Atlantic seaboard was of importance in itself, but theimportance was immensely increased when once it was decided that thenation should cover a region larger than all Europe. 

 Excuses for Some of the Separatists. 

While giving unlimited praise to the men so clearsighted, and of suchhigh thought, that from the beginning they foresaw the importance of theUnion, and strove to include all the West therein, we must beware ofblaming overmuch those whose vision was less acute. The experiment ofthe Union was as yet inchoate; its benefits were prospective; andloyalty to it was loyalty to a splendid idea the realization of whichlay in the future rather than in the present. All honor must be awardedto the men who under such conditions could be loyal to so high an ideal;but we must not refuse to see the many strong and admirable qualities insome of the men who looked less keenly into the future. It would be merefolly [Footnote: R. T. Durrett, "Centenary of Kentucky, " 64. ] to judge aman who in 1787 was lukewarm or even hostile to the Union by the samestandard we should use in testing his son's grandson a century later. Finally, where a man's general course was one of devotion to the Union, it is easy to forgive him some momentary lapse, due to a misconceptionon his part of the real needs of the hour, or to passing but intenseirritation at some display of narrow indifference to the rights of hissection by the people of some other section. Patrick Henry himself madeone slip when he opposed the adoption of the Federal Constitution; butthis does not at all offset the services he rendered our common countryboth before and afterwards. Every statesman makes occasional errors; andthe leniency of judgment needed by Patrick Henry, and needed far more byEthan Allen, Samuel Adams, and George Clinton, must be extended tofrontier leaders for whose temporary coldness to the Union there wasmuch greater excuse. 

 Characteristics of the Frontiersmen. 

When we deal, not with the leading statesmen of the frontiercommunities, but with the ordinary frontier folk themselves, there isneed to apply the same tests used in dealing with the rude, strongpeoples of by-gone ages. The standard by which international, and evendomestic, morality is judged, must vary for different countries underwidely different conditions, for exactly the same reasons that it mustvary for different periods of the world's history. We cannot expect therefined virtues of a highly artificial civilization from frontiersmenwho for generations have been roughened and hardened by the same kind offerocious wilderness toil that once fell to the lot of their remotebarbarian ancestors. 

The Kentuckian, from his clearing in the great forest, looked with boldand greedy eyes at the Spanish possessions, much as Markman, Goth, andFrank had once peered through their marshy woods at the Roman dominions. He possessed the virtues proper to a young and vigorous race; he wastrammelled by few misgivings as to the rights of the men whose lands hecoveted; he felt that the future was for the stout-hearted, and not forthe weakling. He was continually hampered by the advancing civilizationof which he was the vanguard, and of which his own sous were destined toform an important part. He rebelled against the restraints imposed byhis own people behind him exactly as he felt impelled to attack thealien peoples in front of him. He did not care very much what form theattack took. On the whole he preferred that it should be avowed war, whether waged under the stars and stripes or under some flag new-raisedby himself and his fellow-adventurers of the border. In default of sucha struggle, he was ready to serve under alien banners, either those ofsome nation at the moment hostile to Spain, or else those of someinsurgent Spanish leader. But he was also perfectly willing to obtain bydiplomacy what was denied by force of arms; and if the United Statescould not or would not gain his ends for him in this manner, then hewished to make use of his own power. He was eager to enter in and takethe land, even at the cost of becoming for the time being a more or lessnominal vassal of Spain; and he was ready to promise, in return for thisprivilege of settlement, to form a barrier state against the furtherencroachment of his fellows. When fettered by the checks imposed by theCentral Government, he not only threatened to revolt and establish anindependent government of his own, but even now and then darkly hintedthat he would put this government under the protection of the verySpanish power at whose cost he always firmly intended to take his ownstrides towards greatness. As a matter of fact, whether he firstestablished himself in the Spanish possessions as an outright enemy, oras a nominal friend and subject, the result was sure to be the same inthe end. The only difference was that it took place sooner in one eventthan in the other. In both cases alike the province thus acquired wascertain finally to be wrested from Spain. 

 Spanish Dread of the Westerners. 

The Spaniards speedily recognized in the Americans the real menace totheir power in Florida, Louisiana, and Mexico. They did not, however, despair of keeping them at bay. The victories won by Galvez over boththe British regulars and the Tory American settlers were fresh in theirminds; and they felt they had a chance of success even in a contest ofarms. But the weapons upon which they relied most were craft andintrigue. If the Union could be broken up, or the jealousies between theStates and sections fanned into flame, there would be little chance of asuccessful aggressive movement by the Americans of any one commonwealth. The Spanish authorities sought to achieve these ends by every species ofbribery and corrupt diplomacy. They placed even more reliance upon thewar-like confederacies of the Creeks, Cherokees, Choctaws, andChickasaws, thrust in between themselves and the frontier settlements;and while protesting to the Americans with smooth treachery that theywere striving to keep the Indians at peace, they secretly incited themto hostilities, and furnished them with arms and munitions of war. TheBritish held the Lake Posts by open exhibition of strength, though theytoo were not above conniving at treachery and allowing their agentscovertly to urge the red tribes to resist the American advance; but theSpaniards, by preference, trusted to fraud rather than to force. 

 Negotiations between Spain and the United States Concerning the Free Navigation of the Mississippi. 

In the last resort the question of the navigation of the Mississippi hadto be decided between the Governments of Spain and the United States;and it was chiefly through the latter that the westerners could, indirectly, but most powerfully, make their influence felt, in the longand intricate negotiations carried on towards the close of theRevolutionary War between the representatives of Spain, France, and theUnited States, Spain had taken high ground in reference to this andto all other western questions, and France had supported her in herdesire to exclude the Americans from all rights in the vast regionsbeyond the Alleghanies. At that time the delegates from the southern, noless than from the northern, States, in the Continental Congress, showedmuch weakness in yielding to this attitude of France and Spain. On themotion of those from Virginia all the delegates with the exception ofthose from North Carolina voted to instruct Jay, then Minister to Spain, to surrender outright the free navigation of the Mississippi. Later, when he was one of the Commissioners to treat for peace, theypractically repeated the blunder by instructing Jay and his colleaguesto assent to whatever France proposed. With rare wisdom and courage Jayrepudiated these instructions. The chief credit for the resultingdiplomatic triumph, almost as essential as the victory at Yorktownitself to our national well-being, belongs to him, and by his conduct helaid the men of the West under an obligation which they neveracknowledged during his lifetime. [Footnote: It is not the least of MannButler's good points that in his "History" he does full justice to Jay. Another Kentuckian, Mr. Thomas Marshall Green, has recently done thesame in his "Spanish Conspiracy. "]

 Jay and Gardoqui. 

Shortly after his return to America he was made Secretary of ForeignAffairs, and was serving as such when, in the spring of 1785, Don DiegoGardoqui arrived in Philadelphia, bearing a commission from his CatholicMajesty to Congress. At this time the brilliant and restless soldierGalvez had left Louisiana and become Viceroy of Mexico, thus removingfrom Louisiana the one Spaniard whose energy and military capacity wouldhave rendered him formidable to the Americans in the event of war. Hewas succeeded in the government of the creole province by Don EstevanMiro, already colonel of the Louisiana regiment. 

Gardoqui was not an able man, although with some capacity for a certainkind of intrigue. He was a fit representative of the Spanish court, withits fundamental weakness and its impossible pretensions. He entirelymisunderstood the people with whom he had to deal, and whether he was orwas not himself personally honest, he based his chief hopes of successin dealing with others upon their supposed susceptibility to theinfluence of corruption and dishonorable intrigue. He and Jay could cometo no agreement, and the negotiations were finally broken off. Beforethis happened, in the fall of 1786, Jay in entire good faith had taken astep which aroused furious anger in the West. [Footnote: State Dep. MSS. , No. 81, vol. Ii. , pp. 193, 241, 285, etc. ; Reports of Sec'y JohnJay. ] Like so many other statesmen of the day, he did not realize howfast Kentucky had grown, and deemed the navigation question one whichwould not be of real importance to the West for two decades to come. Heabsolutely refused to surrender our right to navigate the Mississippi;but, not regarding it as of immediate consequence, he proposed both toCongress and Gardoqui that in consideration of certain concessions bySpain we should agree to forbear to exercise this right for twenty ortwenty-five years. The delegates from the northern States assented toJay's views; those from the southern States strongly opposed them. In1787, after a series of conferences between Jay and Gardoqui, which cameto naught, the Spaniard definitely refused to entertain Jay'sproposition. Even had he not refused nothing could have been done, forunder the confederation a treaty had to be ratified by the votes of nineStates, and there were but seven which supported the policy of Jay. 

 Washington and Lee agree with Jay. 

Unquestionably Jay showed less than his usual far-sightedness in thismatter, but it is only fair to remember that his views were shared bysome of the greatest of American statesmen, even from Virginia. "Lighthorse Harry" Lee substantially agreed with them. Washington, withhis customary broad vision and keen insight, realized the danger ofexciting the turbulent Westerners by any actual treaty which might seemto cut off their hope of traffic down the Mississippi; but he advocatedpursuing what was, except for defining the time limit, substantially thesame policy under a different name, recommending that the United Statesshould await events and for the moment neither relinquish nor push theirclaim to free navigation of the great river. [Footnote: "The SpanishConspiracy, " Thos. Marshall Green, p. 31. ] Even in Kentucky itself a fewof the leading men were of the opinion that the right of free navigationwould be of little real benefit during the lifetime of the existinggeneration. [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , Madison Papers, Caleb Wallaceto Madison, Nov. 21, 1787. Wallace himself shared this view. ] It was nodiscredit to Jay to hold the views he did when they were shared byintelligent men of affairs who were actually in the district mostconcerned. He was merely somewhat slow in abandoning opinions which halfa dozen years before were held generally throughout the Union. Nevertheless it was fortunate for the country that the southern States, headed by Virginia, were so resolute in their opposition, and thatGardoqui, a fit representative of his government, declined to agree to atreaty which if ratified would have benefited Spain, and would havebrought undreamed of evil upon the United States. Jefferson, to hiscredit, was very hostile to the proposition. As a statesman Jeffersonstood for many ideas which in their actual working have provedpernicious to our country, but he deserves well of all Americans, in thefirst place because of his services to science, and in the next place, what was of far more importance, because of his steadfast friendship forthe great West, and his appreciation of its magnificent future. 

 Methods of the River Trade. 

As soon as the Revolutionary War came to an end adventurers in Kentuckybegan to trade down the Mississippi. Often these men were merchants byprofession, but this was not necessary, for on the frontier men shiftedfrom one business to another very readily. A farmer of bold heart andmoney-making temper might, after selling his crop, build a flatboat, load it with flour, bacon, salt, beef, and tobacco, and start for NewOrleans. [Footnote: McAfee MSS. ] He faced dangers from the waters, fromthe Indians, from lawless whites of his own race, and from the Spaniardsthemselves. The New Orleans customs officials were corrupt, [Footnote:Do. VOL III-8] and the regulations very absurd and oppressive. Thepolicy of the Spanish home government in reference to the trade wasunsettled and wavering, and the attitude towards it of the Governors ofLouisiana changed with their varying interests, beliefs, caprices, andapprehensions. In consequence the conditions of the trade were souncertain that to follow it was like indulging in a lottery venture. Special privileges were allowed certain individuals who had made privatetreaties with, or had bribed, the Spanish officials; and others wereenabled to smuggle their goods in under various pretences, and byvarious devices; while the traders who were without such corruptinfluence or knowledge found this river commerce hazardous in theextreme. It was small wonder that the Kentuckians should chafe undersuch arbitrary and unequal restraints, and should threaten to breakthrough them by force. [Footnote: Va. State Papers, iv. , 630. ]

The most successful traders were of course those who contrived toestablish relations with some one in New Orleans, or perhaps in Natchez, who would act as their agent or correspondent. The profits from asuccessful trip made amends for much disaster, and enabled the trader torepeat his adventure on a larger scale. Thus, among the papers of GeorgeRogers Clark there is a letter from one of his friends who was living inKaskaskia in 1784, and was engaged in the river trade. [Footnote: DraperMSS. Letter of John Williams, June 20, 1784. ] The letter was evidentlyto the writer's father, beginning "My dear daddy. " It describes how hehad started on one trip to New Orleans, but had been wrecked; how, nothing daunted, he had tried again with a cargo of forty-two beeves, which he sold in New Orleans for what he deemed the good sum of $738;and how he was about to try his luck once more, buying a bateau andthirty bushels of salt, enough to pickle two hundred beeves. 

 Risks of the Traders. 

The traders never could be certain when their boats would be seized andtheir goods confiscated by some Spanish officer; nor when they startedcould they tell whether they would or would not find when they reachedNew Orleans that the Spanish authorities had declared the navigationclosed. In 1783 and the early part of 1784 traders were descending theMississippi without overt resistance from the Spaniards, and wereselling their goods at a profit in New Orleans. In midsummer of 1784 thenavigation of the river was suddenly and rigorously closed. In 1785 itwas again partially opened; so that we find traders purchasing flour inLouisville at twenty-four shillings a hundred-weight, and carrying itdown stream to sell in New Orleans at thirty dollars a barrel. By summerof the same year the Spaniards were again shutting off traffic, being ingreat panic over a rumored piratical advance by the frontiersmen, tooppose which they were mustering their troops and making ready theirartillery. [Footnote: Draper MSS. J. Girault to William Clark, July 22, 1784; May 23, 1785; July 2, 1785; certificate of French merchantstestified to by Miro in 1785. ]

Among the articles the frontier traders received for their goods horsesheld a high place. [Footnote: _Do_. Girault to Clark July 9, 1784. ] Thehorse trade was risky, as in driving them up to Kentucky many weredrowned, or played out, or were stolen by the Indians; but as pickedhorses and mares cost but twenty dollars a head in Louisiana and weresold at a hundred dollars a head in the United States, the losses had tobe very large to eat up the profits. 

 Creole Traders. 

The French Creoles, who carried on much of the river trade and who livedsome under the American and some under the Spanish flag, of coursesuffered as much as either Americans or Spaniards. Often these Creolesloaded their canoes with a view to trading with the Indians, rather thanat New Orleans. Whether this was so or not, those officially in theservice of the two powers soon grew as zealous in oppressing one anotheras in oppressing men of different nationalities. Thus in 1787 aVincennes Creole, having loaded his pirogue with goods to the value oftwo thousand dollars, sent it down to trade with the Indians near theChickasaw Bluffs. Here it was seized by the Creole commandant of theSpanish post at the Arkansas. The goods were confiscated and the menimprisoned. The owner appealed in vain to the commandant, who told himthat he was ordered by the Spanish authorities to seize all persons whotrafficked on the Mississippi below the mouth of the Ohio, inasmuch asSpain claimed both banks of the river; and when he made his way to NewOrleans and appealed to Miro he was summarily dismissed with a warningthat a repetition of the offence would ensure his being sent to themines of Brazil. [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , No. 150 vol. Iii. , p. 519. Letter of Joseph St. Mary, Vincennes, August 23, 1788. ]

 Retaliation of the Frontiersmen. 

Outrages of this kind, continually happening alike to Americans and toCreoles under American protection, could not have been tamely borne byany self-respecting people. The fierce and hardy frontiersmen weregoaded to anger by them, and were ready to take part in, or at least toconnive at, any piece of lawless retaliation. Such an act of revenge wascommitted by Clark at Vincennes, as one result of his ill-starredexpedition against the Wabash Indians in 1786. As already said, when hismen mutinied and refused to march against the Indians, most of themreturned home; but he kept enough to garrison the Vincennes fort. Unpaid, and under no regular authority, these men plundered the Frenchinhabitants and were a terror to the peaceable, as well as to thelawless, Indians. Doubtless Clark desired to hold them in readiness asmuch for a raid on the Spanish possessions as for a defence against theIndians. Nevertheless they did some service in preventing any actualassault on the place by the latter, while they prevented any possibleuprising by the French, though the harassed Creoles, under this addedburden of military lawlessness, in many instances accepted the offersmade them by the Spaniards and passed over to the French villages on thewest side of the Mississippi. 

 Clark Seizes a Spanish Boat. 

Before Clark left Vincennes, he summoned a court of his militiaofficers, and got them to sanction the seizure of a boat loaded withvaluable goods, the property of a Creole trader from the Spanishpossessions. The avowed reason for this act was revenge for the wrongsperpetrated in like manner by the Spaniards on the American traders; andthis doubtless was the controlling motive in Clark's mind; but it wasalso true that the goods thus confiscated were of great service to Clarkin paying his mutinous and irregularly employed troops, and that thisfact, too, had influence with him. 

 The Backwoodsmen Approve Clark's Deed. 

The more violent and lawless among the backwoodsmen of Kentucky wereloud in exultation over this deed. They openly declared that it was notmerely an act of retaliation on the Spaniards, but also a warning that, if they did not let the Americans trade down the river, they would notbe allowed to trade up it; and that the troops who garrisoned Vincennesoffered an earnest of what the frontiersmen would do in the way ofraising an army of conquest if the Spaniards continued to wrong them. [Footnote: Draper MSS. Minutes of Court-Martial, Summoned by GeorgeRogers Clark, at Vincennes, October 18, 1786. ] They defied theContinental Congress and the seaboard States to interfere with them. They threatened to form an independent government, if the United Statesdid not succor and countenance them. They taunted the eastern men withknowing as little of the West as Great Britain knew of America. Theyeven threatened that they would, if necessary, re-join the Britishdominions, and boasted that, if united to Canada, they would some day beable themselves to conquer the Atlantic Commonwealths. [Footnote: StateDept. MSS. Reports of John Jay, No. 124, vol. Iii. , pp. 31, 37, 44, 48, 53, 56, etc. ]

Both the Federal and the Virginia authorities were much alarmed andangered, less at the insult to Spain than at the threat of establishinga separate government in the West. 

 The Government Authorities Disapprove. 

From the close of the revolution the Virginian government had beenworried by the separatist movements in Kentucky. In 1784 two"stirrers-up of sedition" had been fined and imprisoned, and an adherentof the Virginian government, writing from Kentucky, mentioned that oneof the worst effects of the Indian inroads was to confine the settlersto the stations, which were hot-beds of sedition and discord, besidesexcuses for indolence and rags. [Footnote: Va. State Papers, III. , pp. 585, 589. ] The people who distrusted the frontiersmen complained thatamong them were many knaves and outlaws from every State in the Union, who flew to the frontier as to a refuge; while even those who did notshare this distrust admitted that the fact that the people in Kentuckycame from many different States helped to make them discontented withVirginia. [Footnote: Draper MSS. Clark Papers, Walter Darrell to WilliamFleming, April 14, 1783. ]

 Georgia and the Frontiersmen

In Georgia the conditions were much as they were on the Ohio. Georgiawas a frontier State, with the ambitions and the lawlessness of thefrontier; and the backwoodsmen felt towards her as they did towards noother member of the old Thirteen. Soon after Clark established hisgarrison in Vincennes, various inflammatory letters were circulated inthe western country, calling for action against both the CentralGovernment and the Spaniards, and appealing for sympathy and aid both tothe Georgians and to Sevier's insurrectionary State of Franklin. Amongothers, a Kentuckian wrote from Louisville to Georgia, bitterlycomplaining about the failure of the United States to open theMississippi; denouncing the Federal Government in extravagant language, and threatening hostilities against the Spaniards, and a revolt againstthe Continental Congress. [Footnote: _Do_. , Letter of Thomas Green tothe Governor of Georgia, December 23, 1786. ] This letter wasintercepted, and, of course, increased still more the suspicion feltabout Clark's motives, for though Clark denied that he had actually seenthe letter, he was certainly cognizant of its purport, and approved themovement which lay behind it. [Footnote: Green's "Spanish Conspiracy, "p. 74. ] One of his fellow Kentuckians, writing about him at this time, remarks: "Clark is playing hell... Eternally drunk and yet full ofdesign. I told him he would be hanged. He laughed, and said he wouldtake refuge among the Indians. " [Footnote: Va. State Papers, IV. , 202, condensed. ]

 Public disavowal of Clark's Actions. 

The Governor of Virginia issued a proclamation disavowing all Clark'sacts. [Footnote: Draper MSS. Proclamation of Edmund Randolph, March 4, 1787. ] A committee of the Kentucky Convention, which included theleaders of Kentucky's political thought and life, examined into thematter, [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , No. 71, vol. Ii. , p. 503. Report ofDec. 19, 1786. ] and gave Clark's version of the facts, but reprobatedand disowned his course. Some of the members of this Convention wereafterwards identified with various separatist movements, and skirted thefield of perilous intrigue with a foreign power; but they recognized theimpossibility of countenancing such mere buccaneering lawlessness asClark's; and not only joined with their colleagues in denouncing it tothe Virginia Government, but warned the latter that Clark's habits weresuch as to render him unfit longer to be trusted with work ofimportance. [Footnote: Green, p. 78. ]

 Experience of a Cumberland Trader. 

The rougher spirits, all along the border of course sympathized withClark. In this same year 1786 the goods and boats of a trader from theCumberland district were seized and confiscated by the Spanishcommandant at Natchez. [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , No. 124, vol. Iii. Papers transmitted by Blount, Hawkins, and Ashe, March 29, 1787, including deposition of Thomas Amis, Nov 13, 1786. Letter fromFayettsville, Dec. 29, 1786, etc. ] At first the CumberlandIndian-fighters determined to retaliate in kind, at no matter what cost;but the wiser among their leaders finally "persuaded them not to imitatetheir friends of Kentucky, and to wait patiently until some advice couldbe received from Congress. " One of these wise leaders, a representativefrom the Cumberland district in the North Carolina legislature, inwriting to the North Carolina delegates to the Continental Congress, after dwelling on the necessity of acquiring the right to the navigationof the Mississippi, added with sound common-sense: "You may depend onour exertions to keep all things quiet, and we agree entirely with youthat if our people are once let loose there will be no stopping them, and that acts of retaliation poison the mind and give a licentiousnessto manners that can with great difficulty be restrained. " Washington wasright in his belief that in this business there was as much to be fearedfrom the impetuous turbulence of the backwoodsmen as from the hostilityof the Spaniards. 

 Wrath over Jay's Negotiations. 

The news of Jay's attempted negotiations with Gardoqui, distorted andtwisted, arrived right on top of these troubles, and threw the alreadyexcited backwoods men into a frenzy. There was never any real dangerthat Jay's proposition would be adopted; but the Westerners did not knowthis. In all the considerable settlements on the western waters, committees of correspondence were elected to remonstrate and petitionCongress against any agreement to close the Mississippi. [Footnote:Madison MSS. Letter of Caleb Wallace, Nov. 12, 1787. ] Even those who hadno sympathy with the separatist movement warned Congress that if anysuch agreement were entered into it would probably entail the loss ofthe western country. [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , No. 56. Symmes to thePresident of Congress, May 3, 1787. ]

 Inconsistencies of the Frontiersmen. 

There was justification for the original excitement; there was nonewhatever for its continuance after Jay's final report to Congress, inApril, 1787, [Footnote: W. H. Trescott, "Diplomatic History of theAdministrations of Washington and Adams, " p. 46. ] and after thepublication by Congress of its resolve never to abandon its claim to theMississippi. Jay in this report took what was unquestionably therational position. He urged that the United States was undoubtedly inthe right; and that it should either insist upon a treaty with Spain, bywhich all conflicting claims would be reconciled, or else simply claimthe right, and if Spain refused to grant it promptly declare war. 

So far he was emphatically right. His cool and steadfast insistence onour rights, and his clearsighted recognition of the proper way to obtainthem, contrasted well with the mixed turbulence and foolishness of theWesterners who denounced him. They refused to give up the Mississippi;and yet they also refused to support the party to which Jay belonged, and therefore refused to establish a government strong enough to obtaintheir rights by open force. 

But Jay erred when he added, as he did, that there was no middle coursepossible; that we must either treat or make war. It was undoubtedly toour discredit, and to our temporary harm, that we refused to followeither course; it showed the existence of very undesirable nationalqualities, for it showed that we were loud in claiming rights which welacked the resolution and foresight to enforce. Nevertheless, as theseundesirable qualities existed, it was the part of a wise statesman torecognize their existence and do the best he could in spite of them. Thebest course to follow under such circumstances was to do nothing untilthe national fibre hardened, and this was the course which Washingtonadvocated. 

 Wilkinson Rises to Prominence. 

In this summer of 1787 there rose to public prominence in the westerncountry a man whose influence upon it was destined to be malign inintention rather than in actual fact. James Wilkinson, by birth aMarylander, came to Kentucky in 1784. He had done his duty respectablyas a soldier in the Revolutionary War, for he possessed sufficientcourage and capacity to render average service in subordinate positions, though at a later date he showed abject inefficiency as commander of anarmy. He was a good-looking, plausible, energetic man, gifted with ataste for adventure, with much proficiency in low intrigue, and with acertain address in influencing and managing bodies of men. He also spokeand wrote well, according to the rather florid canons of the day. Incharacter he can only be compared to Benedict Arnold, though he entirelylacked Arnold's ability and brilliant courage. He had no conscience andno scruples; he had not the slightest idea of the meaning of the wordhonor; he betrayed his trust from the basest motives, and he was tooinefficient to make his betrayal effective. He was treacherous to theUnion while it was being formed and after it had been formed; and hiscrime was aggravated by the sordid meanness of his motives, for heeagerly sought opportunities to barter his own infamy for money. In allour history there is no more despicable character. 

 He Trades to New Orleans. 

Wilkinson was a man of broken fortune when he came to the West. In threeyears he made a good position for himself, in matters commercial andpolitical, and his restless, adventurous nature, and thirst forexcitement and intrigue, prompted him to try the river trade, with itshazards and its chances of great gain. In June, 1787, he went down theMississippi to New Orleans with a loaded flat-boat, and sold his cargoat a high profit, thanks to the understanding he immediately establishedwith Miro. [Footnote: Wilkinson's Memoirs, ii. , 112. ] Doubtless hestarted with the full intention of entering into some kind of corruptarrangement with the Louisiana authorities, leaving the precise natureof the arrangement to be decided by events. 

The relations that he so promptly established with the Spaniards wereboth corrupt and treacherous; that is, he undoubtedly gave and tookbribes, and promised to intrigue against his own country for pecuniaryreward; but exactly what the different agreements were, and exactly howfar he tried or intended to fulfil them, is, and must always remain, uncertain. He was so ingrainedly venal, treacherous, and mendacious thatnothing he said or wrote can be accepted as true, and no sentimentswhich he at any time professed can be accepted as those he really felt. He and the leading Louisiana Spaniards had close mercantile relations, in which the governments of neither were interested, and by which thegovernments of both were in all probability defrauded. He persuaded theSpaniards to give him money for using his influence to separate the Westfrom the Union, which was one of the chief objects of Spanish diplomacy. [Footnote: History of Louisiana, Charles Gayarre, in. , 198. ] He wasobliged to try to earn the money by leading the separatist intrigues inKentucky, but it is doubtful if he ever had enough straightforwardnessin him to be a thoroughgoing; villain. All he cared for was the money;if he could not get it otherwise, he was quite willing to do any damagehe could to his country, even when he was serving it in a high militaryposition. But if it was easier, he was perfectly willing to betray thepeople who had bribed him. 

 His Corrupt Intrigues with the Spaniards. 

However he was an adept in low intrigue; and though he speedily becamesuspected by all honest men, he covered his tracks so well that it wasnot until after his death, and after the Spanish archives had beenexplored, that his guilt was established. 

He returned to Kentucky after some months' absence. He had greatlyincreased his reputation, and as substantial results of his voyage heshowed permits to trade, and some special and exclusive commercialprivileges, such as supplying the Mexican market with tobacco, anddepositing it in the King's store at New Orleans. The Kentuckians weremuch excited by what he had accomplished. He bought goods himself andreceived goods from other merchants on commission; and a year after hisfirst venture he sent a flotilla of heavy-laden flat-boats down theMississippi, and disposed of their contents at a high profit in NewOrleans. 

 The River Trade and the Separatist Spirit. 

The power this gave Wilkinson, the way he had obtained it, and the usehe made of it, gave an impetus to the separatist party in Kentucky. Hewas by no means the only man, however, who was at this time engaged inthe river trade to Louisiana; nor were his advantages over hiscommercial rivals as marked as he alleged. They, too, had discoveredthat the Spanish officials could be bribed to shut their eyes tosmuggling, and that citizens of Natchez could be hired to receiveproperty shipped thither as being theirs, so that it might be admittedon payment of twenty-five per cent. Duty. Merchants gathered quantitiesof flour and bacon, but especially of tobacco, at Louisville, and thenceshipped it in flat-boats to Natchez, where it was received by theircorrespondents; and keel boats sometimes made the return journey, thoughthe horses, cattle, and negro slaves were generally taken to Kentuckyoverland. [Footnote: Draper MSS. John Williams to William Clark, NewOrleans, Feb. II, 1789; Girault to Do. , July 26, 1788, from Natchez; Do. To Do. , Dec. 5, 1788; receipt of D. Brashear at Louisville, May 23, 1785. ] All these traders naturally felt the Spanish control of thenavigation, and the intermittent but always possible hostility of theSpanish officials, to be peculiarly irksome. They were, as a rule, tooshortsighted to see that the only permanent remedy for their troubleswas their own absorption into a solid and powerful Union. Therefore theywere always ready either to join a movement against Spain, or else tojoin one which seemed to promise the acquisition of special privilegesfrom Spain. 

 Robertson Talks of Disunion. 

The separatist feeling, and the desire to sunder the West from the East, and join hands with Spain or Britain, were not confined to Kentucky. Inone shape or another, and with varying intensity, separatist agitationstook place in all portions of the West. In Cumberland, on the Holston, among the western mountains of Virginia proper, and in Georgia--whichwas practically a frontier community--there occurred manifestations ofthe separatist spirit. A curious feature of these various agitations wasthe slight extent to which a separatist movement in any one of theselocalities depended upon or sympathized with a similar movement in anyother. The national feeling among the separatists was so slight that thevery communities which wished to break off from the Atlantic States werealso quite indifferent to the deeds and fates of one another. The onlybond among them was their tendency to break loose from the CentralGovernment. The settlers on the banks of the Cumberland felt noparticular interest in the struggle of those on the head-waters of theTennessee to establish the State of Franklin; and the Kentuckians wereindifferent to the deeds of both. In a letter written in 1788 to theCreek Chief McGillivray, Robertson alludes to the Holston men and theGeorgians in precisely the language he might have used in speaking offoreign nations. He evidently took as a matter of course their wagingwar on their own account against, and making peace with, the Cherokeesand Creeks, and betrayed little concern as to the outcome, one way orthe other. 

 Robertson's Letter to MacGillivray. 

In this same letter, [Footnote: Robertson MSS. , James Robertson toAlexander McGillivray, Nashville, Aug. 3, 1788. ] Robertson frankly setforth his belief that the West should separate from the Union and joinsome foreign power, writing: "In all probability we can not long remainin our present state, and if the British, or any commercial nation whichmay be in possession of the Mississippi, would furnish us with trade andreceive our produce, there cannot be a doubt but the people on the westside of the Apalachian mountains will open their eyes to their realinterests. " At the same time Sevier was writing to Gardoqui, offering toput his insurrectionary State of Franklin, then at its last gasp, underthe protection of Spain. [Footnote: Gardoqui MSS. , Sevier to Gardoqui, Sept. 12, 1788. ]

 British Intrigue. 

Robertson spoke with indifference as to whether the nation with whichthe Southerners allied themselves should happen to be Spain or Britain. As a matter of fact, most of the intrigues carried on were with oragainst Spain; but in the fall of 1788 an abortive effort was made by aBritish agent to arouse the Kentuckians against both the Spaniards andthe National Government, in the interest of Great Britain. This agentwas Conolly, the unsavory hero of Lord Dunmore's war. He went toLouisville, visited two or three prominent men, and laid bare to themhis plans. As he met with no encouragement whatever, he speedilyabandoned his efforts, and when the people got wind of his design theythreatened to mob him, while the officers of the Continental troops madeready to arrest him if his plans bore fruit, so that he was glad toleave the country. [Footnote: Do. Gardoqui to Florida Blanca, Jan. 12, 1789, inclosing a letter from Col. George Moreau. See Green, p. 300. Also State Dept. MSS. , No. 150, vol. Iii. , St. Clair to John Jay, Dec. 15, 1788. This letter and many others of St. Clair are given in W. H. Smith's "St. Clair Papers. " VOL III-9]

 Other Separatist Movements. 

These movements all aimed at a complete independence, but there wereothers which aimed merely at separation from the parent States. Theefforts of Kentucky and Franklin in this direction must be treated bythemselves; those that were less important may be glanced at in passing. The people in western Virginia, as early as the spring of 1785, wishedto erect themselves into a separate State, under Federal authority. Their desire was to separate from Virginia in peace and friendship, andto remain in close connection with the Union. A curious feature of thepetition which they forwarded to the Continental Congress, was theirproposition to include in the new State the inhabitants of the Holstonterritory, so that it would have taken in what is now West Virginiaproper, [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , Memorials, etc. , No. 48, Thos. Cumings, on behalf of the deputies of Washington County, to thePresident of Congress, April 7, 1785. ] and also eastern Tennessee andKentucky. 

The originators of this particular movement meant to be friendly withVirginia, but of course friction was bound to follow. The later stagesof the agitation, or perhaps it would be more correct to say theagitations, that sprang out of it, were marked by bitter feelingsbetween the leaders of the movement and the Virginia authorities. Finding no heed paid to their requests for separation, some of the moreextreme separatists threatened to refuse to pay taxes to Virginia; whilethe Franklin people proposed to unite with them into a new State, without regard to the wishes of Virginia or of North Carolina. RestlessArthur Campbell was one of the leaders of the separatists, and went sofar as to acknowledge the authorship of the "State of Franklin, " and tobecome one of its privy councillors, casting off his allegiance to theVirginian Government. [Footnote: Va. State Papers, IV. , pp. 5, 31, 32, 75, etc. ] However, the whole movement soon collapsed, the collapse beinginevitable when once it became evident that the Franklin experiment wasdoomed to failure. 

 Gradoqui's Residence in the United States. 

The West was thus seething with separatist agitations throughout thetime of Gradoqui's residence as Spanish Envoy in America; and bothGardoqui and Miro, who was Governor of Louisiana all through theseyears, entered actively into intrigues with the more prominentseparatist leaders. 

 Miro and Navarro. 

Miro was a man of some ability, and Martin Navarro, the SpanishIntendant of Louisiana, possessed more; but they served a governmentalmost imbecile in its fatuity. They both realized that Louisiana couldbe kept in possession of Spain only by making it a flourishing andpopulous province, and they begged that the Spanish authorities wouldremove the absurd commercial restrictions which kept it poor. But noheed was paid to their requests, and when they ventured to relax theseverity of the regulations, as regards both the trade down theMississippi and the sea-trade to Philadelphia, they were reprimanded andforced to reverse their policy. This was done at the instance ofGardoqui, who was jealous of the Louisiana authorities, and showed aspirit of rivalry towards them. Each side believed, probably withjustice, that the other was influenced by corrupt motives. 

Miro and Navarro were right in urging a liberal commercial policy. Theywere right also in recognizing the Americans as the enemies of theSpanish power. They dwelt on the peril, not only to Louisiana but to NewMexico, certain to arise from the neighborhood of the backwoodsmen, whomthey described as dangerous alike because of their poverty, theirambition, their restlessness, and their recklessness. [Footnote:Guyarré, p. 190. He was the first author who gave a full account of therelations between Miro and Wilkinson, and of the Spanish intrigues todissever the West from the Union. ] They were at their wits' ends to knowhow to check these energetic foes. They urgently asked for additionalregular troops to increase the strength of the Spanish garrison. Theykept the creole militia organized. But they relied mainly on keeping thesouthern Indians hostile to the Americans, on inviting the Americans tosettle in Louisiana and become subjects of Spain, and on intriguing withthe western settlements for the dissolution of the Union. TheKentuckians, the settlers on the Holston and Cumberland, and theGeorgians were the Americans with whom they had most friction andclosest connection. The Georgians, it is true, were only indirectlyinterested in the navigation question; but they claimed that theboundaries of Georgia ran west to the Mississippi, and that much of theeastern bank of the great river, including the fertile Yazoo lands, wastheirs. 

 Spaniards Incite the Indians to War. 

The Indians naturally sided with the Spaniards against the Americans;for the Americans were as eager to seize the possessions of Creek andCherokee as they were to invade the dominions of the Catholic King. Their friendship was sedulously fostered by the Spaniards. Greatcouncils were held with them, and their chiefs were bribed andflattered. Every effort was made to prevent them from dealing with anytraders who were not in the Spanish interest; New Orleans, Natchez, Mobile, and Pensacola were all centres for the Indian trade. They wereliberally furnished with arms and munitions of war. Finally theSpaniards deliberately and treacherously incited the Indians to waragainst the Americans, while protesting to the latter that they werestriving to keep the savages at peace. In answer to protests ofRobertson, setting forth that the Spaniards were inciting the Indians toharry the Cumberland settlers, both Miro and Gardoqui made him solemndenials. Miro wrote him, in 1783, that so far from assisting the Indiansto war, he had been doing what he could to induce McGillivray and theCreeks to make peace, and that he would continue to urge them not totrouble the settlers. [Footnote: Robertson MSS. , Miro to Robertson, NewOrleans, April 20, 1783. ] Gardoqui, in 1788, wrote even more explicitly, saying that he was much concerned over the reported outrages of thesavages, but was greatly surprised to learn that the settlers suspectedthe Government of Spain of fomenting the warfare, which, he assuredRobertson, was so far from the truth that the King was really bent ontreating the United States in general, and the West in particular, withall possible benevolence and generosity. [Footnote: Gardoqui MSS. , Gardoqui to "Col. Elisha Robeson" of Cumberland, April 18, 1788. ] Yet in1786, midway between the dates when these two letters were written, Miro, in a letter to the Captain-General of the Floridas, set forth thatthe Creeks, being desirous of driving back the American frontiersmen byforce of arms, and knowing that this could be done only after bloodshed, had petitioned him for fifty barrels of gunpowder and bullets tocorrespond, and that he had ordered the Governor of Pensacola to furnishMcGillivray, their chief, these munitions of war, with all possiblesecrecy and caution, so that it should not become known. [Footnote:_Do_. , Miro to Galvez, June 28, 1786, "que summistrase estas municionesa McGillivray Jefe principal to las Talapuches con toda la reserve ycantata posible de modo que ne se transiendiese la mano de estesocorro. "] The Governor of Pensacola shortly afterwards related thesatisfaction the Creeks felt at receiving the powder and lead, and addedthat he would have to furnish them additional supplies from time totime, as the war progressed, and that he would exercise every precautionso that the Americans might have no "just cause of complaint. "[Footnote: _Do_. , "sera necessaria la mayor precaucion, y maña paracontenerle ciñendose à la suministracion de polvora, balas y efectos detreta con la cantata posible para no dar a los Americanos justos motivosde gueya. "] There is an unconscious and somewhat gruesome humor in thisofficial belief that the Americans could have "no just cause" for angerso long as the Spaniards' treachery was concealed. 

 Spanish Duplicity. 

Throughout these years the Spaniards thus secretly supplied the Creekswith the means of waging war on the Americans, claiming all the timethat the Creeks were their vassals and that the land occupied by thesouthern Indians generally belonged to Spain and not to the UnitedStates. [Footnote: _Do_. ] They also kept their envoys busy among theChickasaws, Choctaws, and even the Cherokees. 

In fact, until the conclusion of Pinckney's treaty, the Spaniards ofLouisiana pursued as a settled policy this plan of inciting the Indiansto war against the Americans. Generally they confined themselves tosecretly furnishing the savages with guns, powder, and lead, andendeavoring to unite the tribes in a league; but on several occasionsthey openly gave them arms, when they were forced to act hurriedly. Aslate as 1794 the Flemish Baron de Carondelet, a devoted servant ofSpain, and one of the most determined enemies of the Americans, instructed his lieutenants to fit out war parties of Chickasaws, Creeks, and Cherokees, to harass a fort the Americans had built near the mouthof the Ohio. Carondelet wrote to the Home Government that the Indiansformed the best defence on which Louisiana could rely. By this time theSpaniards and English realized that, instead of showing hostility to oneanother, it behooved them to unite against the common foe; and theiragents in Canada and Louisiana were beginning to come to anunderstanding. In another letter Carondelet explained that the systemadopted by Lord Dorchester and the English officials in Canada indealing with the savages was the same as that which he had employed, both the Spaniards and the British having found them the most powerfulmeans with which to oppose the American advance. By the expenditure of afew thousand dollars, wrote the Spanish Governor, [Footnote: DraperCollection, Spanish MSS. State Documents. Baron de Carondelet to ManuelGayrso de Lemos, Aug. 20, 1794; Carondelet to Duke Alcudia, Sept. 25, 1795; Carondelet's Letter of July 9, 1795; Carondelet's Letter of Sept. 27, 1793. These Spanish documents form a very important part of themanuscripts in the Library of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. I was able to get translations of them through the great courtesy of Mr. Reuben Gold Thwaites, the Secretary of the Society, to whom I must againrender my acknowledgments for the generosity with which he has helpedme. ] he could always rouse the southern tribes to harry the settlers, while at the same time covering his deeds so effectually that theAmericans could not point to any specific act of which to complain. 

 Spanish Fear of the Americans. 

There was much turbulence and some treachery exhibited by individualfrontiersmen in their dealings with Spain, and the Americans of theMississippi valley showed a strong tendency to win their way to themouth of the river and to win the right to settle on its banks by sheerforce of arms; but the American Government and its authorizedrepresentatives behaved with a straightforward and honorable good faithwhich offered a striking contrast to the systematic and deliberateduplicity and treachery of the Spanish Crown and the Spanish Governors. In truth, the Spaniards were the weakest, and were driven to use the petweapons of weakness in opposing their stalwart and masterful foes. Theywere fighting against their doom, and they knew it. Already they hadbegun to fear, not only for Louisiana and Florida, but even for sultryMexico and far-away golden California. It was hard, wrote one of theablest of the Spanish Governors, to gather forces enough to ward offattacks from adventurers so hardy that they could go two hundred leaguesat a stretch, or live six months in the wilderness, needing to carrynothing save some corn-meal, and trusting for everything solely to theirown long rifles. 

 Spaniards Invite Americans to Become Colonists. 

Next to secretly rousing the Indians, the Spaniards placed most relianceon intriguing with the Westerners, in the effort to sunder them from theseaboard Americans. They also at times thought to bar the Americanadvance by allowing the frontiersmen to come into their territory andsettle on condition of becoming Spanish subjects. They hoped to make ofthese favored settlers a barrier against the rest of their kinsfolk. Itwas a foolish hope. A wild and hardy race of rifle-bearing freemen, sointolerant of restraint that they fretted under the slight bands whichheld them to their brethren, were sure to throw off the lightest yokethe Catholic King could lay upon them, when once they gathered strength. Under no circumstances, even had they profited by Spanish aid againsttheir own people, would the Westerners have remained allied or subjectto the Spaniards longer than the immediate needs of the moment demanded. At the bottom the Spaniards knew this, and their encouragement ofAmerican immigration was fitful and faint-hearted. 

Many Americans, however, were themselves eager to enter into somearrangement of the kind; whether as individual settlers, or, more often, as companies who wished to form little colonies. Their eagerness in thismatter caused much concern to many of the Federalists of the easternStates, who commented with bitterness upon the light-hearted manner inwhich these settlers forsook their native land, and not only forsworetheir allegiance to it, but bound themselves to take up arms against itin event of war. These critics failed to understand that the wildernessdwellers of that day, to whom the National Government was little morethan a name, and the Union but a new idea, could not be expected to paymuch heed to the imaginary line dividing one waste space from another, and that, after all, their patriotism was dormant, not dead. Moreover, some of the Easterners were as blind as the Spaniards themselves to theinevitable outcome of such settlements as those proposed, and were alsoalarmed at the mere natural movement of the population, fearing lest itmight result in crippling the old States, and in laying the foundationof a new and possibly hostile country. They themselves had not yetgrasped the national idea, and could not see that the increase in powerof any one quarter of the land, or the addition to it of any newunsettled territory, really raised by so much the greatness of everyAmerican. However, there was one point on which the more far-seeing ofthese critics were right. They urged that it would be better for thecountry not to try to sell the public land speedily in large tracts, butto grant it to actual settlers in such quantity as they could use. [Footnote: St. Clair to Jay, Dec. 13, 1788. ]

 Failure of These Colonization Schemes. 

The different propositions to settle large colonies in the Spanishpossessions came to naught, although quite a number of backwoodsmensettled there individually or in small bands. One great obstacle to thesuccess of any such movement was the religious intolerance of theSpaniards. Not only were they bigoted adherents of the Church of Rome, but their ecclesiastical authorities were cautioned to exercise over alllaymen a supervision and control to which the few Catholics among theAmerican backwoodsmen would have objected quite as strenuously as theProtestants. It is true that in trying to induce immigration they oftenpromised religious freedom, but when they came to execute this promisethey explained that it merely meant that the new-comers would not becompelled to profess the Roman Catholic faith, but that they would notbe allowed the free exercise of their own religion, nor permitted tobuild churches nor pay ministers. This was done with the express purposeof weakening their faith, and rendering it easy to turn them from it, and the Spaniards brought Irish priests into the country and placed themamong the American settlers with the avowed object of converting them. [Footnote: Guyarre, III. , 181, 200, 202. ] Such toleration naturallyappealed very little to men who were accustomed to a liberty as completein matters ecclesiastical as in matters civil. When the Spanishauthorities, at Natchez, or elsewhere, published edicts interfering withthe free exercise of the Protestant religion, many of the settlers left, [Footnote: Va. State Papers, IV. , 30. ] while in regions remote from theSpanish centres of government the edicts were quietly disobeyed orignored. 

 Founding of New Madrid. 

One of the many proposed colonies ultimately resulted in the founding ofa town which to this day bears the name of New Madrid. This particularscheme originated in the fertile brain of one Col. George Morgan, anative of New Jersey, but long engaged in trading on the Mississippi. Heoriginally organized a company to acquire lands under the United States, but meeting with little response to his proposition from the ContinentalCongress, in 1788 he turned to Spain. With Gardoqui, who was then in NewYork, he was soon on a footing of intimacy, as their letters show; forthese include invitations to dinner, to attend commencement atPrinceton, to visit one another, and the like. The Spainard, acultivated man, was pleased at being thrown in with an adventurer whowas a college graduate and a gentleman; for many of the would-becolonizers were needy ne'er-do-wells, who were anxious either to borrowmoney, or else to secure a promise of freedom from arrest for debt whenthey should move to the new country. Morgan's plans were on amagnificent scale. He wished a tract of land as large as a principalityon the west bank of the Mississippi. This he proposed to people withtens of thousands of settlers, whom he should govern under thecommission of the King of Spain. Gardoqui entered into the plan withenthusiasm, but obstacles and delays of all kinds were encountered, andthe dwindling outcome was the emigration of a few families offrontiersmen, and the founding of a squalid hamlet named after theIberian capital. [Footnote: Gardoqui MSS. , Gardoqui to Morgan, Sept. 2, 1788. Morgan to Gardoqui, Aug. 30, 1788. Letters of Sept. 9, 1788, Sept. 12, 1788; Gardoqui to Miro, Oct. 4, 1788, to Floridablanca, June 28, 1789. Letter to Gardoqui, Jan. 22, 1788. ]

 Clark's Proposal. 

Another adventurer who at this time proposed to found a colony inSpanish territory was no less a person than George Rogers Clark. Clarkhad indulged in something very like piracy at the expense of Spanishsubjects but eighteen months previously. He was ready at any time tolead the Westerners to the conquest of Louisiana; and a few years laterhe did his best to organize a freebooting expedition against New Orleansin the name of the French Revolutionary Government. But he was quitewilling to do his fighting on behalf of Spain, instead of against her;for by this time he was savage with anger and chagrin at theindifference and neglect with which the Virginian and FederalGovernments had rewarded his really great services. He wrote to Gardoquiin the spring of 1788, boasting of his feats of arms in the past, bitterly complaining of the way he had been treated, and offering tolead a large colony to settle in the Spanish dominions; for, he said, hehad become convinced that neither property nor character was safe undera government so weak as that of the United States, and he thereforewished to put himself at the disposal of the King of Spain. [Footnote:Gardoqui MSS. , Clark to Gardoqui, Falls of the Ohio, March 15, 1788. ]Nothing came of this proposal. 

 The Proposal of Wilkinson, Brown, and Innes. 

Another proposal which likewise came to nothing, is noteworthy becauseof the men who made it, and because of its peculiar nature. Theproposers were all Kentuckians. Among them were Wilkinson, one BenjaminSebastian, whom the Spaniards pensioned in the same manner they didWilkinson, John Brown, the Kentucky delegate in Congress, and HarryInnes, the Attorney-General of Kentucky. All were more or lessidentified both with the obscure separatist movements in thatcommonwealth, and with the legitimate agitation for statehood into whichsome of these movements insensibly merged. In the spring of 1789 theyproposed to Gardoqui to enter into an agreement somewhat similar to theone he had made with Morgan. But they named as the spot where theywished to settle the lands on the east bank of the Mississippi, in theneighborhood of the Yazoo, and they urged as a reason for granting thelands that they were part of the territory in dispute between Spain andthe United States, and that the new settlers would hold them under theSpanish King, and would defend them against the Americans. [Footnote:Gardoqui MSS. , Gardoqui to Floridablanca, June 29, 1789. ]

This country was claimed by, and finally awarded to, the United States, and claimed by the State of Georgia in particular. It was here that theadventurers proposed to erect a barrier State which should be vassal toSpain, one of the chief purposes of the settlement being to arrest theAmericans' advance. They thus deliberately offered to do all the damagethey could to their own country, if the foreign country would give themcertain advantages. The apologists for these separatist leaders oftenadvance the excuse--itself not a weighty one--that they at leastdeserved well of their own section; but Wilkinson and his associatesproposed a plan which was not only hostile to the interests of theAmerican nation as a whole, but which was especially hostile to theinterests of Kentucky, Georgia, and the other frontier communities. Themen who proposed to enter into the scheme were certainly not loyal totheir country; although the adventurers were not actuated by hostiledesigns against it, engaging in the adventure simply from motives ofprivate gain. The only palliation--there is no full excuse--for theiroffence is the fact that the Union was then so loose and weak, and itsbenefits so problematical, that it received the hearty and unswervingloyalty of only the most far-seeing and broadly patriotic men; and thatmany men of the highest standing and of the most undoubted probityshared the views on which Brown and Innes acted. 

 Wilkinson's Advice to the Spaniards. 

Wilkinson was bitterly hostile to all these schemes in which he himselfdid not have a share, and protested again and again to Miro againsttheir adoption. He protested no less strongly whenever the Spanish courtor the Spanish authorities at New Orleans either relaxed their vigilantseverity against the river smugglers, or for the time being lowered theduties; whether this was done to encourage the Westerners in theirhostilities to the East, or to placate them when their exasperationreached a pitch that threatened actual invasion. Wilkinson, in hisprotests, insisted that to show favors to the Westerners was merely tomake them contented with the Union; and that the only way to force themto break the Union was to deny them all privileges until they broke it. [Footnote: _Guyarré_, iii. , 30, 232, etc. Wilkinson's treachery datesfrom his first visit to New Orleans. Exactly when he was first pensionedoutright is not certain; but doubtless he was the corrupt recipient ofmoney from the beginning. ] He did his best to persuade the Spaniards toadopt measures which would damage both the East and West and wouldincrease the friction between them. He vociferously insisted that ingoing to such extremes of foul treachery to his country he was actuatedonly by his desire to see the Spanish intrigues attain their purpose;but he was probably influenced to a much greater degree by the desire toretain as long as might be the monopoly of the trade with New Orleans. 

 The Spanish Conspiracy. 

The Intendant Navarro, writing to Spain in 1788, dwelt upon thenecessity of securing the separation of the Westerners from the oldthirteen States; and to this end he urged that commercial privileges begranted to the West, and pensions and honors showered on its leaders. Spain readily adopted this policy of bribery. Wilkinson and Sebastianwere at different times given sums of money, small portions of whichwere doubtless handed over to their own agents and subordinates and tothe Spanish spies; and Wilkinson asked for additional sums, nominally tobribe leading Kentuckians, but very possibly merely with the purpose ofpocketing them himself. In other words, Wilkinson, Sebastian, and theirintimate associates on the one hand, and the Spanish officials on theother, entered into a corrupt conspiracy to dismember the Union. 

 Wilkinson's Intrigues. 

Wilkinson took a leading part in the political agitations by whichKentucky was shaken through out these years. He devoted himself toworking for separation from both Virginia and the United States, and foran alliance with Spain. Of course he did not dare to avow his schemeswith entire frankness, only venturing to advocate them more or lessopenly accordingly as the wind of popular opinion veered towards or awayfrom disunion. Being a sanguine man, of bad judgment, he at first wroteglowing letters to his Spanish employers, assuring them that theKentucky leaders enthusiastically favored his plans, and that the peopleat large were tending towards them. As time went on, he was obliged tochange the tone of his letters, and to admit that he had beenover-hopeful; he reluctantly acknowledged that Kentucky would certainlyrefuse to become a Spanish province, and that all that was possible tohope for was separation and an alliance with Spain. He was on intimateterms with the separatist leaders of all shades, and broached his viewsto them as far as he thought fit. His turgid oratory was admired in thebackwoods, and he was much helped by his skill in the baser kinds ofpolitical management. He speedily showed all the familiar traits of thedemagogue--he was lavish in his hospitality, and treated young and old, rich and poor, with jovial good-fellowship; so that all the men of loosehabits, the idle men who were ready for any venture, and the men of weakcharacter and fickle temper, swore by him, and followed his lead; whilenot a few straightforward, honest citizens were blinded by his showyability and professions of disinterestedness. [Footnote: Marshall, I. , 245. ]

It is impossible to say exactly how far his different allies among theseparatist leaders knew his real designs or sympathized with them. Theirloosely knit party was at the moment united for one ostensiblepurpose--that of separation from Virginia. The measures they championedwere in effect revolutionary, as they wished to pay no regard to theaction either of Virginia herself, or of the Federal Government. Theyopenly advocated Kentucky's entering into a treaty with Spain on her ownaccount. Their leaders must certainly have known Wilkinson's realpurposes, even though vaguely. The probability is that they did not, either to him or in their own minds, define their plans with clearness, but awaited events before deciding on a definite policy. Meantime byword and act they pursued a course which might be held to mean, asoccasion demanded, either mere insistence upon Kentucky's admission tothe Union as a separate State, or else a movement for completeindependence with a Spanish alliance in the background. 

It was impossible to pursue a course so equivocal without arousingsuspicion. In after years many who had been committed to it becameashamed of their actions, and loudly proclaimed that they had reallybeen devoted to the Union; to which it was sufficient to answer that ifthis had been the case, and if they had been really loyal, no such deepsuspicion could have been excited. A course of straightforward loyaltycould not have been misunderstood. As it was, all kinds of rumors as toproposed disunion movements, and as to the intrigues with Spain, gotafloat; and there was no satisfactory contradiction. The stanch Unionmen, the men who "thought continentally, " as the phrase went, took thealarm and organized a counter-movement. One of those who took prominentpart in this counter-movement was a man to whom Kentucky and the Unionboth owe much: Humphrey Marshall, afterwards a Federalist senator fromKentucky, and the author of an interesting and amusing and fundamentallysound, albeit somewhat rancorous, history of his State. This loyalcounter-movement hindered and hampered the separatists greatly, and madethem cautious about advocating outright disunion. It was one of thecauses which combined to render abortive both the separatist agitations, and the Spanish intrigues of the period. 

 Gardoqui's Intrigues. 

While Miro was corresponding with Wilkinson and arranging for pensioningboth him and Sebastian, Gardoqui was busy at New York. His efforts atnegotiation were fruitless; for his instructions positively forbade himto yield the navigation of the Mississippi, or to allow therectification of the boundary lines as claimed by the United States;[Footnote: Gardoqui MSS. , Instructions, July 25 and October 2, 1784. ]while the representatives of the latter refused to treat at all unlessboth of these points were conceded. [Footnote: _Do_. , Gardoqui'sLetters, June 19, 1786, October 28, 1786, December 5, 1787, July 25, 1788, etc. ] Jay he found to be particularly intractable, and in one ofhis letters he expressed the hope that he would be replaced by RichardHenry Lee, whom Gardoqui considered to be in the Spanish interest. Hewas much interested in the case of Vermont, [Footnote: _Do_. , May II, 1787. ] which at that time was in doubt whether to remain an independentState, to join the Union, or even possibly to form some kind of alliancewith the British; and what he saw occurring in this New England Statemade him for the moment hopeful about the result of the Spanish designson Kentucky. 

Gardoqui was an over-hopeful man, accustomed to that diplomacy whichacts on the supposition that every one has his price. After the mannerof his kind, he was prone to ascribe absurdly evil motives to all men, and to be duped himself in consequence. [Footnote: John Mason Brown, "Political Beginnings of Kentucky, " 138. ] He never understood the peoplewith whom he was dealing. He was sure that they could all be reached byunderhand and corrupt influences of some kind, if he could only find outwhere to put on the pressure. The perfect freedom with which many loyalmen talked to and before him puzzled him; and their characteristiclyAmerican habit of indulging in gloomy forebodings as to the nation'sfuture--when they were not insisting that the said future would be oneof unparalleled magnificence--gave him wild hopes that it might provepossible to corrupt them. He was confirmed in his belief by theundoubted corruption and disloyalty to their country, shown by a few ofthe men he met, the most important of those who were in his pay being analleged Catholic, James White, once a North Carolina delegate andafterwards Indian agent. Moreover others who never indulged in overtdisloyalty to the Union undoubtedly consulted and questioned Gardoquiabout his proposals, while reserving their own decision; being men wholet their loyalty be determined by events. Finally some men of entirepurity committed grave indiscretions in dealing with him. Henry Lee, forinstance, was so foolish as to borrow five thousand dollars from thisrepresentative of a foreign and unfriendly power; Gardoqui, of course, lending the money under the impression that its receipt would bind Leeto the Spanish interest. [Footnote: Gardoqui MSS. , Gardoqui toFloridablanca, December 5, 1787; August 27, 1786; October 25, 1786;October 2, 1789, etc. In these letters White is frequently alluded to as"Don Jaime. "]

Madison, Knox, Clinton, and other men of position under the ContinentalCongress, including Brown, the delegate from Kentucky, were among thosewho conferred freely with Gardoqui. In speaking with several of them, including Madison and Brown, he broached the subject of Kentucky'spossible separation from the Union and alliance with Spain; and Madisonand Brown discussed his statements between themselves. So far there wasnothing out of the way in Brown's conduct; but after one of theseconferences, he wrote to Kentucky in terms which showed that he waswilling to entertain Gardoqui's proposition if it seemed advisable to doso. 

 Brown and His Party Work for Disunion. 

His letter, which was intended to be private, but which was soonpublished, was dated July 10, 1788. It advocated immediate separationfrom Virginia without regard to constitutional methods, and also ran inpart as follows: "In private conferences which I have had with Mr. Gardoqui, the Spanish Minister, I have been assured by him in the mostexplicit terms that if Kentucky will declare her independence andempower some proper person to negotiate with him, that he has authorityand will engage to open the navigation of the Mississippi for theexportation of their produce on terms of mutual advantage. But thisprivilege never can be extended to them while part of the United States.... I have thought proper to communicate (this) to a few confidentialfriends in the district, with his permission, not doubting but that theywill make a prudent use of the information. "

At the outset of any movement which, whatever may be its form, is in itsessence revolutionary, and only to be justified on grounds that justifya revolution, the leaders, though loud in declamation about the wrongsto be remedied, always hesitate to speak in plain terms concerning theremedies which they really have in mind. They are often reluctant toadmit their purposes unequivocally, even to themselves, and may indeedblind themselves to the necessary results of their policy. They oftenchoose their language with care, so that it may not commit them beyondall hope of explanation or retraction. Brown, Innes, and the otherseparatist leaders in Kentucky were not actuated by the motives ofpersonal corruption which influenced Wilkinson, Sebastian, and White toconspire with Gardoqui and Miro for the break-up of the Union. Theirposition, as far as the mere separatist feeling itself was concerned, was not essentially different from that of George Clinton in New York orSumter in South Carolina. Of course, however, their connection with aforeign power unpleasantly tainted their course, exactly as a similarconnection, with Great Britain instead of with Spain, tainted thesimilar course of action Ethan Allen was pursuing at this very time inVermont. [Footnote: _Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography_, XI. , No. 2, p. 165. Ethan Alien's letter to Lord Dorchester. ] In afteryears they and their apologists endeavored to explain away their deedsand words, and tried to show that they were not disunionists; preciselyas the authors of the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798 and ofthe resolutions of the Hartford Convention in 1814 tried in later yearsto show that these also were not disunion movements. The effort is asvain in one case as in the other. Brown's letter shows that he and theparty with which he was identified were ready to bring about Kentucky'sseparation from the Union, if it could safely be done; the prospect of acommercial alliance with Spain being one of their chief objects, andaffording one of their chief arguments. 

 Failure of the Separationist Movements. 

The publication of Brown's letter and the boldness of the separatistparty spurred to renewed effort the Union men, one of whom, Col. ThomasMarshall, an uncle of Humphrey Marshall and father of the greatChief-Justice, sent a full account of the situation to Washington. Themore timid and wavering among the disunionists drew back; and theagitation was dropped when the new National Government began to showthat it was thoroughly able to keep order at home, and enforce respectabroad. [Footnote: Letter of Col. T. Marshall, September 11, 1790. ]

These separatist movements were general in the West, on the Holston andCumberland, as well as on the Ohio, during the troubled yearsimmediately succeeding the Revolution; and they were furthered by theintrigues of the Spaniards. But the antipathy of the backwoodsmen to theSpaniards was too deep-rooted for them ever to effect a realcombination. Ultimately the good sense and patriotism of the Westernerstriumphed; and the American people continued to move forward withunbroken front towards their mighty future. 

CHAPTER IV. 

THE STATE OF FRANKLIN, 1784-1788. 

The separatist spirit was strong throughout the West. Different causes, such as the unchecked ravages of the Indians, or the refusal of theright to navigate the Mississippi, produced or accentuated differentmanifestations; but the feeling itself was latent everywhere. Its moststriking manifestation occurred not in Kentucky, but in what is now theState of Tennessee; and was aimed not at the United States, but at theparent State of North Carolina. 

In Kentucky the old frontiersmen were losing their grip on thegovernmental machinery of the district. The great flood of immigrationtended to swamp the pioneers; and the leading parts in the struggle forstatehood were played by men who had come to the country about the closeof the Revolutionary War, and who were often related by ties of kinshipto the leaders of the Virginia legislatures and conventions. 

 The Frontiersmen of the Upper Tennessee. 

On the waters of the upper Tennessee matters were entirely different. Immigration had been slower, and the people who did come in were usuallyof the type of those who had first built their stockaded hamlets on thebanks of the Watauga. The leaders of the early pioneers were stillthe leaders of the community, in legislation as in warfare. MoreoverNorth Carolina was a much weaker and more turbulent State than Virginia, so that a separatist movement ran less risk of interference. Chains offorest-clad mountains severed the State proper from its westernoutposts. Many of the pioneer leaders were from Virginia--backwoodsmenwho had drifted south along the trough-like valleys. These of coursefelt little loyalty to North Carolina. The others, who were NorthCarolinians by birth, had cast in their lot, for good or for evil, withthe frontier communities, and were inclined to side with them in anycontest with the parent State. 

 North Carolina Indifferent to Her Western Settlements. 

North Carolina herself was at first quite as anxious to get rid of thefrontiersmen as they were to go. Not only was the central authority muchweaker than in Virginia, but the people were less proud of their Stateand less jealously anxious to see it grow in power and influence. Theover-mountain settlers had increased in numbers so rapidly that fourcounties had been erected for them; one, Davidson, taking in theCumberland district, and the other three, Washington, Sullivan, andGreene, including what is now eastern Tennessee. All these counties sentrepresentatives to the North Carolina legislature, at Hillsborough; butthey found that body little disposed to consider the needs of the remotewestern colonists. 

The State was very poor, and regarded the western settlements as mereburdensome sources of expense. In the innumerable Indian wars debts werecontracted by the little pioneer communities with the faith that theState would pay them; but the payment was made grudgingly or not at all, and no measures were taken to provide for the protection of the frontierin the future. No provisions were made for the extension of thejurisdiction of the State courts over the western counties, and theybecame a refuge for outlaws, who could be dealt with only as the Indianswere--that is, by the settlers acting on their own initiative, withoutthe sanction of law. In short the settlers were left to themselves, towork out their own salvation as they best might, in peace or war; and asthey bore most of the burdens of independence, they began to long forthe privileges. 

 North Carolina Cedes the West to Congress. 

In June, 1784, the State Legislature passed an act ceding to theContinental Congress all the western lauds, that is, all of what is nowTennessee. It was provided that the sovereignty of North Carolina overthe ceded lands should continue in full effect until the United Statesaccepted the gift; and that the act should lapse and become void unlessCongress accepted within two years. [Footnote: Ramsey, 283. He is thebest authority for the history of the curious state of Franklin. ]

The western members were present and voted in favor of the cession, andimmediately afterwards they returned to their homes and told thefrontier people what had been done. There was a general feeling thatsome step should be taken forthwith to prevent the whole district fromlapsing into anarchy. The frontiersmen did not believe that Congress, hampered as it was and powerless to undertake new responsibilities, could accept the gift until the two years were nearly gone; andmeanwhile North Carolina would in all likelihood pay them little heed, so that they would be left a prey to the Indians without and to theirown wrongdoers within. It was incumbent on them to organize for theirown defence and preservation. The three counties on the upper Tennesseeproceeded to take measures accordingly. The Cumberland people, however, took no part in the movement, and showed hardly any interest in it; forthey felt as alien to the men of the Holston valley as to those of NorthCarolina proper, and watched the conflict with a tepid absence offriendship for, or hostility towards, either side. They had longpractically managed their own affairs, and though they suffered from thelack of a strong central authority on which to rely, they did notunderstand their own wants, and were inclined to be hostile to anyeffort for the betterment of the national government. 

 The Western Counties Set up a Separate State. 

The first step taken by the frontiersmen in the direction of setting upa new state was very characteristic, as showing the military structureof the frontier settlements. To guard against Indian inroad and foray, and to punish them by reprisals, all the able-bodied, rifle-bearingmales were enrolled in the militia; and the divisions of the militiawere territorial. The soldiers of each company represented one clusterof rough little hamlets or one group of scattered log houses. Thecompany therefore formed a natural division for purposes ofrepresentation. It was accordingly agreed that "each captain's company"in the counties of Washington, Lincoln, and Green should choose twodelegates, who should all assemble as committees in their respectivecounties to deliberate upon some general plan of action. The committeesmet and recommended the election of deputies with full powers to aconvention held at Jonesboro. 

 Meeting of the Constitutional Convention. 

This convention, of forty deputies or thereabouts, met at Jonesboro, onAugust 23, 1784, and appointed John Sevier President. The delegates wereunanimous that the three counties represented should declare themselvesindependent of North Carolina, and passed a resolution to this effect. They also resolved that the three counties should form themselves intoan Association, and should enforce all the laws of North Carolina notincompatible with beginning the career of a separate state, and thatCongress should be petitioned to countenance them, and advise them inthe matter of their constitution. In addition, they made provision foradmitting to their state the neighboring portions of Virginia, shouldthey apply, and should the application be sanctioned by the State ofVirginia, "or other power having cognizance thereof. " This lastreference was, of course, to Congress, and was significant. Evidentlythe mountaineers ignored the doctrine of State Sovereignty. The powerwhich they regarded as paramount was that of the Nation. The adhesionthey gave to any government was somewhat shadowy; but such as it was, itwas yielded to the United States, and not to any one State. They wishedto submit their claim for independence to the judgment of Congress, notto the judgment of North Carolina; and they were ready to admit intotheir new state the western part of Virginia, on the assent, not of bothCongress and Virginia, but of either Congress or Virginia. 

So far the convention had been unanimous; but a split came on thequestion whether their declaration of independence should take effect atonce. The majority held that it should, and so voted; while a strongminority, amounting to one third of the members, followed the lead ofJohn Tipton, and voted in the negative. During the session a crowd ofpeople, partly from the straggling little frontier village itself, butpartly from the neighboring country, had assembled, and were waiting inthe street, to learn what the convention had decided. A member, steppingto the door of the building, announced the birth of the new state. Thecrowd, of course, believed in strong measures, and expressed its heartyapproval. Soon afterwards the convention adjourned, after providing forthe calling of a new convention, to consist of five delegates from eachcounty, who should give a name to the state, and prepare for it aconstitution. The members of this constitutional convention were to bechosen by counties, and not by captain's companies. 

There was much quarrelling over the choice of members for theconstitutional convention, the parties dividing on the lines indicatedin the vote on the question of immediate independence. When theconvention did meet, in November, it broke up in confusion. At the sametime North Carolina, becoming alarmed, repealed her cession act; andthereupon Sevier himself counselled his fellow-citizens to abandon themovement for a new state. However, they felt they had gone too far toback out. The convention came together again in December, and tookmeasures looking towards the assumption of full statehood. In theconstitution they drew up they provided, among other things, for aSenate and a House of Commons, to form the legislative body, whichshould itself choose the Governor. [Footnote: Haywood, 142; althoughRamsey writes more in full about the Franklin government, it ought notto be forgotten that the groundwork of his history is from Haywood. Haywood is the original, and by far the most valuable authority onTennessee matters, and he writes in a quaint style that is veryattractive. ] By an extraordinary resolution they further provided thatthe government should go into effect, and elections be held, at once;and yet that in the fall of 1785 a new convention should convene atwhich the very constitution under which the government had been carriedon would be submitted for revision, rejection, or adoption. 

 Meeting of the Legislature. 

Elections for the Legislature were accordingly held, and in March, 1785, the two houses of the new state of Franklin met, and chose Sevier asGovernor. Courts were organized, and military and civil officials ofevery grade were provided, those holding commissions under NorthCarolina being continued in office in almost all cases. The frictioncaused by the change of government was thus minimized. Four new countieswere created, taxes were levied, and a number of laws enacted. One ofthe acts was "for the promotion of learning in the county ofWashington. " Under it the first academy west of the mountains wasstarted; for some years it was the only high school anywhere in theneighborhood where Latin, or indeed any branch of learning beyond thesimplest rudiments, was taught. It is no small credit to thebackwoodsmen that in this their first attempt at state-making theyshould have done what they could to furnish their sous the opportunityof obtaining a higher education. 

 Backwoods Currency. 

One of the serious problems with which they had to grapple was the moneyquestion. All through the United States the finances were in utterdisorder, the medium of exchange being a jumble of almost worthlesspaper currency, and of foreign coin of every kind, while the standard ofvalue varied from State to State. But in the backwoods conditions wereeven worse, for there was hardly any money at all. Transactions wereaccomplished chiefly by the primeval method of barter. Accordingly, thisbackwoods Legislature legalized the payment of taxes and salaries inkind, and set a standard of values. The dollar was declared equal to sixshillings, and a scale of prices was established. Among the articleswhich were enumerated as being lawfully payable for taxes were bacon atsix pence a pound, rye whiskey at two shillings and six pence a gallon, peach or apple brandy at three shillings per gallon, and country-madesugar at one shilling per pound. Skins, however, formed the ordinarycurrency; otter, beaver, and deer being worth six shillings apiece, andraccoon and fox one shilling and three pence. The Governor's salary wasset at two hundred pounds, and that of the highest judge at one hundredand fifty. 

 Correspondence with North Carolina. 

The new Governor sent a formal communication to Governor AlexanderMartin of North Carolina, announcing that the three counties beyond themountains had declared their independence, and erected themselves into aseparate state, and setting forth their reasons for the step. GovernorMartin answered Sevier in a public letter, in which he went over hisarguments one by one, and sought to refute them. He announced thewillingness of the parent State to accede to the separation when theproper time came; but he pointed out that North Carolina could notconsent to such irregular and unauthorized separation, and that Congresswould certainly not countenance it against her wishes. In answering anargument drawn from the condition of affairs in Vermont, Martin showedthat the Green Mountain State should not be treated as an example inpoint, because she had asserted her independence, as a separatecommonwealth, before the Revolution, and yet had joined in the waragainst the British. 

One of the subjects on which he dwelt was the relations with theIndians. The mountain men accused North Carolina of not giving to theCherokees a quantity of goods promised them, and asserted that thisdisappointment had caused the Indians to commit several murders. In hisanswer the Governor admitted that the goods had not been given, butexplained that this was because at the time the land had been ceded toCongress, and the authorities were waiting to see what Congress woulddo; and after the Cession Act was repealed the goods would have beengiven forthwith, had it not been for the upsetting of all legalauthority west of the mountains, which brought matters to a standstill. Moreover, the Governor in his turn made counter accusations, settingforth that the mountaineers had held unauthorized treaties with theIndians, and had trespassed on their lands, and even murdered them. Heclosed by drawing a strong picture of the evils sure to be brought aboutby such lawless secession, and usurpation of authority. He besought andcommanded the revolted counties to return to their allegiance, andwarned them that if they did not, and if peaceable measures proved of noavail, then the State of North Carolina would put down the rebellion bydint of arms. 

 Petition to Congress. 

At the same time, in the early spring of 1785, the authorities of thenew state sent a memorial to the Continental Congress. [Footnote: StateDept. MSS. , Papers Continental Congress, Memorials, etc. , No. 48. Stateof Franklin, March 12, 1785. Certificate that William Cocke is agent;and memorial of the freemen, etc. ] Having found their natural civilchief and military leader in Sevier, the backwoodsmen now developed adiplomat in the person of one William Cocke. To him they entrusted thememorial, together with a certificate, testifying, in the name of thestate of Franklin, that he was delegated to present the memorial toCongress and to make what further representations he might find"conducive to the interest and independence of this country. " Thememorial set forth the earnest desire of the people of Franklin to beadmitted as a State of the Federal Union, together with the wrongs theyhad endured from North Carolina, dwelling with particular bitternessupon the harm which had resulted from her failure to give the Cherokeesthe goods which they had been promised. It further recited how NorthCarolina's original cession of the western lands had moved theWesterners to declare their independence, and contended that hersubsequent repeal of the act making this cession was void, and thatCongress should treat the cession as an accomplished fact. However, Congress took no action either for or against the insurrectionarycommonwealth. 

The new state wished to stand well with Virginia, no less than withCongress. In July, 1785, Sevier wrote to Governor Patrick Henry, unsuccessfully appealing to him for sympathy. In this letter he insistedthat he was doing all he could to restrain the people from encroachingon the Indian lands, though he admitted he found the task difficult. Heassured Henry that he would on no account encourage the southwesternVirginians to join the new state, as some of them had proposed; and headded, what he evidently felt to be a needed explanation, "we hope toconvince every one that we are not a banditti, but a people who mean todo right, as far as our knowledge will lead us. " [Footnote: Va. StatePapers, IV. , 42, Sevier to Henry, July 19, 1785. ]

 Correspondence with Benjamin Franklin. 

At the outset of its stormy career the new state had been namedFranklin, in honor of Benjamin Franklin; but a large minority had wishedto call it Frankland instead, and outsiders knew it as often by onetitle as the other. Benjamin Franklin himself did not know that it wasnamed after him until it had been in existence eighteen months. [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , Franklin Papers, Miscellaneous, vol. Vii. , Benj. Franklin to William Cocke, Philadelphia, Aug. 12, 1786. ] The statewas then in straits, and Cocke wrote Franklin, in the hope of someadvice or assistance. The prudent philosopher replied in convenientlyvague and guarded terms. He remarked that this was the first time he hadbeen informed that the new state was named after him, he having alwayssupposed that it was called Frankland. He then expressed his highappreciation of the honor conferred upon him, and his regret that hecould not show his appreciation by anything more substantial than goodwishes. He declined to commit himself as to the quarrel between Franklinand North Carolina, explaining that he could know nothing of its merits, as he had but just come home from abroad; but he warmly commended theproposition to submit the question to Congress, and urged that thedisputants should abide by its decision. He wound up his letter by somegeneral remarks on the benefits of having a Congress which could act asa judge in such matters. 

 Sevier's Manifesto to North Carolina. 

While the memorial was being presented to Congress, Sevier waspublishing his counter-manifesto to Governor Martin's in the shape of aletter to Martin's successor in the chair of the chief executive ofNorth Carolina. In this letter Sevier justified at some length the standthe Franklin people had taken, and commented with lofty severity onGovernor Martin's efforts "to stir up sedition and insurrection" inFranklin, and thus destroy the "tranquillity;" of its "peacefulcitizens. " Sevier evidently shared to the full the horror generally feltby the leaders of a rebellion for those who rebel against themselves. 

The new Governor of North Carolina adopted a much more pacific tone thanhis predecessor, and he and Sevier exchanged some further letters, butwithout result. 

 Treaty with the Cherokees. 

One of the main reasons for discontent with the parent State was thedelay in striking an advantageous treaty with the Indians, and theFranklin people hastened to make up for this delay by summoning theCherokees to council. [Footnote: Virginia State Papers, IV. , 25, 37, etc. ] Many of the chiefs, who were already under solemn agreement withthe United States and North Carolina, refused to attend; but, as usualwith Indians, they could not control all their people, some of whom werepresent at the time appointed. With the Indians who were thus presentthe whites went through the form of a treaty under which they receivedlarge cessions of Cherokee lands. The ordinary results of such a treatyfollowed. The Indians who had not signed promptly repudiated asunauthorized and ineffective the action of the few who had; and thelatter asserted that they had been tricked into signing, and were notaware of the true nature of the document to which they had affixed theirmarks. [Footnote: Talk of Old Tassel, September 19, 1785, Ramsey, 319. ]The whites heeded these protests not at all, but kept the land they hadsettled. 

In fact the attitude of the Franklin people towards the Cherokees wasone of mere piracy. In the August session of their legislature theypassed a law to encourage an expedition to go down the Tennessee on thewest side and take possession of the country in the great bend of thatriver under titles derived from the State of Georgia. The eighty orninety men composing this expedition actually descended the river, andmade a settlement by the Muscle Shoals, in what the Georgians called thecounty of Houston. They opened a land office, organized a countygovernment, and elected John Sevier's brother, Valentine, to representthem in the Georgia Legislature; but that body refused to allow him aseat. After a fortnight's existence the attitude of the Indians becameso menacing that the settlement broke up and was abandoned. 

 The Greenville Constitutional Convention. 

In November, 1785, the convention to provide a permanent constitutionfor the state met at Greenville. There was already much discontent withthe Franklin Government. The differences between its adherents and thoseof the old North Carolina Government were accentuated by bitter factionfights among the rivals for popular leadership, backed by their familiesand followers. Bad feeling showed itself at this convention, the rivalrybetween Sevier and Tipton being pronounced. Tipton was one of themountain leaders, second in influence only to Sevier, and his bitterpersonal enemy. At the convention a brand new constitution was submittedby a delegate named Samuel Houston. The adoption of the new constitutionwas urged by a strong minority. The most influential man of the minorityparty was Tipton. 

This written constitution, with its bill of rights prefixed, was acurious document. It provided that the new state should be called theCommonwealth of Frankland. Full religious liberty was established, sofar as rites of worship went; but no one was to hold office unless hewas a Christian who believed in the Bible, in Heaven, in Hell, and inthe Trinity. There were other classes prohibited from holdingoffice, --immoral men and sabbath breakers, for instance, and clergymen, doctors, and lawyers. The exclusion of lawyers from law-making bodieswas one of the darling plans of the ordinary sincere rural demagogue ofthe day. At that time lawyers, as a class, furnished the most prominentand influential political leaders; and they were, on the whole, the menof most mark in the communities. A narrow, uneducated, honestcountryman, especially in the backwoods, then looked upon a lawyer, usually with smothered envy and admiration, but always with jealousy, suspicion, and dislike; much as his successors to this day look uponbankers and railroad men. It seemed to him a praiseworthy thing toprevent any man whose business it was to study the law from having ashare in making the law. 

The proposed constitution showed the extreme suspicion felt by thecommon people for even their own elected lawmakers. It made variousfutile provisions to restrain them, such as providing that "except onoccasions of sudden necessity, " laws should only become such after beingenacted by two successive Legislatures, and that a Council of Safetyshould be elected to look after the conduct of all the other publicofficials. Universal suffrage for all freemen was provided; theLegislature was to consist of but one body; and almost all offices weremade elective. Taxes were laid to provide a state university. Theconstitution was tediously elaborate and minute in its provisions. 

However, its only interest is its showing the spirit of the local"reformers" of the day and place in the matters of constitution-makingand legislation. After a hot debate and some tumultuous scenes, it wasrejected by the majority of the convention, and in its stead, onSevier's motion, the North Carolina constitution was adopted as thegroundwork for the new government. This gave umbrage to Tipton and hisparty, who for some time had been discontented with the course ofaffairs in Franklin, and had been grumbling about them. 

 Franklin Acts as an Independent State. 

The new constitution--which was in effect simply the old constitutionwith unimportant alterations--went into being, and under it theFranklin Legislature convened at Greenville, which was made thepermanent capital of the new state. The Commons met in the court-house, a clapboarded building of unhewn logs, without windows, the light comingin through the door and through the chinks between the timbers. TheSenate met in one of the rooms of the town tavern. The backwoodslegislators lodged at this tavern or at some other, at the cost offourpence a day, the board being a shilling for the man, and sixpencefor his horse, if the horse only ate hay; a half pint of liquor or agallon of oats cost sixpence. [Footnote: Ramsey, 334. ] Life was veryrude and simple; no luxuries, and only the commonest comforts, wereobtainable. 

The state of Franklin had now been in existence over a year, and duringthis period the officers holding under it had exercised complete controlin the three insurrectionary counties. They had passed laws, madetreaties, levied taxes, recorded deeds, and solemnized marriages. Inshort, they had performed all the functions of civil government, andFranklin had assumed in all respects the position of an independentcommonwealth. 

 Feuds of the Two Parties. 

But in the spring of 1786 the discontent which had smouldered burst intoa flame. Tipton and his followers openly espoused the cause of NorthCarolina, and were joined, as time waned, by the men who for variousreasons were dissatisfied with the results of the trial of independentstatehood. They held elections, at the Sycamore Shoals and elsewhere, tochoose representatives to the North Carolina Legislature, John Tiptonbeing elected Senator. They organized the entire local government overagain in the interest of the old State. 

The two rival governments clashed in every way. County courts of bothwere held in the same counties; the militia were called out by both setsof officers; taxes were levied by both Legislatures. [Footnote: Haywood, 160. ] The Franklin courts were held at Jonesboro, the North Carolinacourts at Buffalo, ten miles distant; and each court in turn was brokenup by armed bands of the opposite party. Criminals throve in theconfusion, and the people refused to pay taxes to either party. Brawls, with their brutal accompaniments of gouging and biting, were common. Sevier and Tipton themselves, on one occasion when they by chance met, indulged in a rough-and-tumble fight before their friends couldinterfere. 

 Growing Confusion. 

Throughout the year '86 the confusion gradually grew worse. A few daysafter the Greenville convention met, the Legislature of North Carolinapassed an act in reference to the revolt. It declared that, at theproper time, the western counties would be erected into an independentstate, but that this time had not yet come; until it did, they would bewell cared for, but must return to their ancient allegiance, and appointand elect their officers under the laws of North Carolina. A free pardonand oblivion of all offences was promised. Following this act came along and tedious series of negotiations. Franklin sent ambassadors toargue her case before the Legislature of the mother State; the Governorsand high officials exchanged long-winded letters and proclamations, andthe rival Legislatures passed laws intended to undermine each other'sinfluence. The Franklin Assembly tried menace, and threatened to fineany one who acted under a commission from North Carolina. TheLegislature of the latter State achieved more by promises, having wiselyoffered to remit all taxes for the two troubled years to any one whowould forthwith submit to her rule. 

Neither side was willing to force the issue to trial by arms if it couldbe helped; and there was a certain pointlessness about the struggle, inasmuch as the differences between the contending parties were reallyso trifling. The North Carolinians kept protesting that they would bedelighted to see Franklin set up as an independent state, as soon as herterritory contained enough people; and the Franklin leaders in returnwere loud in their assurances of respect for North Carolina and ofdesire to follow her wishes. But neither would yield the pointsimmediately at issue. 

A somewhat comic incident of the affair occurred in connection with aneffort made by Sevier and his friends to persuade old Evan Shelby to actas umpire. After a conference they signed a joint manifesto which aimedto preserve peace for the moment by the novel expedient of allowing thecitizens of the disputed territory to determine, every man for himself, the government which he wished to own, and to pay his taxes to itaccordingly. Nothing came of this manifesto. 

 Decline of Franklin. 

During this time of confusion each party rallied by turns, but thegeneral drift was all in favor of North Carolina. One by one theadherents of Franklin dropped away. The revolt was essentially afrontier revolt, and Sevier was essentially a frontier leader. The olderand longer-settled counties and parts of counties were the first to fallaway from him, while the settlers on the very edge of the Indian countryclung to him to the last. 

 Attitude of Neighboring States. 

The neighboring States were more or less excited over the birth of thelittle insurgent commonwealth. Virginia looked upon it with extremedisfavor, largely because her own western counties showed signs ofdesiring to throw in their fortunes with the Franklin people [Footnote:Va. State Papers, iv. 53. ] Governor Patrick Henry issued a veryenergetic address on the subject, and the authorities took effectivemeans to prevent the movement from gaining head. 

 Franklin and Georgia. 

Georgia, on the contrary, showed the utmost friendliness towards the newstate, and gladly entered into an alliance with her. [Footnote: Stevens'"Georgia, " II. , 380. ] Georgia had no self-assertive communities of herown children on her western border, as Virginia and North Carolina had, in Kentucky and Franklin. She was herself a frontier commonwealth, challenging as her own lands that were occupied by the Indians andclaimed by the Spainards. Her interests were identical with those ofFranklin. The Governors of the two communities exchanged complimentaryaddresses, and sent their rough ambassadors one to the other. Georgiamade Sevier a brigadier-general in her militia, for the district sheclaimed in the bend of the Tennessee; and her branch of the Society ofthe Cincinnati elected him to membership. In return Sevier, hoping totighten the loosening bonds of his authority by a successful Indian war, entered into arrangements with Georgia for a combined campaign againstthe Creeks. For various reasons the proposed campaign fell through, butthe mere planning of it shows the feeling that was, at the bottom, thestrongest of those which knit together the Franklin men and theGeorgians. [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , No. 125, p. 163. ] They bothgreedily coveted the Indians' land, and were bent on driving the Indiansoff it. [Footnote: Va. State Papers, IV. , pp. 256, 353. Many of therumors of defeats and victories given in these papers were withoutfoundation. ]

 The Franklin Men and the Indians. 

One of the Franklin judges, in sending a plea for the independence ofhis state to the Governor of North Carolina, expressed with unusualfrankness the attitude of the Holston backwoodsmen towards the Indians. He remarked that he supposed the Governor would be astonished to learnthat there were many settlers on the land which North Carolina had bytreaty guaranteed to the Cherokees; and brushed aside all remonstrancesby simply saying that it was vain to talk of keeping the frontiersmenfrom encroaching on Indian territory. All that could be done, he said, was to extend the laws over each locality as rapidly as it was settledby the intruding pioneers; otherwise they would become utterly lawless, and dangerous to their neighbors. As for laws and proclamations torestrain the white advance, he asked if all the settlements in Americahad not been extended in defiance of such. And now that the Indians werecowed, the advance was certain to be faster, and the savages werecertain to be pushed back more rapidly, and the limits of tribalterritory more narrowly circumscribed. [Footnote: Ramsey, 350. ]

This letter possessed at least the merit of expressing with blunttruthfulness the real attitude of the Franklin people, and of thebackwoodsmen generally, towards the Indians. They never swerved fromtheir intention of seizing the Indian lands. They preferred to gaintheir ends by treaty, and with the consent of the Indians; but if thisproved impossible, then they intended to gain them by force. 

In its essence, and viewed from the standpoint of abstract morality, their attitude was that of the freebooter. The backwoodsmen lusted forthe possessions of the Indian, as the buccaneers of the Spanish main hadonce lusted for the possessions of the Spaniard. There was but littlemore heed paid to the rights of the assailed in one case than in theother. 

 The Ethics of Such Territorial Conquest. 

Yet in its results, and viewed from the standpoint of applied ethics, the conquest and settlement by the whites of the Indian lands wasnecessary to the greatness of the race and to the well-being ofcivilized mankind. It was as ultimately beneficial as it was inevitable. Huge tomes might be filled with arguments as to the morality orimmorality of such conquests. But these arguments appeal chiefly to thecultivated men in highly civilized communities who have neither the wishnor the power to lead warlike expeditions into savage lands. Suchconquests are commonly undertaken by those reckless and daringadventurers who shape and guide each race's territorial growth. They aresure to come when a masterful people, still in its raw barbarian prime, finds itself face to face with a weaker and wholly alien race whichholds a coveted prize in its feeble grasp. 

Many good persons seem prone to speak of all wars of conquest asnecessarily evil. This is, of course, a shortsighted view. In its aftereffects a conquest may be fraught either with evil or with good formankind, according to the comparative worth of the conquering andconquered peoples. It is useless to try to generalize about conquestssimply as such in the abstract; each case or set of cases must be judgedby itself. The world would have halted had it not been for the Teutonicconquests in alien lands; but the victories of Moslem over Christianhave always proved a curse in the end. Nothing but sheer evil has comefrom the victories of Turk and Tartar. This is true generally of thevictories of barbarians of low racial characteristics over gentler, moremoral, and more refined peoples, even though these people have, to theirshame and discredit, lost the vigorous fighting virtues. Yet it remainsno less true that the world would probably have gone forward verylittle, indeed would probably not have gone forward at all, had it notbeen for the displacement or submersion of savage and barbaric peoplesas a consequence of the armed settlement in strange lands of the raceswho hold in their hands the fate of the years. Every such submersion ordisplacement of an inferior race, every such armed settlement orconquest by a superior race, means the infliction and suffering ofhideous woe and misery. It is a sad and dreadful thing that there shouldof necessity be such throes of agony; and yet they are the birth-pangsof a new and vigorous people. That they are in truth birth-pangs doesnot lessen the grim and hopeless woe of the race supplanted; of the raceoutworn or overthrown. The wrongs done and suffered cannot be blinked. Neither can they be allowed to hide the results to mankind of what hasbeen achieved. 

It is not possible to justify the backwoodsmen by appeal to principleswhich we would accept as binding on their descendants, or on the mightynation which has sprung up and flourished in the soil they first won andtilled. All that can be asked is that they shall be judged as otherwilderness conquerors, as other slayers and quellers of savage peoples, are judged. The same standards must be applied to Sevier and hishard-faced horse-riflemen that we apply to the Greek colonist of Sicilyand the Roman colonist of the valley of the Po; to the Cossackrough-rider who won for Russia the vast and melancholy Siberian steppes, and to the Boer who guided his ox-drawn wagon-trains to the hot grazinglands of the Transvaal; to the founders of Massachusetts and Virginia, of Oregon and icy Saskatchewan; and to the men who built up thosefar-off commonwealths whose coasts are lapped by the waters of the greatSouth Sea. 

 Indian Hostilities. 

The aggressions by the Franklin men on the Cherokee lands bore bloodyfruit in 1786. [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. Vol. Ii. , No. 71, ArthurCampbell to Joseph Martin, June 16, 1786; Martin to the Governor ofVirginia, June 25, 1786, etc. ] The young warriors, growing ever morealarmed and angered at the pressure of the settlers, could not berestrained. They shook off the control of the old men, who had seen thetribe flogged once and again by the whites, and knew how hopeless such astruggle was. The Chickamauga banditti watched from their eyries topounce upon all boats that passed down the Tennessee, and their warbands harried the settlements far and wide, being joined in their workby parties from the Cherokee towns proper. Stock was stolen, cabins wereburned, and settlers murdered. The stark riflemen gathered for revenge, carrying their long rifles and riding their rough mountain horses. Counter-inroads were carried into the Indian country. On one, whenSevier himself led, two or three of the Indian towns were burned and ascore or so of warriors killed. As always, it proved comparatively easyto deal a damaging blow to these southern Indians, who dwelt inwell-built log-towns; while the widely scattered, shifting, wigwam-villages of the forest-nomads of the north rarely offered atangible mark at which to strike. Of course, the retaliatory blows ofthe whites, like the strokes of the Indians, fell as often on theinnocent as on the guilty. During this summer, to revenge the death of acouple of settlers, a backwoods Colonel, with the appropriate name ofOutlaw, fell on a friendly Cherokee town and killed two or threeIndians, besides plundering a white man, a North Carolina trader, whohappened to be in the town. Nevertheless, throughout 1786 the greatmajority of the Cherokees remained quiet. [Footnote: Va. State Papers, IV. , pp. 162, 164, 176. ]

Early in 1787, however, they felt the strain so severely that theygathered in a great council and deliberated whether they should notabandon their homes and move far out into the western wilderness; butthey could not yet make up their minds to leave their beloved mountains. The North Carolina authorities wished to see them receive justice, butall they could do was to gather the few Indian prisoners who had beencaptured in the late wars and return them to the Cherokees. The FranklinGovernment had opened a land office and disposed of all the landsbetween the French Broad and the Tennessee, [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , vol. Ii. No. 71. Letter to Edmund Randolph, Feb. 10, 1787; Letter ofJoseph Martin, of March 25, 1787; Talk from Piominigo, the ChickasawChief, Feb. 15, 1787. ] which territory North Carolina had guaranteed theCherokees; and when, on the authority of the Governor of North Carolina, his representative ordered the settlers off the invaded land, theytreated his command with utter defiance. Not only the Creeks, but eventhe distant Choctaws and Chickasaws became uneasy and irritated over theAmerican encroachments, while the French traders who came up theTennessee preached war to the Indians, and the Spanish Governmentordered all the American traders to be expelled from among the southerntribes unless they would agree to take commissions from Spain and throwoff their allegiance to the United States. 

In this same year the Cherokees became embroiled, not only with theFranklin people but with the Kentuckians. The Chickamaugas, who weremainly renegade Cherokees, were always ravaging in Kentucky. ColonelJohn Logan had gathered a force to attack one of their war bands, but hehappened instead to stumble on a Cherokee party, which he scattered tothe winds with loss. The Kentuckians wrote to the Cherokee chiefsexplaining that the attack was an accident, but that they did not regretit greatly, inasmuch as they found in the Cherokee camp several horseswhich had been stolen from the settlers. They then warned the Cherokeesthat the outrages by the Chickamaugas must be stopped; and if theCherokees failed to stop them they would have only themselves to thankfor the woes that would follow, as the Kentuckians could not always tellthe hostile from the friendly Indians, and were bent on taking anexemplary, even if indiscriminate revenge. The Council of Virginia, onhearing of this announced intention of the Kentuckians "highlydisapproved of it, " [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , No. 71. Resolutions ofKentucky Committee, June 5, 1787. ] but they could do nothing exceptdisapprove. The governmental authorities of the eastern States possessedbut little more power to restrain the backwoodsmen than the sachems hadto restrain the young braves. Virginia and North Carolina could no morecontrol Kentucky and Franklin than the Cherokees could control theChickamaugas. 

 Growing Weakness of the New State. 

In 1787 the state of Franklin began to totter to its fall. In April[Footnote: State Dept. MSS. Franklin Papers, VIII. , Benjamin Franklin toHis Excellency Governor Sevier, Philadelphia, June 30, 1787. ] Sevier, hungering for help or friendly advice, wrote to the gray statesman afterwhom his state was named. The answer did not come for several months, and when it did come it was not very satisfactory. The old sage repeatedthat he knew too little of the circumstances to express an opinion, buthe urged a friendly understanding with North Carolina, and he spoke withunpalatable frankness on the subject of the Indians. At that very timehe was writing to a Cherokee chief [Footnote: _Do_. Letter to the Chief"Cornstalk" (Corntassel?), same date and place. ] who had come toCongress in the vain hope that the Federal authorities might save theCherokees from the reckless backwoodsmen; he had promised to try toobtain justice for the Indians, and he was in no friendly mood towardsthe backwoods aggressors. 

Prevent encroachments on Indian lands, Franklin wrote toSevier, --Sevier, who, in a last effort to rally his followers, wasseeking a general Indian war to further these very encroachments, --andremember that they are the more unjustifiable because the Indiansusually give good bargains in the way of purchase, while a war with themcosts more than any possible price they may ask. This advice was basedon Franklin's usual principle of merely mercantile morality; but he waswriting to a people who stood in sore need of just the teaching he couldfurnish and who would have done well to heed it. They were slow to learnthat while sober, debt-paying thrift, love of order, and industry, areperhaps not the loftiest virtues and are certainly not in themselves allsufficient, they yet form an indispensable foundation, the lack of whichis but ill supplied by other qualities even of a very noble kind. 

Sevier, also in the year 1787, carried on a long correspondence withEvan Shelby, whose adherence to the state of Franklin he much desired, as the stout old fellow was a power not only among the frontiersmen butwith the Virginian and North Carolinian authorities likewise. Sevierpersuaded the Legislature to offer Shelby the position of chiefmagistrate of Franklin, and pressed him to accept it, and throw in hislot with the Westerners, instead of trying to serve men at a distance. Shelby refused; but Sevier was bent upon being pleasant, and thankedShelby for at least being neutral, even though not actively friendly. Inanother letter, however, when he had begun to suspect Shelby of positivehostility, he warned him that no unfriendly interference would betolerated. [Footnote: Tennessee Hist. Soc. MSS. Letters of Sevier to EvanShelby, Feb. 11, May 20, May 30, and Aug. 12, 1787. ]

Shelby could neither be placated nor intimidated. He regarded with equalalarm and anger the loosening of the bands of authority and order amongthe Franklin frontiersmen. He bitterly disapproved of their lawlessencroachments on the Indian lands, which he feared would cause a generalwar with the savages. [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , No. 71. Evan Shelbyto General Russell, April 27, 1787. Beverly Randolph to VirginiaDelegates, June 2, 1787. ] At the very time that Sevier was writing tohim, he was himself writing to the North Carolina Government, urgingthem to send forward troops who would put down the rebellion by force, and was requesting the Virginians to back up any such movement withtheir militia. He urged that the insurrection threatened not only NorthCarolina, but Virginia and the Federal Government itself; and in phraseslike those of the most advanced Federalist statesman, he urged theFederal Government to interfere. The Governor of Virginia was inclinedto share his views, and forwarded his complaints and requests to theContinental Congress. 

 Collapse of Franklin. 

However, no action was necessary. The Franklin Government collapsed ofitself. In September, 1787, the Legislature met for the last time, atGreenville. There was a contested election case for senator from thecounty of Hawkins, which shows the difficulties under which the membershad labored in carrying their elections, and gives a hint of the anarchyproduced by the two contending Governments. In this case the sheriff ofthe county of Hawkins granted the certificate of election to one man, and the three inspectors of the poll granted it to another. Oninvestigation by a committee of the Senate, it appeared that the pollwas opened by the sheriff "on the third Friday and Saturday in August, "as provided by law, but that in addition to the advertisement of theelection which was published by the sheriff of Hawkins, who held underthe Franklin Government, another proclamation, advertising the sameelection, was issued by the sheriff of the North Carolina county ofSpencer, which had been recently created by North Carolina out of aportion of the territory of Hawkins County. The North Carolina sheriffmerely wished to embarrass his Franklin rival, and he succeededadmirably. The Franklin man proclaimed that he would allow no one tovote who had not paid taxes to Franklin; but after three or four voteshad been taken the approach of a body of armed adherents of the NorthCarolina interest caused the shutting of the polls. The Franklinauthorities then dispersed, the North Carolina sheriff having told themplainly that the matter would have to be settled by seeing which partywas strongest. One or two efforts were made to have an adjournedelection elsewhere in the neighborhood, with the result that in theconfusion certificates were given to two different men. [Footnote:Tennessee Hist. Soc. MSS. Report of "Committee of Privileges andElections" of Senate of Franklin, Nov. 23, 1787. ] Such disorders showedthat the time had arrived when the authorities of Franklin either had tobegin a bloody civil war or else abandon the attempt to create a newstate; and in their feebleness and uncertainty they adopted the latteralternative. 

When in March, 1788, the term of Sevier as Governor came to an end, there was no one to take his place, and the officers of North Carolinawere left in undisputed possession of whatever governmental authoritythere was. The North Carolina Assembly which met in November, 1787, hadbeen attended by regularly elected members from all the westerncounties, Tipton being among them; while the far-off log hamlets on thebanks of the Cumberland sent Robertson himself. [Footnote: Haywood, 174. ] This assembly once more offered full pardon and oblivion of pastoffences to all who would again become citizens; and the last adherentsof the insurrectionary Government reluctantly accepted the terms. Franklin had been in existence for three years, during which time shehad exercised all the powers and functions of independent statehood. During the first year her sway in the district was complete; during thenext she was forced to hold possession in common with North Carolina;and then, by degrees her authority lapsed altogether. 

 Fight between Tipton and Sevier. 

Sevier was left in dire straits by the falling of the state he hadfounded; for not only were the North Carolina authorities naturallybitter against him, but he had to count on the personal hostility ofTipton. In his distress he wrote to one of the opposing party, notpersonally unfriendly to him, that he had been dragged into the Franklinmovement by the people of the county; that he wished to suspendhostilities, and was ready to abide by the decision of the NorthCarolina Legislature, but that he was determined to share the fate ofthose who had stood by him, whatever it might be. [Footnote: Va. StatePapers, IV. , 416, 421. Sevier to Martin, April 3 and May 27, 1788] Aboutthe time that his term as Governor expired, a writ, issued by the NorthCarolina courts, was executed against his estate. The sheriff seized allhis negro slaves, as they worked on his Nolichucky farm, and bore themfor safe-keeping to Tipton's house, a rambling cluster of stout logbuildings, on Sinking Creek of the Watanga. Sevier raised a hundred andfifty men and marched to take them back, carrying a light fieldpiece. Tipton's friends gathered, thirty or forty strong, and a siege began. Sevier hesitated to push matters to extremity by charging home. For acouple of days there was some skirmishing and two or three men werekilled or wounded. Then the county-lieutenant of Sullivan, with ahundred and eighty militia, came to Tipton's rescue. They surprisedSevier's camp at dawn on the last day of February, [Footnote: StateDept. MSS. , No. 150, vol. Iii. Armstrong to Wyllys, April 28, 1788. ]while the snow was falling heavily; and the Franklin men fled in madpanic, only one or two being slain. Two of Sevier's sons were takenprisoners, and Tipton was with difficulty dissuaded from hanging them. This scrambling fight marked the ignoble end of the state of Franklin. Sevier fled to the uttermost part of the frontier, where no writs ran, and the rough settlers were devoted to him. Here he speedily becameengaged in the Indian war. 

 Indian Ravages. 

Early in the spring of 1788, the Indians renewed their ravages. [Footnote: Va. State Papers, IV. , 396, 432. ] The Chickamaugaswere the leaders, but there were among them a few Creeks, and they werealso joined by some of the Cherokees proper, goaded to anger by theencroachments of the whites on their lands. Many of the settlers werekilled, and the people on the frontier began to gather into theirstockades and blockhouses. The alarm was great. One murder was ofpeculiar treachery and atrocity. A man named John Kirk [Footnote: StateDept. MSS. , No. 150, vol. Ii. , p. 435. Proclamation of Thos. Hutchings, June 3, 1788. ] lived on a clearing on Little River, seven miles south ofKnoxville. One day when he was away from home, an Indian named Slim Tom, well-known to the family, and believed to be friendly, came to the cabinand asked for food. The food was given him and he withdrew. But he hadcome merely as a spy; and seeing that he had to deal only with helplesswomen and children, he returned with a party of Indians who had beenhiding in the woods. They fell on the wretched creatures, and butcheredthem all, eleven in number, leaving the mangled bodies in thecourt-yard. The father and eldest boy were absent and thus escaped. Itwould have been well had the lad been among the slain, for his coarseand brutal nature was roused to a thirst for indiscriminate revenge, andshortly afterwards he figured as chief actor in a deed of retaliation asrevolting and inhuman as the original crime. 

At the news of the massacres the frontiersmen gathered, as was theircustom, mounted and armed, and ready either to follow the maraudingparties or to make retaliatory inroads on their own account. Sevier, their darling leader, was among them, and to him they gave the command. 

 Joseph Martin Tries to Keep the Peace. 

Another frontier leader and Indian fighter of note was at this timeliving among the Cherokees. He was Joseph Martin, who had dwelt muchamong the Indians, and had great influence over them, as he alwaystreated them justly; though he had shown in more than one campaign thathe could handle them in war as well as in peace. Early in 1788, he hadbeen appointed by North Carolina Brigadier-General of the westerncounties lying beyond the mountains. In the military organization, whichwas really the most important side of the Government to thefrontiersmen, this was the chief position; and Martin's duties were notonly to protect the border against Indian raids, but also to stamp outany smouldering embers of insurrection, and see that the laws of theState were again put in operation. 

In April he took command, and on the 24th of the mouth reached the lowersettlements on the Holston River. [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , No. 150, vol. Ii. Joseph Martin to H. Knox, July 15, 1788. ] Here he found that acouple of settlers had been killed by Indians a few days before, and hemet a party of riflemen who had gathered to avenge the death of theirfriends by a foray on the Cherokee towns. Martin did not believe thatthe Cherokees were responsible for the murder. After some talk hepersuaded the angry whites to choose four of their trusted men toaccompany him as ambassadors to the Cherokee towns in order to find outthe truth. 

 Mutual Outrages. 

Accordingly they all went forward together. Martin sent runners ahead tothe Cherokees, and their chiefs and young warriors gathered to meet him. The Indians assured him that they were guiltless of the recent murder;that it should doubtless be laid at the door of some Creek war party. The Creeks, they said, kept passing through their villages to war on thewhites, and they had often turned them back. The frontier envoys at thisprofessed themselves satisfied, and returned to their homes, afterbegging Martin to stay among the Cherokees; and he stayed, his presencegiving confidence to the Indians, who forthwith began to plant theircrops. 

Unfortunately, about the middle of May, the murders again began, andagain parties of riflemen gathered for vengeance. Martin intercepted oneof these parties ten miles from a friendly Cherokee town; but anotherattacked and burned a neighboring town, the inhabitants escaping withslight loss. For a time Martin's life was jeopardized by this attack;the Cherokees, who swore they were innocent of the murders, beingincensed at the counter attack. They told Martin that they thought hehad been trying to gentle them, so that the whites might take themunawares. After a while they cooled down; and explained to Martin thatthe outrages were the work of the Creeks and Chickamaugas, whom theycould not control, and whom they hoped the whites would punish; but thatthey themselves were innocent and friendly. Then the whites sentmessages to express their regret; and though Martin declined longer tobe responsible for the deeds of men of his own color, the Indiansconsented to patch up another truce. [Footnote: State Dept MSS. , No. 71, vol. Ii. Martin to Randolph, June II, 1788. ]

The outrages, however, continued; among others, a big boat was capturedby the Chickamaugas, and all but three of the forty souls on board werekilled. The settlers drew no fine distinctions between differentIndians; they knew that their friends were being murdered by savages whocame from the direction of the Cherokee towns; and they vented theirwrath on the Indians who dwelt in these towns because they were nearestto hand. 

On May 24th Martin left the Indian town of Chota, the beloved town, where he had been staying, and rode to the French Broad. There he foundthat a big levy of frontier militia, with Sevier at their head, werepreparing to march against the Indians; Sevier having been chosengeneral, as mentioned above. Realizing that it was now hopeless to tryto prevent a war, Martin hurried back to Chota, and removed his negroes, horses, and goods. 

 Sevier's Crime. 

Sevier, heedless of Martin's remonstrances, hurried forward on his raid, with a hundred riders. He struck a town on Hiawassee and destroyed it, killing a number of the warriors. This feat, and two or three otherslike it, made the frontiersmen flock to his standard; [Footnote: StateDept. MSS. , No. 150, vol. Iii. Geo. Maxwell to Martin, July 9, 1788. ]but before any great number were embodied under him, he headed a smallparty on a raid which was sullied by a deed of atrocious treachery andcruelty. He led some forty men to Chilhowa [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , No. 150, vol. Iii, Thos. Hutchings to Martin, July 11. 1788] on theTennessee; opposite a small town of Cherokees, who were well known tohave been friendly to the whites. Among them were several chiefs, including an old man named the Corn Tassel, who for years had beenforemost in the endeavor to keep the peace, and to prevent raids on thesettlers. They put out a white flag; and the whites then hoisted onethemselves. On the strength of this one of the Indians crossed theriver, and on demand of the whites ferried them over. [Footnote: StateDept. MSS. , No. 150, vol. Iii. Hutchings to Maxwell, June 20, 1788. Hutchings to Martin, July 11, 1788. ] Sevier put the Indians in a hut, and then a horrible deed of infamy was perpetrated. Among Sevier'stroops was young John Kirk, whose mother, sisters, and brothers had beenso foully butchered by the Cherokee Slim Tom and his associates. YoungKirk's brutal soul was parched with longing for revenge, and he was, both in mind and heart, too nearly kin to his Indian foes greatly tocare whether his vengeance fell on the wrongdoers or on the innocent. Heentered the hut where the Cherokee chiefs were confined and brained themwith his tomahawk, while his comrades looked on without interfering. Sevier's friends asserted that at the moment he was absent; but this isno excuse. He knew well the fierce blood lust of his followers, and itwas criminal negligence on his part to leave to their mercy the friendlyIndians who had trusted to his good faith; and, moreover, he made noeffort to punish the murderer. 

As if to show the futility of the plea that Sevier was powerless, acertain Captain Gillespie successfully protected a captive Indian frommilitia violence at this very time. He had come into the Indian countrywith one of the parties which intended to join Sevier, and while alonehe captured a Cherokee. When his troops came up they immediatelyproposed to kill the Indian, and told him they cared nothing for hisremonstrances; whereupon he sprang from his horse, cocked his rifle, andtold them he would shoot dead the first man who raised a hand to molestthe captives. They shrank back, and the Indian remained unharmed. [Footnote: Haywood, p. 183. ]

 Misconduct of the Frontiersmen. 

As for young Kirk all that need be said is that he stands in the samecategory with Slim Tom, the Indian murderer. He was a fair type of thelow-class, brutal white borderer, whose inhumanity almost equalled thatof the savage. But Sevier must be judged by another standard. He was amember of the Cincinnati, a correspondent of Franklin, a follower ofWashington. He sinned against the light, and must be condemnedaccordingly. He sank to the level of a lieutenant of Alva, Guise, orTilly, to the level of a crusading noble of the middle ages. It would beunfair to couple even this crime with those habitually committed bySidney and Sir Peter Carew, Shan O'Neil and Fitzgerald, and the otherdismal heroes of the hideous wars waged between the Elizabethan Englishand the Irish. But it is not unfair to compare this border warfare inthe Tennessee mountains with the border warfare of England and Scotlandtwo centuries earlier. There is no blinking the fact that in thisinstance Sevier and his followers stood on the same level of brutalitywith "keen Lord Evers, " and on the same level of treachery with the"assured" Scots at the battle of Ancram Muir. 

 The Better-Class Frontiersmen Condemn the Deed. 

Even on the frontier, and at that time, the better class of backwoodsmenexpressed much horror at the murder of the friendly chiefs. Sevier hadplanned to march against the Chickamaugas with the levies that werethronging to his banner; but the news of the murder provoked suchdiscussion and hesitation that his forces melted away. He was obliged toabandon his plan, partly owing to this disaffection among the whites, and partly owing to what one of the backwoodsmen, in writing to GeneralMartin, termed "the severity of the Indians, " [Footnote: StateDepartment MSS. , 150, iii. , Maxwell to Martin, July 7, 1788. ]--a queeruse of the word severity which obtains to this day in out-of-the-wayplaces through the Alleghanies, where people style a man with a recordfor desperate fighting a "severe man, " and speak of big, fierce dogs, able to tackle a wolf, as "severe" dogs. 

 It is Condemned Elsewhere. 

Elsewhere throughout the country the news of the murder excited greatindignation. The Continental Congress passed resolutions condemning actswhich they had been powerless to prevent and were powerless to punish. [Footnote: _Do_. , No. 27, p. 359, and No. 151, p. 351. ] The Justices ofthe Court of Abbeville County, South Carolina, with Andrew Pickens attheir head, wrote "to the people living on Nolechucke, French Broad, andHolstein, " denouncing in unmeasured terms the encroachments and outragesof which Sevier and his backwoods troopers had been guilty. [Footnote:_Do_. , No. 56, Andrew Pickens to Thos. Pinckney, July 11, 1788; No. 150, vol. Iii. , Letter of Justices, July 9th. ] In their zeal the Justiceswent a little too far, painting the Cherokees as a harmless people, whohad always been friendly to the Americans, --a statement which GeneralMartin, although he too condemned the outrages openly and with theutmost emphasis, felt obliged to correct, pointing out that theCherokees had been the inveterate and bloody foes of the settlersthroughout the Revolution. [Footnote: _Do_. , No. 150, vol. Iii. , Martinto Knox, Aug. 23, 1788. ] The Governor of North Carolina, as soonas he heard the news, ordered the arrest of Sevier and hisassociates--doubtless as much because of their revolt against the Stateas because of the atrocities they had committed against the Indians. [Footnote: _Do_. , No. 72, Samuel Johnston to Sec'y of Congress, Sept. 29, 1788. ]

 Indian Ravages. 

In their panic many of the Indians fled across the mountains and threwthemselves on the mercy of the North and South Carolinians, by whom theywere fed and protected. Others immediately joined the Chickamaugas inforce, and the frontier districts of the Franklin region were harriedwith vindictive ferocity. The strokes fell most often and most heavilyon the innocent. Half of the militia were called out, and those who mostcondemned the original acts of aggression committed by their neighborswere obliged to make common cause with these neighbors, so as to savetheir own lives and the lives of their families. [Footnote: _Do_. , Hutchings to Maxwell, June 20th, and to Martin, July 11th. ] The officersof the district ordered a general levy of the militia to march againstthe Indian towns, and in each county the backwoodsmen began to muster. [Footnote: _Do_. , No. 150, vol. Ii. , Daniel Kennedy to Martin, June 6, 1788; Maxwell to Martin, July 9th, etc. No. 150, vol. Iii. , p. 357:Result of Council of Officers of Washington District, August 19, 1788. ]

 The Indian War. 

Before the troops assembled many outrages were committed by the savages. Horses were stolen, people were killed in their cabins, in their fields, on the roads, and at the ferries; and the settlers nearest the Indiancountry gathered in their forted stations, and sent earnest appeals forhelp to their unmolested brethren. The stations were attacked, and atone or two the Indians were successful; but generally they were beatenoff, the militia marching promptly to the relief of each beleagueredgarrison. Severe skirmishing took place between the war parties and thebands of militia who first reached the frontier; and the whites were notalways successful. Once, for instance, a party of militia, greedy forfruit, scattered through an orchard, close to an Indian town which theysupposed to be deserted; but the Indians were hiding near by and fellupon them, killing seventeen. The savages mutilated the dead bodies infantastic ways, with ferocious derision, and left them for their friendsto find and bury. [Footnote: _Do_. , Martin to Knox, August 23, 1788. ]Sevier led parties against the Indians without ceasing; and he and hismen by their conduct showed that they waged the war very largely forprofit. On a second incursion, which he made with canoes, into theHiawassee country, his followers made numerous tomahawk claims, or"improvements, " as they were termed, in the lands from which the Indiansfled; hoping thus to establish a right of ownership to the country theyhad overrun. [Footnote: _Do_. , Hutchings to Martin, July 11, 1788. ]

The whites speedily got the upper hand, ceasing to stand on thedefensive; and the panic disappeared. When the North CarolinaLegislature met, the members, and the people of the seaboard generally, were rather surprised to find that the over-hill men talked of theIndian war as troublesome rather than formidable. [Footnote: _ColumbianMagazine, _ ii. , 472. ]

The militia officers holding commissions from North Carolina wishedMartin to take command of the retaliatory expeditious against theCherokees; but Martin, though a good fighter on occasions, preferred thearts of peace, and liked best treating with and managing the Indians. Hehad already acted as agent to different tribes on behalf of Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia; and at this time he accepted an offer fromthe Continental Congress to serve in the same capacity for all theSouthern Indians. [Footnote: State Dep. MSS. , No. 50, vol. Ii. , p. 505etc. ] Nevertheless he led a body of militia against the Chickamaugastowns. He burnt a couple, but one of his detachments was driven back ina fight on Lookout Mountain; his men became discontented, and he wasforced to withdraw, followed and harassed by the Indians. On his retreatthe Indians attacked the settlements in force, and captured Gillespie'sstation. 

 Sevier's Feats. 

Sevier was the natural leader of the Holston riflemen in such a war; andthe bands of frontiersmen insisted that he should take the commandwhenever it was possible. Sevier swam well in troubled waters, and heprofited by the storm he had done so much to raise. Again and againduring the summer of 1788 he led his bands of wild horsemen on foraysagainst the Cherokee towns, and always with success. He followed hisusual tactics, riding hard and long, pouncing on the Indians in theirhomes before they suspected his presence, or intercepting and scatteringtheir war parties; and he moved with such rapidity that they could notgather in force sufficient to do him harm. Not only was the fame of histriumphs spread along the frontier, but vague rumors reached even theold settled States of the seaboard, [Footnote: _Columbian Magazine_ for1789, p. 204. Also letter from French Broad, December 18, 1788. ] rumorsthat told of the slight loss suffered by his followers, of the headlonghurry of his marches, of the fury with which his horsemen charged in theskirmishes, of his successful ambuscades and surprises, and of the heavytoll he took in slain warriors and captive women and children, who wereborne homewards to exchange for the wives and little ones of thesettlers who had themselves been taken prisoners. 

Sevier's dashing and successful leadership wiped out in the minds of thebackwoodsmen the memory of all his shortcomings and misdeeds; even thememory of that unpunished murder of friendly Indians which had solargely provoked the war. The representatives of the North CarolinaGovernment and his own personal enemies were less forgetful. 

 Sevier is Arrested. 

The Governor of the State had given orders to seize him because of hisviolation of the laws and treaties in committing wanton murder onfriendly Indians; and a warrant to arrest him for high treason wasissued by the courts. 

As long as "Nolichucky Jack" remained on the border, among the roughIndian fighters whom he had so often led to victory, he was in nodanger. But in the fall, late in October, he ventured back to the longersettled districts. A council of officers with Martin presiding andTipton present as one of the leading members, had been held atJonesboro, and had just broken up when Sevier and a dozen of hisfollowers rode into the squalid little town. [Footnote: Haywood, 190. ]He drank freely and caroused with his fiends; and he soon quarrelledwith one of the other side who denounced him freely and justly for themurder of Corn Tassel and the other peaceful chiefs. Finally they allrode away, but when some miles out of town Sevier got into a quarrelwith another man; and after more drinking and brawling he went to passthe night at a house, the owner of which was his friend. Meanwhile oneof the men with whom he had quarrelled informed Tipton that his foe wasin his grasp. Tipton gathered eight or ten men and early next morningsurprised Sevier in his lodgings. 

 Sevier Escape. 

Sevier could do nothing but surrender, and Tipton put him in irons andsent him across the mountains to Morgantown, in North Carolina, where hewas kindly treated and allowed much liberty. Most of the inhabitantssympathized with him, having no special repugnance to disorder, and nospecial sympathy even for friendly Indians. Meanwhile a dozen of hisfriends, with his two sons at their head, crossed the mountains torescue their beloved leader. They came into Morgantown while court wassitting and went unnoticed in the crowds. In the evening, when the courtadjourned and the crowds broke up, Sevier's friends managed to get nearhim with a spare horse; he mounted and they all rode off at speed. Bydaybreak they were out of danger. [Footnote: Ramsey first copies Haywoodand gives the account correctly. He then adds a picturesque alternativeaccount--followed by later writers, --in which Sevier escapes in opencourt on a celebrated race mare. The basis for the last account, so faras it has any basis at all, lies on statements made nearly half acentury after the event, and entirely unknown to Haywood. There is noevidence of any kind as to its truthfulness. It mast be set down as merefable. ] Nothing further was attempted against him. A year later he waselected a member of the North Carolina Legislature; after somehesitation he was allowed to take his seat, and the last trace of theold hostility disappeared. 

Neither the North Carolinians, nor any one else, knew that there wasbetter ground for the charge of treason against Sevier than had appearedin his overt actions. He was one of those who had been in correspondencewith Gardoqui on the subject of an alliance between the Westerners andSpain. 

 Alleged Filibustering Movement. 

The year before this Congress had been much worked up over the discoveryof a supposed movement in Franklin to organize for the armed conquest ofLouisiana. In September 1787 a letter was sent by an ex-officer of theContinental line named John Sullivan, writing from Charleston, to aformer comrade in arms; and this letter in some way became public. Sullivan had an unpleasant reputation. He had been involved in one ofthe mutinies of the underpaid Continental troops, and was a plotting, shifty, violent fellow. In his letter he urged his friend to come westforthwith and secure lands on the Tennessee; as there would soon be workcut out for the men of that country; and, he added: "I want you much--byGod--take my word for it that we will speedily be in possession of NewOrleans. " [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , No. 150, vol. Iii. , John Sullivanto Major Wm. Brown, September 24, 1787. ]

The Secretary of War at once directed General Harmar to interfere, byforce if necessary, with the execution of any such plan, and an officerof the regular army was sent to Franklin to find out the truth of thematter. This officer visited the Holston country in April, 1788, andafter careful inquiry came to the conclusion that Sullivan had nobacking, and that no movement against Spain was contemplated; thesettlers being absorbed in the strife between the followers of Sevierand of Tipton. [Footnote: _Do_. , Lieutenant John Armstrong to Major JohnP. Wyllys, April 28, 1788. ]

 Intrigues with Spain. 

The real danger for the moment lay, not in a movement by thebackwoodsmen against Spain, but in a conspiracy of some of the backwoodsleaders with the Spanish authorities. Just at this time the unrest inthe West had taken the form, not of attempting the capture of Louisianaby force, but of obtaining concessions from the Spaniards in return forfavors to be rendered them. Clark and Robertson, Morgan, Brown andInnes, Wilkinson and Sebastian, were all in correspondence with Gardoquiand Miro, in the endeavor to come to some profitable agreement withthem. Sevier now joined the number. His newborn state had died; he wasbeing prosecuted for high treason; he was ready to go to any lengthsagainst North Carolina; and he clutched at the chance of help from theSpaniard. At the time North Carolina was out of the Union, so thatSevier committed no offence against the Federal Government. 

 Gardoqui and Sevier. 

Gardoqui was much interested in the progress of affairs in Franklin; andin the effort to turn them to the advantage of Spain he made use ofJames White, the Indian agent who was in his pay. He wrote [Footnote:Gardoqui MSS. , Gardoqui to Floridablanca, April 18, 1788. ] home that hedid not believe Spain could force the backwoodsmen out of Franklin(which he actually claimed as Spanish territory), but that he had secretadvices that they could easily be brought over to the Spanish interestby proper treatment. When the news came of the fight between Sevier'sand Tipton's men, he judged the time to be ripe, and sent White toFranklin to sound Sevier and bring him over; but he did not trust Whiteenough to give him any written directions, merely telling him what to doand furnishing him with three hundred dollars for his expenses. Themission was performed with such guarded caution that only Sevier and afew of his friends ever knew of the negotiations, and these kept theircounsel well. 

Sevier was in the mood to grasp a helping hand stretched out from nomatter what quarter. He had no organized government back of him; but hewas in the midst of his successful Cherokee campaigns, and he knew thereckless Indian fighters would gladly follow him in any movement, if hehad a chance of success. He felt that if he were given money and arms, and the promise of outside assistance, he could yet win the day. Hejumped at Gardoqui's cautious offers; though careful not to promise tosubject himself to Spain, and doubtless with no idea of playing the partof Spanish vassal longer than the needs of the moment required. 

In July he wrote to Gardoqui, eager to strike a bargain with him; and inSeptember sent him two letters by the hand of his son James Sevier whoaccompanied White when the latter made his return journey to the Federalcapital. [Footnote: Gardoqui MSS. , Sevier to Gardoqui, Sept. 12, 1788. ]One letter, which was not intended to be private, formally set forth thestatus of Franklin with reference to the Indians, and requested therepresentatives of the Catholic king to help keep the peace with thesouthern tribes. The other letter was the one of importance. In it heassured Gardoqui that the western people had grown to know that theirhopes of prosperity rested on Spain, and that the principal people ofFranklin were anxious to enter into an alliance with, and obtaincommercial concessions from, the Spaniards. He importuned Gardoqui formoney and for military aid, assuring him that the Spaniards could bestaccomplish their ends by furnishing these supplies immediately, especially as the struggle over the adoption of the Federal Constitutionmade the time opportune for revolt. 

Gardoqui received White and James Sevier with much courtesy, and wasprofuse, though vague, in his promises. He sent them both to New Orleansthat Miro might hear and judge of their plans. [Footnote: Gardoqui MSS. , Gardoqui to Miro, Oct. 10, 1788. ] Nevertheless nothing came of theproject, and doubtless only a few people in Franklin ever knew that itexisted. As for Sevier, when he saw that he was baffled he suddenlybecame a Federalist and an advocate of a strong Central Government; andthis, doubtless, not because of love for Federalism, but to show hishostility to North Carolina, which had at first refused to enter the newUnion. [Footnote: _Columbian Magazine, _ Aug. 27, 1788, vol. Ii. , 542. ]This particular move was fairly comic in its abrupt unexpectedness. 

 An Independent Frontier State. 

Thus the last spark of independent life flickered out in Franklinproper. The people who had settled on the Indian borders were leftwithout government, North Carolina regarding them as trespassers on theIndian territory. [Footnote: Haywood, 195. ] They accordingly met andorganized a rude governmental machine, on the model of the Commonwealthof Franklin; and the wild little state existed as a separate andindependent republic until the new Federal Government included it in theterritory south of the Ohio. [Footnote: In my first two volumes I havediscussed, once for all, the worth of Gilmore's "histories" of Sevierand Robertson and their times. It is unnecessary further to consider asingle statement they contain. ]

CHAPTER V. 

KENTUCKY'S STRUGGLE FOR STATEHOOD. 1784-1790. 

While the social condition of the communities on the Cumberland and theTennessee had changed very slowly, in Kentucky the changes had beenrapid. 

 Colonel Fleming's Journal. 

Col. William Fleming, one of the heroes of the battle of the GreatKanawha, and a man of note on the border, visited Kentucky on surveyingbusiness in the winter of 1779-80. His journal shows the state of thenew settlements as seen by an unusually competent observer; for he wasan intelligent, well-bred, thinking man. Away from the immediateneighborhood of the few scattered log hamlets, he found the wildernessabsolutely virgin. The easiest way to penetrate the forest was to followthe "buffalo paths, " which the settlers usually adopted for their ownbridle trails, and finally cut out and made into roads. Game swarmed. There were multitudes of swans, geese, and ducks on the river; turkeysand the small furred beasts, such as coons, abounded. Big game wasalmost as plentiful. Colonel Fleming shot, for the subsistence ofhimself and his party, many buffalo, bear, and deer, and some elk. Hisattention was drawn by the great flocks of parroquets, which appearedeven in winter, and by the big, boldly colored, ivory-billedwoodpeckers--birds which have long drawn back to the most remote swampsof the hot Gulf-coast, fleeing before man precisely as the buffalo andelk have fled. 

Like all similar parties he suffered annoyance from the horses straying. He lost much time in hunting up the strayed beasts, and frequently hadto pay the settlers for helping find them. There were no luxuries to behad for any money, and even such common necessaries as corn and saltwere scarce and dear. Half a peck of salt cost a little less than eightpounds, and a bushel of corn the same. The surveying party, when not inthe woods, stayed at the cabins of the more prominent settlers, and hadto pay well for board and lodging, and for washing too. 

 Kentucky during the Revolution. 

Fleming was much struck by the misery of the settlers. At the Falls theywere sickly, suffering with fever and ague; many of the children weredying. Boonsboro and Harrodsburg were very dirty, the inhabitants weresickly, and the offal and dead beasts lay about, poisoning the air andthe water. During the winter no more corn could be procured than wasenough to furnish an occasional hoe-cake. The people sickened on asteady diet of buffalo-bull beef, cured in smoke without salt, andprepared for the table by boiling. The buffalo was the stand-by of thesettlers; they used his flesh as their common food, and his robe forcovering; they made moccasins of his hide and fiddle-strings of hissinews, and combs of his horns. They spun his winter coat into yarn, andout of it they made coarse cloth, like wool. They made a harsh linenfrom the bark of the rotted nettles. They got sugar from the maples. There were then, Fleming estimated, about three thousand souls inKentucky. The Indians were everywhere, and all men lived in mortalterror of their lives; no settlement was free from the dread of thesavages. [Footnote: Draper MSS. , Colonel Wm. Fleming, "MS. Journal inKentucky, " Nov. 12, 1779, to May 27, 1780. ]

 Immense and Rapid Changes. 

Half a dozen years later all this was changed. The settlers had fairlyswarmed into the Kentucky country, and the population was so dense thatthe true frontiersmen, the real pioneers, were already wandering off toIllinois and elsewhere every man of them desiring to live on his ownland, by his own labor, and scorning to work for wages. The unexampledgrowth had wrought many changes; not the least was the way in which itlessened the importance of the first hunter-settlers andhunter-soldiers. The great herds of game had been woefully thinned, andcertain species, as the buffalo, practically destroyed. The killing ofgame was no longer the chief industry, and the flesh and hides of wildbeasts were no longer the staples of food and clothing. The settlersalready raised crops so large that they were anxious to export thesurplus. They no longer clustered together in palisaded hamlets. Theyhad cut out trails and roads in every direction from one to another ofthe many settlements. The scattered clearings on which they generallylived dotted the forest everywhere, and the towns, each with itsstraggling array of log cabins, and its occasional frame houses, did notdiffer materially from those in the remote parts of Pennsylvania andVirginia. The gentry were building handsome houses, and their amusementsand occupations were those of the up-country planters of the seaboard. 

 The Indian Ravages. 

The Indians were still a scourge to the settlements [Footnote: StateDepartment MSS. , No. 151, p. 259, Report of Secretary of War, July 10, 1787; also, No. 60, p. 277. ]; but, though they caused much loss of life, there was not the slightest danger of their imperilling the existence ofthe settlements as a whole, or even or any considerable town or group ofclearings. Kentucky was no longer all a frontier. In the thickly peopleddistricts life was reasonably safe, though the frontier proper washarried and the remote farms jeopardized and occasionally abandoned, [Footnote: Virginia State Papers, iv. , 149, State Department MSS. , No. 56, p. 271. ] while the river route and the wilderness road were beset bythe savages. Where the country was at all well settled, the Indians didnot attack in formidable war bands, like those that had assailed theforted villages in the early years of their existence; they skulkedthrough the woods by twos and threes, and pounced only upon the helplessor the unsuspecting. 

Nevertheless, if the warfare was not dangerous to the life and growth ofthe Commonwealth, it was fraught with undreamed-of woe and hardship toindividual settlers and their families. On the outlying farms no mancould tell when the blow would fall. Thus, in one backwoodsman's writtenreminiscences, there is a brief mention of a settler named Israel Hart, who, during one May night, in 1787, suffered much from a toothache. Inthe morning he went to a neighbor's, some miles away through the forest, to have his tooth pulled, and when he returned he found his wife and hisfive children dead and cut to pieces. [Footnote: Draper MSS. , WhitelyMS. Narrative. ] Incidents of this kind are related in every contemporaryaccount of Kentucky; and though they commonly occurred in the thinlypeopled districts, this was not always the case. Teamsters andtravellers were killed on the highroads near the towns--even in theneighborhood of the very town where the constitutional convention wassitting. 

 Shifting of the Frontiersmen. 

In all new-settled regions in the United States, so long as there was afrontier at all, the changes in the pioneer population proceeded in acertain definite order, and Kentucky furnished an example of theprocess. Throughout our history as a nation the frontiersmen have alwaysbeen mainly native Americans, and those of European birth have beenspeedily beaten into the usual frontier type by the wild forces againstwhich they waged unending war. As the frontiersmen conquered andtransformed the wilderness, so the wilderness in its turn created andpreserved the type of man who overcame it. Nowhere else on the continenthas so sharply defined and distinctively American a type been producedas on the frontier, and a single generation has always been more thanenough for its production. The influence of the wild country upon theman is almost as great as the effect of the man upon the country. Thefrontiersman destroys the wilderness, and yet its destruction means hisown. He passes away before the coming of the very civilization whoseadvance guard he has been. Nevertheless, much of his blood remains, andhis striking characteristics have great weight in shaping thedevelopment of the land. The varying peculiarities of the differentgroups of men who have pushed the frontier westward at different timesand places remain stamped with greater or less clearness on the peopleof the communities that grow up in the frontier's stead. [Footnote:Frederick Jackson Turner: "The Significance of the Frontier in AmericanHistory. " A suggestive pamphlet, published by the State HistoricalSociety of Wisconsin. ]

 Succession of Types on Frontier. 

In Kentucky, as in Tennessee and the western portions of the seaboardStates, and as later in the great West, different types of settlersappeared successively on the frontier. The hunter or trapper came first. Sometimes he combined with hunting and trapping the functions of anIndian trader, but ordinarily the American, as distinguished from theFrench or Spanish frontiersman, treated the Indian trade as somethingpurely secondary to his more regular pursuits. In Kentucky and Tennesseethe first comers from the East were not traders at all, and were huntersrather than trappers. Boone was a type of this class, and Boone'sdescendants went westward generation by generation until they reachedthe Pacific. 

Close behind the mere hunter came the rude hunter-settler. He pasturedhis stock on the wild range, and lived largely by his skill with therifle. He worked with simple tools and he did his work roughly. Hissqualid cabin was destitute of the commonest comforts; the blackenedstumps and dead, girdled trees stood thick in his small and badly tilledfield. He was adventurous, restless, shiftless, and he felt ill at easeand cramped by the presence of more industrious neighbors. As theypressed in round about him he would sell his claim, gather his cattleand his scanty store of tools and household goods, and again wanderforth to seek uncleared land. The Lincolns, the forbears of the greatPresident, were a typical family of this class. 

Most of the frontiersmen of these two types moved fitfully westward withthe frontier itself, or near it, but in each place where they halted, orwhere the advance of the frontier was for the moment stayed, some oftheir people remained to grow up and mix with the rest of the settlers. 

 The Permanent Settlers. 

The third class consisted of the men who were thrifty, as well asadventurous, the men who were even more industrious than restless. Thesewere they who entered in to hold the land, and who handed it on as aninheritance to their children and their children's children. Often, ofcourse, these settlers of a higher grade found that for some reason theydid not prosper, or heard of better chances still farther in thewilderness, and so moved onwards, like their less thrifty and moreuneasy brethren, the men who half-cleared their lands and half-builttheir cabins. But, as a rule, these better-class settlers were not merelife-long pioneers. They wished to find good land on which to build, andplant, and raise their big families of healthy children, and when theyfound such land they wished to make thereon their permanent homes. Theydid not share the impulse which kept their squalid, roving fellows ofthe backwoods ever headed for the vague beyond. They had no sympathywith the feeling which drove these humbler wilderness-wanderers alwaysonwards, and made them believe, wherever they were, that they would bebetter off somewhere else, that they would be better off in thatsomewhere which lay in the unknown and untried. On the contrary, thesethriftier settlers meant to keep whatever they had once grasped. Theygot clear title to their lands. Though they first built cabins, as soonas might be they replaced them with substantial houses and barns. Thoughthey at first girdled and burnt the standing timber, to clear the land, later they tilled it as carefully as any farmer of the seaboard States. They composed the bulk of the population, and formed the backbone andbody of the State. The McAfees may be taken as a typical family of thisclass. 

 The Gentry. 

Yet a fourth class was composed of the men of means, of the well-to-doplanters, merchants, and lawyers, of the men whose families alreadystood high on the Atlantic slope. The Marshalls were such men; and therewere many other families of the kind in Kentucky. Among them were anunusually large proportion of the families who came from the fertilelimestone region of Botetourt County in Virginia, leaving behind them, in the hands of their kinsmen, their roomy, comfortable houses, whichstand to this day. These men soon grew to take the leading places in thenew commonwealth. They were of good blood--using the words as theyshould be used, as meaning blood that has flowed through the veins ofgenerations of self-restraint and courage and hard work, and carefultraining in mind and in the manly virtues. Their inheritance of sturdyand self-reliant manhood helped them greatly; their blood told in theirfavor as blood generally does tell when other things are equal. If theyprized intellect they prized character more; they were strong in bodyand mind, stout of heart, and resolute of will. They felt that pride ofrace which spurs a man to effort, instead of making him feel that he isexcused from effort. They realized that the qualities they inheritedfrom their forefathers ought to be further developed by them as theirforefathers had originally developed them. They knew that their bloodand breeding, though making it probable that they would with propereffort succeed, yet entitled them to no success which they could notfairly earn in open contest with their rivals. 

Such were the different classes of settlers who successively came intoKentucky, as into other western lands. There were of course no sharplines of cleavage between the classes. They merged insensibly into oneanother, and the same individual might, at different times, stand in twoor three. As a rule the individuals composing the first two were crowdedout by their successors, and, after doing the roughest of the pioneerwork, moved westward with the frontier; but some families were of coursecontinually turning into permanent abodes what were merely temporaryhalting places of the greater number. 

 Change in Subjects of Interest. 

With the change in population came the corresponding change inintellectual interests and in material pursuits. The axe was the tool, and the rifle the weapon, of the early settlers; their business was tokill the wild beasts, to fight the savages, and to clear the soil; andthe enthralling topics of conversation were the game and the Indians, and, as the settlements grew, the land itself. As the farms becamethick, and towns throve, and life became more complex, the chances forvariety in work and thought increased likewise. The men of law spranginto great prominence, owing in part to the interminable litigation overthe land titles. The more serious settlers took about as much interestin matters theological as in matters legal; and the congregations of thedifferent churches were at times deeply stirred by quarrels overquestions of church discipline and doctrine. [Footnote: DurrettCollection; see various theological writings, e. G. , "A Progress, " etc. , by Adam Rankin, Pastor at Lexington. Printed "at the Sign of theBuffalo, " Jan. 1, 1793. ] Most of the books were either text-books of thesimpler kinds or else theological. 

Except when there was an Indian campaign, politics and the rivercommerce formed the two chief interests for all Kentuckians, butespecially for the well-to-do. 

 Features of the River Travel. 

In spite of all the efforts of the Spanish officials the volume of tradeon the Mississippi grew steadily. Six or eight years after the close ofthe Revolution the vast stretches of brown water, swirling ceaselesslybetween the melancholy forests, were already furrowed everywhere by thekeeled and keelless craft. The hollowed log in which the Indian paddled;the same craft, the pirogue, only a little more carefully made, and on alittle larger model, in which the creole trader carried his load ofpaints and whiskey and beads and bright cloths to trade for the peltriesof the savage; the rude little scow in which some backwoods farmerdrifted down stream with his cargo, the produce of his own toil; thekeel boats which, with square-sails and oars, plied up as well as downthe river; the flotilla of huge flat boats, the property of some richmerchant, laden deep with tobacco and flour, and manned by crews whowere counted rough and lawless even in the rough and lawlessbackwoods--all these, and others too, were familiar sights to everytraveller who descended the Mississippi from Pittsburgh to New Orleans, [Footnote: John Pope's "Tour, " in 1790. Printed at Richmond in 1792. ] orwho was led by business to journey from Louisville to St. Louis or toNatchez or New Madrid. 

The fact that the river commerce throve was partly the cause and partlythe consequence of the general prosperity of Kentucky. The pioneer days, with their fierce and squalid struggle for bare life, were over. If menwere willing to work, and escaped the Indians, they were sure to succeedin earning a comfortable livelihood in a country so rich. "The neighborsare doing well in every sense of the word, " wrote one Kentuckian toanother, "they get children and raise crops. " [Footnote: Draper MSS. , Jonathan Clark Papers. O'Fallen to Clark, Isles of Ohio, May 30, 1791. ]Like all other successful and masterful people the Kentuckians foughtwell and bred well, and they showed by their actions their practicalknowledge of the truth that no race can ever hold its own unless itsmembers are able and willing to work hard with their hands. 

 Standard of Living. 

The general prosperity meant rude comfort everywhere; and it meant agood deal more than rude comfort for the men of greatest ability. By thetime the river commerce had become really considerable, the richmerchants, planters, and lawyers had begun to build two-story houses ofbrick or stone, like those in which they had lived in Virginia. Theywere very fond of fishing, shooting, and riding, and were lavishlyhospitable. They sought to have their children well taught, not only inletters but in social accomplishments like dancing; and at the properseason they liked to visit the Virginian watering-places, where they met"genteel company" from the older States, and lodged in good taverns inwhich "a man could have a room and a bed to himself. " [Footnote: Letterof a young Virginian, L. Butler, April 13, 1790. _Magazine of Amer. Hist. , _ i. , 113. ]

An agreement entered into about this time between one of the Clarks anda friend shows that Kentuckians were already beginning to appreciate themerits of neat surroundings even for a rather humble town-house. Thisparticular house, together with, the stable and lot, was rented for "onecow" for the first eight months, and two dollars a month afterthat--certainly not an excessive rate; and it was covenanted thateverything should be kept in good repair, and particularly that thegrass plots around the house should not be "trod on or tore up. "[Footnote: Draper MSS. Wm. Clark Papers. Agreement between Clark andBagley, April 1, 1790. ]

 Interest in Politics. 

All Kentuckians took a great interest in politics, as is the wont ofself-asserting, independent freemen, living under a democraticgovernment. But the gentry and men of means and the lawyers very soontook the lead in political affairs. A larger proportion of these classescame from Virginia than was the case with the rest of the population, and they shared the eagerness and aptitude for political life generallyshown by the leading families of Virginia. In many cases they were kinto these families; not, however, as a rule, to the families of thetidewater region, the aristocrats of colonial days, but to thefamilies--so often of Presbyterian Irish stock--who rose to prominencein western Virginia at the time of the Revolution. In Kentucky all weremixed together, no matter from what State they came, the wrench of thebreak from their home ties having shaken them so that they readilyadapted themselves to new conditions, and easily assimilated with oneanother. As for their differences of race origin, these had ceased toinfluence their lives even before they came to Kentucky. They were allAmericans, in feeling as well as in name, by habit as well as by birth;and the positions they took in the political life of the West wasdetermined partly by the new conditions surrounding them, and partly bythe habits bred in them through generations of life on American soil. 

 Clark's Breakdown. 

One man, who would naturally have played a prominent part in Kentuckypolitics, failed to do so from a variety of causes. This was GeorgeRogers Clark. He was by preference a military rather than a civilleader; he belonged by choice and habit to the class of pioneers andIndian fighters whose influence was waning; his remarkable successes hadexcited much envy and jealousy, while his subsequent ignominious failurehad aroused contempt; and, finally, he was undone by his fondness forstrong drink. He drew himself to one side, though he chafed at the need, and in his private letters he spoke with bitterness of the "big littlemen, " the ambitious nobodies, whose jealousy had prompted them todestroy him by ten thousand lies; and, making a virtue of necessity, heplumed himself on the fact that he did not meddle with politics, andsneered at the baseness of his fellow-citizens, whom he styled "a swarmof hungry persons gaping for bread. " [Footnote: Draper MSS. , G. R. Clarkto J. Clark, April 20, 1788, and September 2, 1791. ]

 Logan's Prominence. 

Benjamin Logan, who was senior colonel and county lieutenant of theDistrict of Kentucky, stood second to Clark in the estimation of theearly settlers, the men who, riding their own horses and carrying theirown rifles, had so often followed both commanders on their swift raidsagainst the Indian towns. Logan naturally took the lead in the firstserious movement to make Kentucky an independent state. In itsbeginnings this movement showed a curious parallelism to what wasoccurring in Franklin at the same time, though when once fairly underway the difference between the cases became very strongly marked. Ineach case the prime cause in starting the movement was trouble with theIndians. In each, the first steps were taken by the commanders of thelocal militia, and the first convention was summoned on the same plan, amember being elected by every militia company. The companies wereterritorial as well as military units, and the early settlers were all, in practice as well as in theory, embodied in the militia. Thus in bothKentucky and Franklin the movements were begun in the same way by thesame class of Indian-fighting pioneers; and the method of organizationchosen shows clearly the rough military form which at that periodsettlement in the wilderness, in the teeth of a hostile savagery, alwaysassumed. 

 Conference of Militia Officers. 

In 1784 fear of a formidable Indian invasion--an unwarranted fear, asthe result showed--became general in Kentucky, and in the fall Logansummoned a meeting of the field officers to discuss the danger and toprovide against it. When the officers gathered and tried to evolve someplan of operations, they found that they were helpless. They were merelythe officers of one of the districts of Virginia; they could take noproper steps of their own motion, and Virginia was too far away and herinterests had too little in common with theirs, for the Virginianauthorities to prove satisfactory substitutes for their own. [Footnote:Marshall, himself an actor in these events, is the best authority forthis portion of Kentucky history; see also Green; and compare Collins, Butler, and Brown] No officials in Kentucky were authorized to order anexpedition against the Indians, or to pay the militia who took part init, or to pay for their provisions and munitions of war. Any expeditionof the kind had to be wholly voluntary, and could of course only beundertaken under the strain of a great emergency; as a matter of factthe expeditions of Clark and Logan in 1786 were unauthorized by law, andwere carried out by bodies of mere volunteers, who gathered only becausethey were forced to do so by bitter need. Confronted by such a conditionof affairs, the militia officers issued a circular-letter to the peopleof the district, recommending that on December 24, 1784, a conventionshould be held at Danville further to consider the subject, and thatthis convention should consist of delegates elected one from eachmilitia company. 

 First Convention Elected by Militia Companies. 

The recommendation was well received by the people of the district; andon the appointed date the convention met at Danville. Col. WilliamFleming, the old Indian fighter and surveyor, was again visitingKentucky, and he was chosen President of the convention. After somediscussion the members concluded that, while some of the disadvantagesunder which they labored could be remedied by the action of the VirginiaLegislature, the real trouble was deep-rooted, and could only be met byseparation from Virginia and the erection of Kentucky into a state. There was, however, much opposition to this plan, and the conventionwisely decided to dissolve, after recommending to the people to elect, by counties, members who should meet in convention at Danville in Mayfor the express purpose of deciding on the question of addressing to theVirginia Assembly a request for separation. [Footnote: State Dep. MSS. Madison Papers, Wallace to Madison, Sept. 25, 1785. ]

 Second Convention Held. 

The convention assembled accordingly, Logan being one of the members, while it was presided over by Col. Samuel McDowell, who, like Fleming, was a veteran Indian fighter and hero of the Great Kanawha. Up to thispoint the phases through which the movement for statehood in Kentuckyhad passed were almost exactly the same as the phases of the similarmovement in Franklin. But the two now entered upon diverging lines ofprogression. In each case the home government was willing to grant therequest for separation, but wished to affix a definite date to theirconsent, and to make the fulfilment of certain conditions aprerequisite. In each case there were two parties in the districtdesiring separation, one of them favoring immediate and revolutionaryaction, while the other, with much greater wisdom and propriety, wishedto act through the forms of law and with the consent of the parentState. In Kentucky the latter party triumphed. Moreover, while up to thetime of this meeting of the May convention the leaders in the movementhad been the old Indian fighters, after this date the lead was taken bymen who had come to Kentucky only after the great rush of immigrantsbegan. The new men were not backwoods hunter-warriors, like Clark andLogan, Sevier, Robertson, and Tipton. They were politicians of theVirginia stamp. They founded political clubs, one of which, the Danvilleclub, became prominent, and in them they discussed with fervid eagernessthe public questions of the day, the members showing a decided tendencytowards the Jeffersonian school of political thought. 

 Convention Urges Independence. 

The convention, which met at Danville, in May, 1785, decided unanimouslythat it was desirable to separate, by constitutional methods, fromVirginia, and to secure admission as a separate state into the FederalUnion. Accordingly, it directed the preparation of a petition to thiseffect, to be sent to the Virginia Legislature, and prepared an addressto the people in favor of the proposed course of action. Then, in aqueer spirit of hesitancy, instead of acting on its own responsibility, as it had both the right and power to do, the convention decided thatthe issuing of the address, and the ratification of its own actionsgenerally, should be submitted to another convention, which was summonedto meet at the same place in August of the same year. The people of thedistrict were as yet by no means a unit in favor of separation, and thismade the convention hesitate to take any irrevocable step. 

One of the members of this convention was Judge Caleb Wallace, a recentarrival in Kentucky, and a representative of the new school of Kentuckypoliticians. He was a friend and ally of Brown and Innes. He was also afriend of Madison, and to him he wrote a full account of the reasonswhich actuated the Kentuckians in the step they had taken. [Footnote:State Department MSS. Madison Papers, Caleb Wallace to Madison, July 12, 1785. ] He explained that he and the people of the district generallyfelt that they did not "enjoy a greater portion of liberty than anAmerican colony might have done a few years ago had she been allowed arepresentation in the British Parliament. " He complained bitterly thatsome of the taxes were burdensome and unjust, and that the money raisedfor the expenses of government all went to the east, to Virginia proper, while no corresponding benefits were received; and insisted that theseat of government was too remote for Kentucky ever to get justice fromthe rest of the State. Therefore, he said, he thought it would be wiserto part in peace rather than remain together in discontented and jealousunion. But he frankly admitted that he was by no means sure that thepeople of the district possessed sufficient wisdom and virtue to fitthem for successful self-government, and he anxiously asked Madison'sadvice as to several provisions which it was thought might be embodiedin the constitution of the new state. 

 The Separatists Urge Immediate Revolution. 

In the August convention Wilkinson sat as a member, and he succeeded incommitting his colleagues to a more radical course of action than thatof the preceding convention. The resolutions they forwarded to theVirginia Legislature, asked the immediate erection of Kentucky into anindependent state, and expressed the conviction that the newcommonwealth would undoubtedly be admitted into the Union. This, ofcourse, meant that Kentucky would first become a power outside andindependent of the Union; and no provision was made for entry into theUnion beyond the expression of a hopeful belief that it would beallowed. 

Such a course would have been in the highest degree unwise and theVirginians refused to allow it to be followed. Their Legislature, inJanuary, 1786, provided that a new convention should be held in Kentuckyin September, 1786, and that, if it declared for independence, the stateshould come into being after the 1st of September, 1787, provided, however, that Congress, before June 1, 1787, consented to the erectionof the new state, and agreed to its admission into the Union. It wasalso provided that another convention should be held, in the summer of1787, to draw up a constitution for the new state. [Footnote: Marshall, i. , 224]

 Virginia Wisely Affixes Conditions to her Consent

Virginia thus, with great propriety, made the acquiescence of Congress acondition precedent for formation of the new State. Wilkinsonimmediately denounced this condition that Kentucky declare herself anindependent State forthwith, no matter what Congress or Virginia mightsay. All the disorderly, unthinking, and separatist elements followedhis lead. Had his policy been adopted the result would probably havebeen a civil war; and at the least there would have followed a period ofanarchy and confusion, and a condition of things similar to thatobtaining at this very time in the territory of Franklin. The mostenlightened and far-seeing men of the district were alarmed at theoutlook; and a vigorous campaign in favor of orderly action was begun, under the lead of men like the Marshalls. These men were themselvesuncompromisingly in favor of statehood for Kentucky; but they insistedthat it should come in an orderly way, and not by a silly and needlessrevolution, which could serve no good purpose and was certain to entailmuch disorder and suffering upon the community. They insisted, furthermore, that there should be no room for doubt in regard to the newstate's entering the Union. There were thus two well defined parties, and there were hot contests for seats in the convention. One unforeseenevent delayed the organization of that body. When the time that itshould have convened arrived, Clark and Logan were making their raidsagainst the Shawnees and the Wabash Indians. So many members-elect wereabsent in command of their respective militia companies that theconvention merely met to adjourn, no quorum to transact business beingobtained until January, 1787. The convention then sent to the VirginianLegislature explaining the reason for the delay, and requesting that theterms of the act of separation already passed should be changed to suitthe new conditions. 

 Virginia Makes Needless Delay. 

Virginia had so far acted wisely; but now she in her turn showedunwisdom, for her Legislature passed a new act, providing for anotherconvention, to be held in August, 1787, the separation from Virginiaonly to be consummated if Congress, prior to July 4, 1788, should agreeto the erection of the state and provide for its admission to the Union. When news of this act, with its requirement of needless and tediousdelay, reached the Kentucky convention, it adjourned for good, with muchchagrin. 

Wilkinson and the other separatist leaders took advantage of this verynatural chagrin to inflame the minds of the people against both Virginiaand Congress. It was at this time that the Westerners became deeplystirred by exaggerated reports of the willingness of Congress to yieldthe right to navigate the Mississippi; and the separatist chiefs fannedtheir discontent by painting the danger as real and imminent, althoughthey must speedily have learned that it had already ceased to exist. Moreover, there was much friction between the Federal and Virginianauthorities and the Kentucky militia officers in reference to the Indianraids. The Kentuckians showed a disposition to include all Indians, goodand bad alike, in the category of foes. On the other hand the homeauthorities were inclined to forbid the Kentuckians to make theoffensive return-forays which could alone render successful theirdefensive war-fare against the savages. All these causes combined toproduce much irritation, and the separatists began to talk rebellion. One of their leaders, Innes, in a letter to the Governor of Virginia, threatened that Kentucky would revolt not only from the parent State butfrom the Union, if heed were not paid to her wishes and needs. (Footnote: Green, 83. )

 The Kentuckians Grumble but Acquiesce. 

However, at this time Wilkinson started on his first trading voyage toNew Orleans, and the district was freed from his very undesirablepresence. He was the main-spring of the movement in favor of lawlessseparation; for the furtive, restless, unscrupulous man had a talent forintrigue which rendered him dangerous at a crisis of such a kind. In hisabsence the feeling cooled. The convention met in September, 1787, andacted with order and propriety, passing an act which provided forstatehood upon the terms and conditions laid down by Virginia. The actwent through by a nearly unanimous vote, only two members dissenting, while three or four refused to vote either way. Both Virginia and theContinental Congress were notified of the action taken. 

The only adverse comment that could be made on the proceedings was thatin the address to Congress there was expressed a doubt, which was almostequivalent to a threat, as to what the district would do if it was notgiven full life as a state. But this fear as to the possibleconsequences was real, and many persons who did not wish for even aconstitutional separation, nevertheless favored it because they dreadedlest the turbulent and disorderly elements might break out in openviolence if they saw themselves chained indefinitely to those whoseinterests were, as they believed, hostile to theirs. The lawless andshiftless folk, and the extreme separatists, as a whole, wished forcomplete and absolute independence of both State and Nation, because itwould enable them to escape paying their share of the Federal and Statedebts, would permit them to confiscate the lands of those whom theycalled "nonresident monopolizers, " and would allow of their treatingwith the Indians according to their own desires. The honest, hardworking, forehanded, and farsighted people thought that the best wayto defeat these mischievous agitators was to take the matter into theirown hands, and provide for Kentucky's being put on an exact level withthe older States. [Footnote: State Dep. MSS. Madison Papers, Wallace toMadison, Nov. 12, 1787. ]

 Renewal of the Disunion Agitation. 

With Wilkinson's return to Kentucky, after his successful trading tripto New Orleans, the disunion agitation once more took formidable form. The news of his success excited the cupidity of every mercantileadventurer, and the whole district became inflamed with desire to reapthe benefits of the rich river-trade; and naturally the people formedthe most exaggerated estimate of what these benefits would be. Chafingat the way the restrictions imposed by the Spanish officials hamperedtheir commerce, the people were readily led by Wilkinson and hisassociates to consider the Federal authorities as somehow to blamebecause these restrictions were not removed. 

 The Indian Ravages. 

The discontent was much increased by the growing fury of the Indianravages. There had been a lull in the murderous woodland warfare duringthe years immediately succeeding the close of the Revolution, but thestorm had again gathered. The hostility of the savages had grownsteadily. By the summer of 1787 the Kentucky frontier was sufferingmuch. The growth of the district was not stopped, nor were there anyattempts made against it by large war bands; and in the thickly settledregions life went on as usual. But the outlying neighborhoods were badlypunished, and the county lieutenants were clamorous in their appeals foraid to the Governor of Virginia. They wrote that so many settlers hadbeen killed on the frontier that the others had either left theirclearings and fled to the interior for safety, or else had gathered inthe log forts, and so were unable to raise crops for the support oftheir families. Militia guards and small companies of picked scouts werekept continually patrolling the exposed regions near the Ohio, but theforays grew fiercer, and the harm done was great. [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , No. 71, vol. Ii. , pp. 561, 563. ] In their anger the Kentuckiansdenounced the Federal Government for not aiding them, the men who wereloudest in their denunciations being the very men who were moststrenuously bent on refusing to adopt the new Constitution, which alonecould give the National Government the power to act effectually in theinterest of the people. 

 Ratification of the Federal Constitution. 

While the spirit of unrest and discontent was high, the question ofratifying or rejecting this new Federal Constitution came up fordecision. The Wilkinson party, and all the men who believed in a weakcentral government, or who wished the Federal tie dissolved outright, were, of course, violently opposed to ratification. Many weak orshort-sighted men, and the doctrinaires and theorists--most of themembers of the Danville political club, for instance--announced thatthey wished to ratify the Constitution, but only after it had beenamended. As such prior amendment was impossible, this amounted merely toplaying into the hands of the separatists; and the men who followed itwere responsible for the by no means creditable fact that most of theKentucky members in the Virginia convention voted against ratification. Three of them, however, had the patriotism and foresight to vote infavor of the Constitution. 

 Further Delay. 

Another irritating delay in the march toward statehood now occurred. InJune, 1788, the Continental Congress declared that it was expedient toerect Kentucky into a state. [Footnote: State Dep. MSS. , No. 20, vol. I. , p. 341 etc. ] But immediately afterwards news came that theConstitution had been ratified by the necessary nine States, and thatthe new government was, therefore, practically in being. This meant thedissolution of the old Confederation, so that there was no longer anyobject in admitting Kentucky to membership, and Congress thereupon verywisely refused to act further in the matter. Unfortunately Brown, whowas the Kentucky delegate in Congress, was one of the separatistleaders. He wrote home an account of the matter, in which he painted therefusal as due to the jealousy felt by the East for the West. As amatter of fact the delegates from all the States, except Virginia, hadconcurred in the action taken. Brown suppressed this fact, and usedlanguage carefully calculated to render the Kentuckians hostile to theUnion. 

Naturally all this gave an impetus to the separatist movement. Thedistrict held two conventions, in July and again in November, during theyear 1788; and in both of them the separatist leaders made determinedefforts to have Kentucky forthwith erect herself into an independentstate. In uttering their opinions and desires they used vague languageas to what they would do when once separated from Virginia. It iscertain that they bore in mind at the time at least the possibility ofseparating outright from the Union and entering into a close alliancewith Spain. The moderate men, headed by those who were devoted to thenational idea, strenuously opposed this plan; they triumphed andKentucky merely sent a request to Virginia for an act of separation inaccordance with the recommendations of Congress. [Footnote: See Marshalland Green for this year. ]

 The Kentucke Gazette. 

It was in connection with these conventions that there appeared thefirst newspaper ever printed in this new west; the west which lay nolonger among the Alleghanies, but beyond them. It was a small weeklysheet called the _Kentucke Gazette_, and the first number appeared inAugust, 1787. The editor and publisher was one John Bradford, whobrought his printing press down the river on a flat-boat; and some ofthe type were cut out of dogwood. In politics the paper sided with theseparatists and clamored for revolutionary action by Kentucky. [Footnote: Durrett Collection, _Kentucke Gazette_, September 20, 1788. ]

 Failure of the Separatist Movement. 

The purpose of the extreme separatist was, unquestionably, to keepKentucky out of the Union and turn her into a little independentnation, --a nation without a present or a future, an English-speakingUraguay or Ecuador. The back of this separatist movement was broken bythe action of the fall convention of 1788, which settled definitely thatKentucky should become a state of the Union. All that remained was todecide on the precise terms of the separation from Virginia. There wasat first a hitch over these, the Virginia Legislature making terms towhich the district convention of 1789 would not consent; but Virginiathen yielded the points in dispute, and the Kentucky convention of 1790provided for the admission of the state to the Union in 1792, and forholding a constitutional convention to decide upon the form ofgovernment, just before the admission. [Footnote: Marshall, i. , 342etc. ]

Thus Kentucky was saved from the career of ignoble dishonor to which shewould have been doomed by the success of the disunion faction. She wassaved from the day of small things. Her interests became those of anation which was bound to succeed greatly or to fail greatly. Her fatewas linked for weal or for woe with the fate of the mighty Republic. 

CHAPTER VI. 

THE NORTHWEST TERRITORY; OHIO. 1787-1790. 

 Individual Initiative of the Frontiersmen. 

So far the work of the backwoodsmen in exploring, conquering, andholding the West had been work undertaken solely on individualinitiative. The nation as a whole had not directly shared in it. Thefrontiersmen who chopped the first trails across the Alleghanies, whoearliest wandered through the lonely western lands, and who first builtstockaded hamlets on the banks of the Watauga, the Kentucky, and theCumberland, acted each in consequence of his own restless eagerness foradventure and possible gain. The nation neither encouraged them toundertake the enterprises on which they embarked, nor protected them forthe first few years of uncertain foothold in the new-won country. Onlythe backwoodsmen themselves felt the thirst for exploration of theunknown, the desire to try the untried, which drove them hither andthither through the dim wilderness. The men who controlled the immediatedestinies of the confederated commonwealths knew little of what lay inthe forest-shrouded country beyond the mountains, until the backwoodsexplorers of their own motion penetrated its hidden and inmostfastnesses. Singly or in groups, the daring hunters roved through thevast reaches of sombre woodland, and pitched their camps on the banks ofrushing rivers, nameless and unknown. In bands of varying size thehunter-settlers followed close behind, and built their cabins andblock-houses here and there in the great forest land. They elected theirown military leaders, and waged war on their own account against theirIndian foes. They constructed their own governmental systems, on theirown motion, without assistance or interference from the parent States, until the settlements were firmly established, and the work of civicorganization well under way. 

 Help Rendered by National Government. 

Of course some help was ultimately given by the parent States; and theindirect assistance rendered by the nation had been great. The Westcould neither have been won nor held by the frontiersmen, save for thebacking given by the Thirteen States. England and Spain would have madeshort work of the men whose advance into the lands of their Indianallies they viewed with such jealous hatred, had they not also beenforced to deal with the generals and soldiers of the Continental army, and the statesmen and diplomats of the Continental Congress. But thereal work was done by the settlers themselves. The distinguishingfeature in the exploration, settlement, and up-building of Kentucky andTennessee was the individual initiative of the backwoodsmen. 

 The Northwest Won by the Nation as a Whole. 

The direct reverse of this was true of the settlement of the countrynorthwest of the Ohio. Here, also, the enterprise, daring, and energy ofthe individual settlers were of the utmost consequence; the land couldnever have been won had not the incomers possessed these qualities in avery high degree. But the settlements sprang directly from the action ofthe Federal Government, and the first and most important of them wouldnot have been undertaken save for that action. The settlers were not thefirst comers in the wilderness they cleared and tilled. They did notthemselves form the armies which met and overthrew the Indians. Theregular forces led the way in the country north of the Ohio. The Federalforts were built first; it was only afterwards that the small townssprang up in their shadow. The Federal troops formed the vanguard of thewhite advance. They were the mainstay of the force behind which, asbehind a shield, the founders of the commonwealths did their work. 

Unquestionably many of the settlers did their full share in thefighting; and they and their descendants, on many a stricken field, andthrough many a long campaign, proved that no people stood above them inhardihood and courage; but the land on which they settled was won lessby themselves than by the statesmen who met in the national capital, andthe scarred soldiers who on the frontier upbore the national colors. Moreover, instead of being absolutely free to choose their own form ofgovernment, and shape their own laws and social conditions untrammelledby restrictions, the Northwesterners were allowed to take the land onlyupon certain definite conditions. The National Government ceded tosettlers part of its own domain, and provided the terms upon whichstates of the Union should afterwards be made out of this domain; andwith a wisdom and love of righteousness which have been of incalculableconsequence to the whole nation, it stipulated that slavery should neverexist in the States thus formed. This condition alone profoundlyaffected the whole development of the Northwest, and sundered it by asharp line from those portions of the new country which, for their ownill fortune, were left free from all restriction of the kind. TheNorthwest owes its life and owes its abounding strength and vigorousgrowth to the action of the nation as a whole. It was founded not byindividual Americans, but by the United States of America. The mightyand populous commonwealths that lie north of the Ohio and in the valleyof the Upper Mississippi are in a peculiar sense the children of theNational Government, and it is no mere accident that has made them inreturn the especial guardians and protectors of that government; forthey form the heart of the nation. 

 Unorganized Settlements West of the Ohio. 

Before the Continental Congress took definite action concerning theNorthwest, there had been settlements within its borders, but thesesettlements were unauthorized and illegal, and had little or no effectupon the aftergrowth of the region. Wild and lawless adventurers hadbuilt cabins and made tomahawk claims on the west bank of the UpperOhio. They lived in angry terror of the Indians, and they also had causeto dread the regular army; for wherever the troops discovered theircabins, they tore them down, destroyed the improvements, and drove offthe sullen and threatening squatters. As the tide of settlementincreased in the neighboring country these trespassers on the Indianlands and on the national domain became more numerous. Many were drivenoff, again and again; but here and there one kept his foothold. It wasthese scattered few successful ones who were the first permanentsettlers in the present State of Ohio, coming in about the same timethat the forts of the regular troops were built. They formed noorganized society, and their presence was of no importance whatever inthe history of the State. 

The American settlers who had come in round the French villages on theWabash and the Illinois were of more consequence. In 1787 the adultmales among these American settlers numbered 240, as against 1040 Frenchof the same class. [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , No. 48, p. 165. Of adultmales there were among the French 520 at Vincennes, 191 at Kaskaskia, 239 at Cahokia, 11 at St. Phillippe, and 78 at Prairie du Rocher. TheAmerican adult males numbered 103 at Vincennes and 137 in the Illinois. ]They had followed in the track of Clark's victorious march. They hadtaken up land, sometimes as mere squatters, sometimes under color oftitle obtained from the French courts which Clark and Todd had organizedunder what they conceived to be the authority of Virginia. They were forthe most part rough, enterprising men; and while some of them behavedwell, others proved very disorderly and gave much trouble to the French;so that both the Creoles and the Indians became exasperated with themand put them in serious jeopardy just before Clark undertook hisexpedition in the fall of 1786. 

 The French Villages. 

The Creoles had suffered much from the general misrule and anarchy intheir country, and from the disorderly conduct of some of the Americansettlers, and of not a few of the ragged volunteer soldiery as well. They hailed with sincere joy the advent of the disciplined Continentaltroops, commanded by officers who behaved with rigid justice towards allmen and put down disorder with a strong hand. They were much relieved tofind themselves under the authority of Congress, and both to that bodyand to the local Regular Army officers, they sent petitions settingforth their grievances and hopes. In one petition to Congress theyrecited at length the wrongs done them, dwelling especially upon thefact that they had gladly furnished the garrison established among themwith poultries and provisions of every kind, for which they had neverreceived a dollar's payment. They remarked that the stores seemed todisappear in a way truly marvellous, leaving the backwoods soldiers whowere to have benefited by them "as ragged as ever. " The petitionerscomplained that the undisciplined militia quartered among them, who ontheir arrival were "in the most shabby and wretched state, " and who had"rioted in abundance and unaccustomed luxury" at the expense of theCreoles, had also maltreated and insulted them; as for instance they hadat times wantonly shot the cattle merely to try their rifles. "Ours wasthe task of hewing and carting them firewood to the barracks, " continuedthe petition, complaining of the way the Virginians had imposed on thesubmissiveness and docility of the inhabitants, "ours the drudgery ofraising vegetables which we did not eat, poultry for their kitchen, cattle for the diversion of their marksmen. "

The petitioners further asked that every man among them should begranted five hundred acres. They explained that formerly they had set novalue on the land, occupying themselves chiefly with the Indian trade, and raising only the crops they absolutely needed for food; but that nowthey realized the worth of the soil, and inasmuch as they had varioustitles to it, under lost or forgotten charters from the French kings, they would surrender all the rights these titles conveyed, save onlywhat belonged to the Church of Cahokia, in return for the above namedgrant of five hundred acres to each individual. [Footnote: StateDepartment MSS. , No. 48, "Memorial of the French Inhabitants of PostVincennes, Kaskaskia, La Prairie du Rocher, Cahokia, and Village of St. Philip to Congress. " By Bartholemew Tardiveau, agent. New York, February26, 1788. Tardiveau was a French mercantile adventurer, who hadrelations with Gardoqui and the Kentucky separatists, and in a petitionpresented by him it is not easy to discriminate between the views thatare really those of the Creoles, and the views which he deemed it forhis own advantage to have expressed. ]

The memorialists alluded to their explanation of the fact that they hadlost all the title-deeds to the land, that is all the old chartersgranted them, as "ingenuous and candid"; and so it was. The immenseimportance of having lost all proof of their rights did not strike them. There was an almost pathetic childishness in the request that the UnitedStates authorities should accept oral tradition in lieu of the testimonyof the lost charters, and in the way they dwelt with a kind of humblepride upon their own "submissiveness and docility. " In the same spiritthe inhabitants of Vincennes surrendered their charter, remarking"accustomed to mediocrity, we do not wish for wealth but for merecompetency. " [Footnote: _Do_. , July 26, 1787. ] Of course the"submissiveness" and the light-heartedness of the French did not preventtheir being also fickle; and their "docility" was varied by fits ofviolent quarrelling with their American neighbors and among themselves. But the quarrels of the Creoles were those of children, compared withthe ferocious feuds of the Americans. 

Sometimes the trouble was of a religious nature. The priest atVincennes, for instance, bitterly assailed the priest at Cahokia, because he married a Catholic to a Protestant; while all the people ofthe Cahokia church stoutly supported their pastor in what he had done. [Footnote: _Do_. , p. 85. ] This Catholic priest was Clark's old friendGibault. He was suffering from poverty, due to his loyal friendship tothe Americans; for he had advanced Clark's troops both goods andpeltries, for which he had never received payment. In a petition toCongress he showed how this failure to repay him had reduced him towant, and had forced him to sell his two slaves, who otherwise wouldhave kept and tended him in his old age. [Footnote: American StatePapers, Public Lands, I. , Gibault's Memorial, May I, 1790. ]

The Federal General Harmar, in the fall of 1787, took formal possession, in person, of Vincennes and the Illinois towns; and he commented uponthe good behavior of the Creoles, and their respect for the UnitedStates Government, and laid stress upon the fact that they were entirelyunacquainted with what the Americans called liberty, and could best begoverned in the manner to which they were accustomed--"by a commandantwith a few troops. " [Footnote: St. Clair Papers, Harmar's Letters, August 7th and November 24th, 1787. ]

 Contrast between the French and Americans. 

The American pioneers, on the contrary, were of all people the leastsuited to be governed by a commandant with troops. They were much betterstuff out of which to make a free, self-governing nation, and they weremuch better able to hold their own in the world, and to shape their owndestiny; but they were far less pleasant people to govern. To this daythe very virtues of the pioneers--not to speak of their faults--make italmost impossible for them to get on with an ordinary army officer, accustomed as he is to rule absolutely, though justly and with a sort ofsevere kindness. Army officers on the frontier--especially when put incharge of Indian reservations or of French or Spanish communities--havealmost always been more or less at swords-points with the stubborn, cross-grained pioneers. The borderers are usually as suspicious as theyare independent, and their self-sufficiency and self-reliance oftendegenerate into mere lawlessness and defiance of all restraint. 

 The Regular Officers Side with the French against the Americans. 

The Federal officers in the backwoods north of the Ohio got on badlywith the backwoodsmen. Harmar took the side of the French Creoles, andwarmly denounced the acts of the frontiersmen who had come in amongthem. [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , No. 150, vol. Ii. , Harmar to LeGrasse and Busseron, June 29, 1787. ] In his letter to the Creoles healluded to Clark's Vincennes garrison as "a set of lawless banditti, "and explained that his own troops were regulars, who would treat withjustice both the French and Indians. Harmar never made much effort toconceal dislike of the borderers. In one letter he alludes to a Delawarechief as "a manly old fellow, and much more of a gentleman than thegenerality of these frontier people. " [Footnote: _Do_. , Harmar to theSecretary of War, March 9, 1788. ] Naturally, there was little love lostbetween the bitterly prejudiced old army officer, fixed and rigid in allhis ideas, and the equally prejudiced backwoodsmen, whose ways oflooking at almost all questions were antipodal to his. 

The Creoles of the Illinois and Vincennes sent warm letters of welcometo Harmar. The American settlers addressed him in an equally respectfulbut very different tone, for, they said, their hearts were filled with"anxiety, gloominess, and dismay. " They explained the alarm they felt atthe report that they were to be driven out of the country, andprotested--what was doubtless true--that they had settled on the land inentire good faith, and with the assent of the French inhabitants. Thelatter themselves bore testimony to the good faith, and good behavior ofmany of the settlers, and petitioned that these should not be molested, [Footnote: _Do_. , Address of American Inhabitants of Vincennes, August4, 1787; Recommendation by French Inhabitants in Favor of AmericanInhabitants, August 2d; Letter of Le Chamy and others, Kaskaskia, August25th; Letter of J. M. P. Le Gras, June 25th. ] explaining that the Frenchhad been benefited by their industry, and had preserved a peaceable andfriendly intercourse with them. In the end, while the French villagerswere left undisturbed in their ancient privileges, and while they weregranted or were confirmed in the possession of the land immediatelyaround them, the Americans and the French who chose to go outside thevillage grants were given merely the rights of other settlers. 

The Continental officers exchanged courtesies with the Spanishcommandants of the Creole villages on the west bank of the Mississippi, but kept a sharp eye on them, as these commandants endeavored topersuade all the French inhabitants to move west of the river byoffering them free grants of land. [Footnote: Hamtranck to Harmar, October 13, 1788. ]

 The Real Founders of the Northwest. 

But all these matters were really of small consequence. The woes of theCreoles, the trials of the American squatters, the friction between theregular officers and the backwoodsmen, the jealousy felt by both for theSpaniards--all these were of little real moment at this period of thehistory of the Northwest. The vital point in its history was the passageby Congress of the Ordinance of 1787, and the doings of the various landcompanies under and in consequence of this ordinance. 

 Individualism in the Southwest, Collectivism in the Northwest

The wide gap between the ways in which the Northwest and the Southwestwere settled is made plain by such a statement. In the Northwest, it wasthe action of Congress, the action of the representatives of the nationacting as a whole, which was all-important. In the Southwest, no actionof Congress was of any importance when compared with the voluntarymovements of the backwoodsmen themselves. In the Northwest, it was thenation which acted. In the Southwest, the determining factor was theindividual initiative of the pioneers. The most striking feature in thesettlement of the Southwest was the free play given to the workings ofextreme individualism. The settlement of the Northwest represented thetriumph of an intelligent collectivism, which yet allowed to each man afull measure of personal liberty. 

 Difference in Stock of the Settlers. 

Another difference of note was the difference in stock of the settlers. The Southwest was settled by the true backwoodsmen, the men who lived ontheir small clearings among the mountains of western Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina. The first settlement in Ohio, thesettlement which had most effect upon the history of the Northwest, andwhich largely gave it its peculiar trend, was the work of NewEnglanders. There was already a considerable population in New England;but the rugged farmers with their swarming families had to fill up largewaste spaces in Maine and in Northern New Hampshire and Vermont, andthere was a very marked movement among them towards New York, andespecially into the Mohawk valley, all west of which was yet awilderness. In consequence, during the years immediately succeeding theclose of the Revolutionary War, the New England emigrants made theirhomes in those stretches of wilderness which were nearby, and did notappear on the western border. But there had always been enterprisingindividuals among them desirous of seeking a more fertile soil in thefar west or south, and even before the Revolution some of these menventured to Louisiana itself, to pick out a good country in which toform a colony. After the close of the war the fame of the lands alongthe Ohio was spread abroad; and the men who wished to form companies forthe purposes of adventurous settlement began to turn their eyes thither. 

 Land Claims of the States. 

The first question to decide was the ownership of the wished-forcountry. This decision had to be made in Congress by agreement among therepresentatives of the different States. Seven States--Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Virginia, Georgia, and both Carolinas--claimedportions of the western lands. New York's claim was based with entiresolemnity on the ground that she was the heir of the Iroquois tribes, and therefore inherited all the wide regions overrun by their terriblewar-bands. The other six States based their claims on various charters, which in reality conferred rights not one whit more substantial. 

These different claims were not of a kind to which any outside powerwould have paid heed. Their usefulness came in when the States bargainedamong themselves. In the bargaining, both among the claimant States, andbetween the claimant and the non-claimant States, the charter titleswere treated as of importance, and substantial concessions were exactedin return for their surrender. But their value was really inchoate untilthe land was reduced to possession by some act of the States or theNation. 

 Virginia and North Carolina. 

At the close of the Revolutionary War there existed wide differencesbetween the various States as to the actual ownership and possession ofthe lands they claimed. Virginia and North Carolina were the only twowho had reduced to some kind of occupation a large part of the territoryto which they asserted title. Their backwoodsmen had settled in thelands so that they already held a certain population. Moreover, thesesame backwoodsmen, organized as part of the militia of the parentStates, had made good their claim by successful warfare. The laws of thetwo States were executed by State officials in communities scatteredover much of the country claimed. The soldier-settlers of Virginia andNorth Carolina had actually built houses and forts, tilled the soil, andexercised the functions of civil government, on the banks of the Wabashand the Ohio, the Mississippi, the Cumberland, and the Tennessee. Counties and districts had been erected by the two States on the westernwaters; and representatives of the civil divisions thus constituted satin the State Legislatures. The claims of Virginia and North Carolina tomuch of the territory had behind them the substantial element of armedpossession. The settlement and conquest of the lands had been achievedwithout direct intervention by the Federal Government; though of courseit was only the ultimate success of the nation in its contest with theforeign foe that gave the settlement and conquest any value. 

 Georgia. 

As much could not be said for the claims of the other States. SouthCarolina's claim was to a mere ribbon of land south of the NorthCarolina territory, and need not be considered; ceded to the Governmentabout the time the Northwest was organized. [Footnote: For an account ofthis cession see Mr. Garrett's excellent paper in the publications ofthe Tennessee Historical Society. ] Georgia asserted that her boundariesextended due west to the Mississippi, and that all between was hers. Butthe entire western portion of the territory was actually held by theSpaniards and by the Indian tribes tributary to the Spaniards. Nosubjects of Georgia lived on it, or were allowed to live on it. The fewwhite inhabitants were subjects of the King of Spain, and lived underSpanish law; the Creeks and Choctaws were his subsidized allies; and heheld the country by right of conquest. Georgia, a weak and turbulent, though a growing State, was powerless to enforce her claims. Most of theterritory to which she asserted title did not in truth become part ofthe United States until Pinckney's treaty went into effect. It was theUnited States and not Georgia that actually won and held the land indispute; and it was a discredit to Georgia's patriotism that she so longwrangled about it, and ultimately drove so hard a bargain concerning itwith the National Government. 

 Claims to the Northwest. 

There was a similar state of affairs in the far Northwest. No NewYorkers lived in the region bounded by the shadowy and wavering lines ofthe Iroquois conquests. The lands claimed under ancient charters byMassachusetts and Connecticut were occupied by the British and theirIndian allies, who held adverse possession. Not a single New Englandsettler lived in them; no New England law had any force in them; no NewEngland soldier had gone or could go thither. They were won by thevictory of Wayne and the treaty of Jay. If Massachusetts and Connecticuthad stood alone, the lands would never have been yielded to them at all;they could not have enforced their claim, and it would have beenscornfully disregarded. The region was won for the United States by thearms and diplomacy of the United States. Whatever of reality there wasin the titles of Massachusetts and Connecticut came from the existenceand actions of the Federal Union. [Footnote: For this northwesternhistory see "The Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Manasseh Cutler, "by Wm. Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler; "The St. Clair Papers, "by W. H. Smith; "The Old Northwest, " by B. A. Hinsdale; "Maryland'sInfluence upon Land Cessions, " by Herbert Adams. See also Donaldson's"Public Domain, " Hildreth's "History of Washington County, " and thevarious articles by Poole and others. In Prof. Hinsdale's excellentbook, on p. 200, is a map of the "Territory of the Thirteen OriginalStates in 1783. " This map is accurate enough for Virginia and NorthCarolina; but the lands in the west put down as belonging toMassachusetts, Connecticut, and Georgia, did not really belong to themat all in 1783; they were held by the British and Spaniards, and wereultimately surrendered to the United States, not to individual States. These States did not surrender the land; they merely surrendered adisputed title to the lands. ]

 The Non-claimant States. 

All the States that did not claim lands beyond the mountains werestrenuous in belittling the claims of those that did, and insisted thatthe title to the western territory should be vested in the Union. Noteven the danger from the British armies could keep this question inabeyance, and while the war was at its height the States were engaged inbitter wrangles over the subject; for the weakness of the Federal tierendered it always probable that the different members of the Unionwould sulk or quarrel with one another rather than oppose an energeticresistance to the foreign foe. At different times different non-claimantStates took the lead in pushing the various schemes for nationalizingthe western lands; but Maryland was the first to take action in thisdirection, and was the most determined in pressing the matter to asuccessful issue. She showed the greatest hesitation in joining theConfederation at all while the matter was allowed to rest unsettled; andinsisted that the titles of the claimant States were void, that therewas no need of asking them to cede what they did not possess, and thatthe West should be declared outright to be part of the Federal domain. 

Maryland was largely actuated by fear of her neighbor Virginia. Virginia's claims were the most considerable, and if they had all beenallowed, hers would have been indeed an empire. Maryland's fears weretwofold. She dreaded the mere growth of Virginia in wealth, power, andpopulation in the first place; and in the second she feared lest her ownpopulation might be drained into these vacant lands, thereby at oncediminishing her own, and building up her neighbor's, importance. EachState, at that time, had to look upon its neighbors as probablecommercial rivals and possible armed enemies. This is a feeling which wenow find difficulty in understanding. At present no State in the Unionfears the growth of a neighbor, or would ever dream of trying to checkthat growth. The direct reverse was the case during and after theRevolution; for the jealousy and distrust which the different Statesfelt for one another were bitter to a degree. 

 The Continental Congress Advocates a Compromise. 

The Continental Congress was more than once at its wits' ends instriving to prevent an open break over the land question between themore extreme States on the two sides. The wisest and coolest leaders sawthat the matter could never be determined on a mere consideration of theabstract rights, or even of the equities, of the case. They saw that itwould have to be decided, as almost all political questions of greatimportance must be decided, by compromise and concession. The foremoststatesmen of the Revolution were eminently practical politicians. Theyhad high ideals, and they strove to realize them, as near as might be;otherwise they would have been neither patriots nor statesmen. But theywere not theorists. They were men of affairs, accustomed to deal withother men; and they understood that few questions of real moment can bedecided on their merits alone. Such questions must be dealt with on theprinciple of getting the greatest possible amount of ultimate good, andof surrendering in return whatever must be surrendered in order toattain this good. There was no use in learned arguments to show thatMaryland's position was the proper one for a far-sighted Americanpatriot, or that Virginia and North Carolina had more basis for theirclaims than Connecticut or Georgia. What had to be done was to appeal tothe love of country and shrewd common-sense of the people in thedifferent States, and persuade them each to surrender on certain points, so that all could come to a common agreement. 

 Land Cessions by the Claimant States. 

New York's claim was the least defensible of all, but, on the otherhand, New York led the way in vesting whatever title she might have inthe Federal Government. In 1780 she gave proof of the growth of thenational idea among her citizens by abandoning all her claim to westernlands in favor of the Union. Congress used this surrender as an argumentby which to move the other States to action. It issued an earnest appealto them to follow New York's example without regard to the value oftheir titles, so that the Federal Union might be put on a firm basis. Congress did not discuss its own rights, nor the rights of the States;it simply asked that the cessions be made as a matter of expediency andpatriotism; and announced that the policy of the Government would be todivide this new territory into districts of suitable size, which shouldbe admitted as States as soon as they became well settled. This lastproposition was important, as it outlined the future policy of theGovernment, which was to admit the new communities as States, with allthe rights of the old States, instead of treating them as subordinateand dependent, after the manner of the European colonial systems. 

Maryland then joined the Confederation, in 1781. Virginia andConnecticut had offered to cede their claims but under such conditionsthat it was impossible to close with the offers. Congress accepted theNew York cession gratefully, with an eye to the effect on the otherStates; but for some time no progress was made in the negotiations withthe latter. Finally, early in 1784, the bargain with Virginia wasconsummated. She ceded to Congress her rights to the territory northwestof the Ohio, except a certain amount retained as a military reserve forthe use of her soldiers, while Congress tacitly agreed not to questionher right to Kentucky. A year later Massachusetts followed suit, andceded to Congress her title to all the lands lying west of the presentwestern boundary of New York State. Finally, in 1786, a similar cessionwas made by Connecticut. But Connecticut's action was not much morepatriotic or less selfish than Georgia's. Throughout the controversy sheshowed a keen desire to extract from Congress all that could possibly beobtained, and to delay action as long as might be; though, like Georgia, Connecticut could by rights claim nothing that was not in realityobtained for the Union by the Union itself. She made her grantconditionally upon being allowed to reserve for her own profit aboutfive thousand square miles in what is now northern Ohio. This tract wasafterwards known as the Western Reserve. Congress was very reluctant toaccept such a cession, with its greedy offset, but there was no wisealternative, and the bargain was finally struck. 

The non-claimant states had attained their object, and yet it had beenobtained in a manner that left the claimant States satisfied. Theproject for which Maryland had contended was realized, with thedifference that Congress accepted the Northwest as a gift coupled withconditions, instead of taking it as an unconditional right. The landsbecame part of the Federal domain, and were nationalized so far as theycould be under the Confederation; but there was no national treasuryinto which to turn the proceeds from the sale until the Constitution wasadopted. [Footnote: Hinsdale, 250. ]

 The Land Policy of Congress. 

Having got possession of the land, Congress proceeded to arrange for itsdisposition, even before providing the outline of the governmentalsystem for the states that might grow up therein. Congress regarded theterritory as forming a treasury chest, and was anxious to sell the landin lots, whether to individuals or to companies. In 1785 it passed anordinance of singular wisdom, which has been the basis of all oursubsequent legislation on the subject. 

This ordinance was another proof of the way in which the nation appliedits collective power to the subdual and government of the Northwest, instead of leaving the whole matter to the working of unrestrictedindividualism, as in the Southwest. The pernicious system of acquiringtitle to public lands in vogue among the Virginians and NorthCarolinians was abandoned. Instead of making each man survey his ownland, and allowing him to survey it when, how, and where he pleased, with the certainty of producing endless litigation and trouble, Congressprovided for a corps of government surveyors, who were to go about thiswork systematically. It provided further for a known base line, and thenfor division of the country into ranges of townships six miles square, and for the subdivision of these townships into lots ("sections") of onesquare mile--six hundred and forty acres--each. The ranges, townships, and sections were duly numbered. The basis for the whole system ofpublic education in the Northwest was laid by providing that in everytownship lot No. 16 should be reserved for the maintenance of publicschools therein. A minimum price of a dollar an acre was put on theland. 

Congress hoped to find in these western lands a source of great wealth. The hope was disappointed. The task of subduing the wilderness is notvery remunerative. It yields a little more than a livelihood to men ofenergy, resolution, and bodily strength and address; but it does notyield enough for men to be able to pay heavily for the privilege ofundertaking the labor. Throughout our history the pioneer has found thatby taking up wild land at a low cost he can make a rough living, andkeep his family fed, clothed, and housed; but it is only by very hardwork that he can lay anything by, or materially better his condition. Ofcourse, the few very successful do much more, and the unsuccessful doeven less; but the average pioneer can just manage to keep continuallyforging a little ahead, in matters material and financial. Under suchconditions a high price cannot be obtained for public lands; and whenthey are sold, as they must be, at a low price, the receipts do littlemore than offset the necessary outlay. The truth is that people have avery misty idea as to the worth of wild lands. Even when the soil isrich they only possess the capacity of acquiring value under labor. Alltheir value arises from the labor done on them or in their neighborhood, except that it depends also upon the amount of labor which mustnecessarily be expended in transportation. 

It is the fashion to speak of the immense opportunity offered to anyrace by a virgin continent. In one sense the opportunity is indeedgreat; but in another sense it is not, for the chance of failure is verygreat also. It is an opportunity of which advantage can be taken only atthe cost of much hardship and much grinding toil. 

 The Ordinance of 1787. 

It remained for Congress to determine the conditions under which thesettlers could enter the new land, and under which new States shouldspring up therein. These conditions were fixed by the famous Ordinanceof 1787; one of the two or three most important acts ever passed by anAmerican legislative body, for it determined that the new northwesternStates, the children, and the ultimate leaders, of the Union, should gettheir growth as free commonwealths, untainted by the horrible curse ofnegro slavery. 

Several ordinances for the government of the Northwest were introducedand carried through Congress in 1784-1786, but they were never put intooperation. In 1784 Jefferson put into his draft of the ordinance of thatyear a clause prohibiting slavery in all the western territory, south aswell as north of the Ohio River, after the beginning of the year 1801. This clause was struck out; and even if adopted it would probably haveamounted to nothing, for if slavery had been permitted to take firm rootit could hardly have been torn up. In 1785 Rufus King advanced aproposition to prohibit all slavery in the Northwest immediately, butCongress never acted on the proposal. 

The next movement in the same direction was successful, because when itwas made it was pushed by a body of well-known men who were anxious tobuy the lands that Congress was anxious to sell, but who would not buythem until they had some assurance that the governmental system underwhich they were to live would meet their ideas. This body was composedof New Englanders, mostly veterans of the Revolutionary War, and led byofficers who had stood well in the Continental army. 

When, in the fall of 1783, the Continental army was disbanded, thewar-worn and victorious soldiers, who had at last wrung victory from thereluctant years of defeat, found themselves fronting grim penury. Somewere worn with wounds and sickness; all were poor and unpaid; andCongress had no means to pay them. Many among them felt that they hadsmall chance to repair their broken fortunes if they returned to thehomes they had abandoned seven weary years before, when the guns of theminute-men first called them to battle. 

 The Ohio Company. 

These heroes of the blue and buff turned their eyes westward to thefertile lands lying beyond the mountains. They petitioned Congress tomark out a territory, in what is now the State of Ohio, as the seat of adistinct colony, in time to become one of the confederated States; andthey asked that their bounty lands should be set off for them in thisterritory. Two hundred and eighty-five officers of the Continental linejoined in this petition; one hundred and fifty-five, over half, werefrom Massachusetts, the State which had furnished more troops than anyother to the Revolutionary armies. The remainder were from Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Maryland. 

The signers of this petition desired to change the paper obligations ofCongress, which they held, into fertile wild lands which they shouldthemselves subdue by their labor; and out of these wild lands theyproposed to make a new State. These two germ ideas remained in theirminds, even though their petition bore no fruit. They kept before theireyes the plan of a company to undertake the work, after getting theproper cession from Congress. Finally, in the early spring of 1786, someof the New England officers met at the "Bunch of Grapes" tavern inBoston, and organized the Ohio Company of Associates. They at once sentone of their number as a delegate to New York, where the ContinentalCongress was in session, to lay their memorial before that body. 

 Congress and the Ohio Company. 

Congress was considering another ordinance for the government of theNorthwest when the memorial was presented, and the former was delayeduntil the latter could be considered by the committee to which it hadbeen referred. In July, Dr. Manasseh Cutler, of Ipswich, Massachusetts, arrived as a second delegate to look after the interests of the company. He and they were as much concerned in the terms of the governmentalordinance, as in the conditions on which the land grant was to be made. The orderly, liberty-loving, keen-minded New Englanders who formed thecompany, would not go to a land where the form of government was hostileto their ideas of righteousness and sound public policy. 

 The Prohibition of Slavery. 

The one point of difficulty was the slavery question. Only eight Stateswere at the time represented in the Congress; these were Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia, North and South Carolina, andGeorgia--thus five of the eight States were southern. But the FederalCongress rose in this, almost its last act, to a lofty pitch ofpatriotism; and the Southern States showed a marked absence of sectionalfeeling in the matter. Indeed, Cutler found that though he was a NewEngland man, with a New England company behind him, many of the Easternpeople looked rather coldly at his scheme, fearing lest the settlementof the West might mean a rapid drainage of population from the East. Nathan Dane, a Massachusetts delegate, favored it, in part because hehoped that planting such a colony in the West might keep at least thatpart of it true to "Eastern politics. " The Southern members, on theother hand, heartily supported the plan. The committee that brought inthe ordinance, the majority being Southern men, also reported an articleprohibiting slavery. Dane was the mover, while the rough draft may havebeen written by Cutler; and the report was vigorously pushed by the twoVirginians on the committee, William Grayson and Richard Henry Lee. Thearticle was adopted by a vote unanimous, except for the dissent of onedelegate, a nobody from New York. 

The ordinance established a territorial government, with a governor, secretary, and judges. A General Assembly was authorized as soon asthere should be five thousand free male inhabitants in the district. Thelower house was elective, the upper house, or council, was appointive. The Legislature was to elect a territorial delegate to Congress. Thegovernor was required to own a freehold of one thousand acres in thedistrict, a judge five hundred, and a representative two hundred; and noman was allowed to vote unless he possessed a freehold of fifty acres. [Footnote: "St. Clair Papers, " ii. , 603. ] These provisions would seemstrangely undemocratic if applied to a similar territory in our own day. 

 Features of the Ordinance of 1787. 

The all-important features of the ordinance were contained in the sixarticles of compact between the confederated States and the people andstates of the territory, to be forever unalterable, save by the consentof both parties. The first guaranteed complete freedom of worship andreligious belief to all peaceable and orderly persons. The secondprovided for trial by jury, the writ of habeas corpus, the privileges ofthe common law, and the right of proportional legislativerepresentation. The third enjoined that faith should be kept with theIndians, and provided that "schools and the means of education" shouldforever be encouraged, inasmuch as "religion, morality, and knowledge"were necessary to good government. The fourth ordained that the newstates formed in the Northwest should forever form part of the UnitedStates, and be subject to the laws, as were the others. The fifthprovided for the formation and admission of not less than three or morethan five states, formed out of this northwestern territory, wheneversuch a putative state should contain sixty thousand inhabitants; theform of government to be republican, and the state, when created, tostand on an equal footing with all the other States. 

The sixth and most important article declared that there should never beslavery or involuntary servitude in the Northwest, otherwise than forthe punishment of convicted criminals, provided, however, that fugitiveslaves from the older States might lawfully be reclaimed by theirowners. This was the greatest blow struck for freedom and againstslavery in all our history, save only Lincoln's emancipationproclamation, for it determined that in the final struggle the mightyWest should side with the right against the wrong. It was in its resultsa deadly stroke against the traffic in and ownership of human beings, and the blow was dealt by southern men, to whom all honor should ever begiven. This anti-slavery compact was the most important feature of theordinance, yet there were many other features only less important. 

 Importance of the Ordinance. 

In truth the ordinance of 1787 was so wide-reaching in its effects, wasdrawn in accordance with so lofty a morality and such far-seeingstatesmanship, and was fraught with such weal for the nation, that itwill ever rank amongst the foremost of American state papers, coming inthat little group which includes the Declaration of Independence, theConstitution, Washington's Farewell Address, and Lincoln's EmancipationProclamation and Second Inaugural. It marked out a definite line oforderly freedom along which the new States were to advance. It laid deepthe foundation for that system of widespread public education socharacteristic of the Republic and so essential to its healthy growth. It provided that complete religious freedom and equality which we nowaccept as part of the order of nature, but which were then unknown inany important European nation. It guaranteed the civil liberty of allcitizens. It provided for an indissoluble Union, a Union which shouldgrow until it could relentlessly crush nullification and secession; forthe States founded under it were the creatures of the Nation, and wereby the compact declared forever inseparable from it. 

 New Method of Creating Colonies. 

In one respect the ordinance marked a new departure of the most radicalkind. The adoption of the policy therein outlined has worked a completerevolution in the way of looking at new communities formed bycolonization from the parent country. Yet the very completeness of thisrevolution to a certain extent veils from us its importance. We cannotrealize the greatness of the change because of the fact that the changewas so great; for we cannot now put ourselves in the mental attitudewhich regarded the old course as natural. The Ordinance of 1787 decreedthat the new States should stand in every respect on an equal footingwith the old; and yet should be individually bound together with them. This was something entirely new in the history of colonization. Hithertoevery new colony had either been subject to the parent state, orindependent of it. England, Holland, France, and Spain, when theyfounded colonies beyond the sea, founded them for the good of the parentstate, and governed them as dependencies. The home country might treather colonies well or ill, she might cherish and guard them, or oppressthem with harshness and severity, but she never treated them as equals. Russia, in pushing her obscure and barbarous conquest and colonizationof Siberia, --a conquest destined to be of such lasting importance in thehistory of Asia, --pursued precisely the same course. 

In fact, this had been the only kind of colonization known to modernEurope. In the ancient world it had also been known, and it was onlythrough it that great empires grew. Each Roman colony that settled inGaul or Iberia founded a city or established a province which wastributary to Rome, instead of standing on a footing of equality in thesame nation with Rome. But the other great colonizing peoples ofantiquity, the Greeks and Phoenicians, spread in an entirely differentway. Each of their colonies became absolutely independent of the countrywhence it sprang. Carthage and Syracuse were as free as Tyre or Sidon, as Corinth or Athens. Thus under the Roman method the empire grew, atthe cost of the colonies losing their independence. Under the Greek andCarthaginian method the colonies acquired the same freedom that wasenjoyed by the mother cities; but there was no extension of empire, nogrowth of a great and enduring nationality. The modern European nationshad followed the Roman system. Until the United States sprang into beingevery great colonizing people followed one system or the other. 

The American Republic, taking advantage of its fortunate federalfeatures and of its strong central government, boldly struck out on anew path, which secured the freedom-giving properties of the Greekmethod, while preserving national Union as carefully as it was preservedby the Roman Empire. New States were created, which stood on exactly thesame footing as the old; and yet these new States formed integral andinseparable parts of a great and rapidly growing nation. This movementwas original with the American Republic; she was dealing with newconditions, and on this point the history of England merely taught herwhat to avoid. The English colonies were subject to the British Crown, and therefore to Great Britain. The new American States, themselvescolonies in the old Greek sense, were subject only to a government whichthey helped administer on equal terms with the old States. No State wassubject to another, new or old. All paid a common allegiance to acentral power which was identical with none. 

The absolute novelty of this feature, as the world then stood, fails toimpress us now because we are so used to it. But it was at that timewithout precedent; and though since then the idea has made rapidprogress, there seems in most cases to have been very great difficultyin applying it in practice. The Spanish-American states proved whollyunable to apply it at all. In Australia and South Africa all that can besaid is that events now apparently show a trend in the direction ofadopting this system. At present all these British colonies, as regardsone another, are independent but disunited; as regards the mothercountry, they remain united with her, but in the condition ofdependencies. 

 The Question of Slavery. 

The vital feature of the ordinance was the prohibition of slavery. Thisprohibition was not retroactive; the slaves of the French villagers, andof the few American slaveholders who had already settled round them, were not disturbed in their condition. But all further importation ofslaves, and the holding in slavery of any not already slaves, wereprohibited. The prohibition was brought about by the action of the OhioCompany. Without the prohibition the company would probably not haveundertaken its experiment in colonization; and save for the pressure ofthe company slavery would hardly have been abolished. Congress wished tosell the lands, and was much impressed by the solid worth of thefounders of the association. The New Englanders were anxious to buy thelands, but were earnest in their determinating to exclude slavery fromthe new territory. The slave question was not at the time a burningissue between North and South; for no Northerner thought of crusading todestroy the evil, while most enlightened Southerners were fond ofplanning how to do away with it. The tact of the company'srepresentative before Congress, Dr. Cutler, did the rest. A compromisewas agreed to; for, like so many other great political triumphs, thepassage of the Ordinance of 1787 was a compromise. Slavery wasprohibited, on the one hand; and on the other, that the territory mightnot become a refuge for runaway negroes, provision was made for thereturn of such fugitives. The popular conscience was yet too dull aboutslavery to be stirred by the thought of returning fugitive slaves intobondage. 

 Land Purchase. 

A fortnight after the passage of the ordinance, the transaction wascompleted by the sale of a million and a half acres, north of the Ohio, to the Ohio Company. Three million and a half more, known as the Sciatopurchase, were authorized to be sold to a purely speculative company, but the speculation ended in nothing save financial disaster. The pricewas nominally seventy cents an acre; but as payment was made indepreciated public securities, the real price was only eight or ninecents an acre. The sale illustrated the tendency of Congress at thattime to sell the land in large tracts; a most unwholesome tendency, fruitful of evil to the whole community. It was only by degrees that thewisdom of selling the land in small plots, and to actual occupiers, wasrecognized. 

Together with the many wise and tolerant measures included in the famousOrdinance of 1787, and in the land Ordinance of 1785, there were one ortwo which represented the feelings of the past, not the future. One ofthem was a regulation which reserved a lot in every township to be givenfor the purposes of religion. Nowadays, and rightfully, we regard aspeculiarly American the complete severance of Church and State, andrefuse to allow the State to contribute in any way towards the supportof any sect. 

A regulation of a very different kind provided that two townships shouldbe set apart to endow a university. These two townships now endow theUniversity of Ohio, placed in a town which, with queer poverty ofimagination, and fatuous absence of humor, has been given the name ofAthens. 

 Organization of the Company. 

The company was well organized, the founders showing the invaluable NewEngland aptitude for business, and there was no delay in getting thesettlement started. After some deliberation the lands lying along theOhio, on both sides of, but mainly below, the Muskingum, were chosen forthe site of the new colony. There was some delay in making the paymentssubsequent to the first, and only a million and some odd acres werepatented. One of the reasons for choosing the mouth of the Muskingum asthe site for the town was the neighborhood of Fort Harmar, with itsstrong Federal garrison, and the spot was but a short distance beyondthe line of already existing settlement. 

 Founding of Marietta. 

As soon as enough of the would-be settlers were ready, they pushedforward in parties towards the headwaters of the Ohio, struggling alongthe winter-bound roads of western Pennsylvania. In January and Februarythey began to reach the banks of the Youghioghany, and set aboutbuilding boats to launch when the river opened. There were forty-eightsettlers in all who started down stream, their leader being GeneralRufus Putnam. He was a tried and gallant soldier, who had served withhonor not only in the Revolutionary armies, but in the war which crushedthe French power in America. On April 7, 1788, he stepped from his boat, which he had very appropriately named the Mayflower, on to the bank ofthe Muskingum. The settlers immediately set to work felling trees, building log houses and a stockade, clearing fields, and laying out theground-plan of Marietta; for they christened the new town after theFrench Queen, Marie Antoinette. [Footnote: "St. Clair Papers, " i. , 139. It was at the beginning of the dreadful pseudo-classic cult in ourintellectual history, and these honest soldiers and yeomen, with muchself-complacency, gave to portions of their little raw town suchludicrously inappropriate names as the Campus Martius and Via Sacra. ] Itwas laid out in the untenanted wilderness; yet near by was the proofthat ages ago the wilderness had been tenanted, for close at hand werehuge embankments, marking the site of a town of the long-vanishedmound-builders. Giant trees grew on the mounds; all vestiges of thebuilders had vanished, and the solemn forest had closed above everyremembrance of their fate. 

 Beginning of Ohio. 

The day of the landing of these new pilgrims was a day big with fate notonly for the Northwest but for the Nation. It marked the beginning ofthe orderly and national conquest of the lands that now form the heartof the Republic. It marked the advent among the pioneers of a newelement, which was to leave the impress of its strong personality deeplygraven on the institutions and the people of the great States north ofthe Ohio; an element which in the end turned their development in thedirection towards which the parent stock inclined in its home on theNorth Atlantic seaboard. The new settlers were almost all soldiers ofthe Revolutionary armies; they were hardworking, orderly men of trainedcourage and of keen intellect. An outside observer speaks of them asbeing the best informed, the most courteous and industrious, and themost law-abiding of all the settlers who had come to the frontier, whiletheir leaders were men of a higher type than was elsewhere to be foundin the West. [Footnote: "Denny's Military Journal, " May 28 and June 15, 1789. ] No better material for founding a new State existed anywhere. With such a foundation the State was little likely to plunge into theperilous abysses of anarchic license or of separatism and disunion. Moreover, to plant a settlement of this kind on the edge of theIndian-haunted wilderness showed that the founders possessed bothhardihood and resolution. 

 Contrast with the Deeds of the Old Pioneers. 

Yet it must not be forgotten that the daring needed for the performanceof this particular deed can in no way be compared with that shown by thereal pioneers, the early explorers and Indian fighters. The very factthat the settlement around Marietta was national in its character, thatit was the outcome of national legislation, and was undertaken undernational protection, made the work of the individual settler count forless in the scale. The founders and managers of the Ohio Company and thestatesmen of the Federal Congress deserve much of the praise that in theSouthwest would have fallen to the individual settlers only. The creditto be given to the nation in its collective capacity was greatlyincreased, and that due to the individual was correspondinglydiminished. 

Rufus Putnam and his fellow New Englanders built their new town underthe guns of a Federal fort, only just beyond the existing boundary ofsettlement, and on land guaranteed them by the Federal Government. Thedangers they ran and the hardships they suffered in no wise approachedthose undergone and overcome by the iron-willed, iron-limbed hunters whofirst built their lonely cabins on the Cumberland and Kentucky. Thefounders of Marietta trusted largely to the Federal troops forprotection, and were within easy reach of the settled country; but thewild wood-wanderers who first roamed through the fair lands south of theOhio built their little towns in the heart of the wilderness, manyscores of leagues from all assistance, and trusted solely to their ownlong rifles in time of trouble. The settler of 1788 journeyed at easeover paths worn smooth by the feet of many thousands of predecessors;but the early pioneers cut their own trails in the untrodden wilderness, and warred single-handed against wild nature and wild man. 

 Cutler Visits Marietta. 

In the summer of 1788 Dr. Manasseh Cutler visited the colony he hadhelped to found, and kept a diary of his journey. His trip throughPennsylvania was marked merely by such incidents as were common at thattime on every journey in the United States away from the larger towns. He travelled with various companions, stopping at taverns and privatehouses; and both guests and hosts were fond of trying their skill withthe rifle, either at a mark or at squirrels. In mid-August he reachedCoxe's fort, on the Ohio, and came for the first time to the frontierproper. Here he embarked on a big flat boat, with on board forty-eightsouls all told, besides cattle. They drifted and paddled down stream, and on the evening of the second day reached the Muskingum. Here andthere along the Virginian shore the boat passed settlements, with grainfields and orchards; the houses were sometimes squalid cabins, andsometimes roomy, comfortable buildings. When he reached the newly builttown he was greeted by General Putnam, who invited Cutler to share themarquee in which he lived; and that afternoon he drank tea with anotherNew England general, one of the original founders. 

The next three weeks he passed very comfortably with his friends, takingpart in the various social entertainments, walking through the woods, and visiting one or two camps of friendly Indians with all the curiosityof a pleasure-tourist. He greatly admired the large cornfields, proof ofthe industry of the settlers. Some of the cabins were alreadycomfortable; and many families of women and children had come out tojoin their husbands and fathers. 

 St. Clair Made Governor. 

The newly appointed Governor of the territory, Arthur St. Clair, hadreached the place in July, and formally assumed his task of government. Both Governor St. Clair and General Harmar were men of the oldFederalist school, utterly unlike the ordinary borderers; and even inthe wilderness they strove to keep a certain stateliness and formalityin their surroundings. They speedily grew to feel at home with the NewEngland leaders, who were gentlemen of much the same type as themselves, and had but little more in common with the ordinary frontier folk. Dr. Cutler frequently dined with one or other of them. After dining with theGovernor at Fort Harmar, he pronounced it in his diary a "genteeldinner"; and he dwelt on the grapes, the beautiful garden, and the goodlooks of Mrs. Harmar. Sometimes the leading citizens gave a dinner to"His Excellency, " as Dr. Cutler was careful to style the Governor, andto "General Harmar and his Lady. " On such occasions the visitors wererowed from the fort to the town in a twelve-oared barge with an awning;the drilled crew rowed well, while a sergeant stood in the stern tosteer. On each oar blade was painted the word "Congress"; all theregular army men were devout believers in the Union. The dinners werehandsomely served, with punch and wine; and at one Dr. Cutler recordsthat fifty-five gentlemen sat down, together with three ladies. The fortitself was a square, with block-houses, curtains, barracks, andartillery. 

 Cutler's Trip up the Ohio. 

After three weeks' stay the Doctor started back, up stream, in the boatof a well-to-do Creole trader from the Illinois. This trader was no lessa person than Francis Vigo, who had welcomed Clark when he tookKaskaskia, and who at that time rendered signal service to theAmericans, advancing them peltries and goods. To the discredit of thenation be it said, he was never repaid what he had advanced. When Cutlerjoined him he was making his way up the Ohio in a big keel-boat, propelled by ten oars and a square sail. The Doctor found his quarterspleasant; for there was an awning and a cabin, and Vigo was wellequipped with comforts and even luxuries. In his travelling-chest hecarried his silver-handled knives and forks, and flasks of spirits. Thebeds were luxurious for the frontier; in his journal the Doctor mentionsthat one night he had to sleep in "wet sheets. " The average pioneer knewnothing whatever of sheets, wet or dry. Often the voyagers would get outand walk along shore, shooting pigeons or squirrels and plucking bunchesof grapes. On such occasions if they had time they would light a fireand have "a good dish of tea and a french fricassee. " Once they saw someIndians; but the latter were merely chasing a bear, which they killed, giving the travellers some of the meat. Cutler and his companions caughthuge catfish in the river; they killed game of all kinds in the forest;and they lived very well indeed. In the morning they got under wayearly, after a "bitter and a biscuit, " and a little later breakfasted oncold meat, pickles, cabbage, and pork. Between eleven and twelve theystopped for dinner; usually of hot venison or wild turkey, with a strong"dish of coffee" and loaf-sugar. At supper they had cold meat and tea. Here and there on the shore they passed settlers' cabins, where theyobtained corn and milk, and sometimes eggs, butter, and veal. Cutlerlanded at his starting-point less than a month after he had left it togo down stream. [Footnote: Cutler, p. 420. ]

Another Massachusetts man, Col. John May, had made the same trip justpreviously. His experiences were very like those of Dr. Cutler; but inhis journal he told them more entertainingly, being a man ofconsiderable humor and sharp observation. He travelled on horseback fromBoston. In Philadelphia he put up "at the sign of the Connastago Wagon"--the kind of wagon then used in the up country, and afterwards for twogenerations the wheeled-house with which the pioneers moved westwardacross plain and prairie. He halted for some days in the log-built townof Pittsburg, and, like many other travellers of the day, took a disliketo the place and to its inhabitants, who were largely PennsylvaniaGermans. He mentions that he had reached it in thirty days from Boston, and had not lost a pound of his baggage, which had accompanied him in awagon under the care of some of his hired men. At Pittsburg he was muchstruck by the beauty of the mountains and the river, and also by thenumbers of flat-boats, loaded with immigrants, which were constantlydrifting and rowing past on their way to Kentucky. From the time ofreaching the river his journal is filled with comments on theextraordinary abundance and great size of the various kinds of foodfishes. 

At last, late in May, he started in a crowded flat-boat down the Ohio, and was enchanted with the wild and beautiful scenery. He was equallypleased with the settlement at the mouth of the Muskingum; and he wasspeedily on good terms with the officers of the fort, who dined andwined him to his heart's content. There were rumors of savage warfarefrom below; but around Marietta the Indians were friendly. May and hispeople set to work to clear land and put up buildings; and they livedsumptuously, for game swarmed. The hunters supplied them with quantitiesof deer and wild turkeys, and occasionally elk and buffalo were alsokilled; while quantities of fish could be caught without effort, and thegardens and fields yielded plenty of vegetables. On July 4th the membersof the Ohio Company entertained the officers from Fort Harmar, and theladies of the garrison, at an abundant dinner, and drank thirteentoasts, --to the United States, to Congress, to Washington, to the Kingof France, to the new Constitution, to the Society of the Cincinnati, and various others. 

Colonel May built him a fine "mansion house, " thirty-six feet byeighteen, and fifteen feet high, with a good cellar underneath, and inthe windows panes of glass he had brought all the way from Boston. Hecontinued to enjoy the life in all its phases, from hunting in the woodsto watching the sun rise, and making friends with the robins, which, inthe wilderness, always followed the settlements. In August he went upthe river, without adventure, and returned to his home. [Footnote:Journal and Letters of Colonel John May; one of the many valuablehistorical publications of Robert Clarke & Co. , of Cincinnati. VOLIII--18]

 Contrasts with Travels of Early Explorers. 

Such a trip as either of these was a mere holiday picnic. It offers asstriking a contrast as well could be offered to the wild and lonelyjourneyings of the stark wilderness-hunters and Indian fighters, whofirst went west of the mountains. General Rufus Putnam and hisassociates did a deed the consequences of which were of vitalimportance. They showed that they possessed the highest attributes ofgood citizenship--resolution and sagacity, stern morality, and thecapacity to govern others as well as themselves. But they performed nopioneer feat of any note as such, and they were not called upon todisplay a tithe of the reckless daring and iron endurance of hardshipwhich characterized the conquerors of the Illinois and the founders ofKentucky and Tennessee. This is in no sense a reflection upon them. Theydid not need to give proof of a courage they had shown time and again inbloody battles against the best troops of Europe. In this particularenterprise, in which they showed so many admirable qualities, they hadlittle chance to show the quality of adventurous bravery. They driftedcomfortably down stream, from the log fort whence they started, pastmany settlers' houses, until they came to the post of a small Federalgarrison, where they built their town. Such a trip is not to bementioned in the same breath with the long wanderings of Clark and Booneand Robertson, when they went forth unassisted to subdue the savage andmake tame the shaggy wilderness. 

 St. Clair. 

St. Clair, the first Governor, was a Scotchman of good family. He hadbeen a patriotic but unsuccessful general in the Revolutionary army. Hewas a friend of Washington, and in politics a firm Federalist; he wasdevoted to the cause of Union and Liberty, and was a conscientious, high-minded man. But he had no aptitude for the incredibly difficulttask of subduing the formidable forest Indians, with their peculiar anddangerous system of warfare; and he possessed no capacity for getting onwith the frontiersmen, being without sympathy for their virtues whilekeenly alive to their very unattractive faults. 

 The Miami Purchase. 

In the fall of 1787 another purchase of public lands was negotiated, bythe Miami Company. The chief personage in this company was John ClevesSymmes, one of the first judges of the Northwestern Territory. Rightswere acquired to take up one million acres, and under these rights threesmall settlements were made towards the close of the year 1788. One ofthem was chosen by St. Clair to be the seat of government. This littletown had been called Losantiville in its first infancy, but St. Clairre-christened it Cincinnati, in honor of the Society of the officers ofthe Continental army. 

The men who formed these Miami Company colonies came largely from theMiddle States. Like the New England founders of Marietta, very many ofthem, if not most, had served in the Continental army. They were goodsettlers; they made good material out of which to build up a greatstate. Their movement was modelled on that of Putnam and his associates. It was a triumph of collectivism, rather than of individualism. Thesettlers were marshalled in a company, instead of moving freely bythemselves, and they took a territory granted them by Congress, undercertain conditions, and defended for them by the officers and troops ofthe regular army. 

 Establishment of Civil Government. 

Civil government was speedily organized. St. Clair and the judges formedthe first legislature; in theory they were only permitted to adopt lawsalready in existence in the old States, but as a matter of fact theytried any legislative experiments they saw fit. St. Clair was anautocrat both by military training and by political principles. He was aman of rigid honor, and he guarded the interests of the territory withjealous integrity, but he exercised such a rigorous supervision over theacts of his subordinate colleagues, the judges, that he became involvedin wrangles at the very beginning of his administration. To prevent theincoming of unauthorized intruders, he issued a proclamation summoningall newly arrived persons to report at once to the local commandants, and, with a view of keeping the game for the use of the actual settlers, and also to prevent as far as possible fresh irritation being given theIndians, he forbade all hunting in the territory for hides or flesh saveby the inhabitants proper. [Footnote: Draper MSS. Wm. Clark Papers. Proclamation, Vincennes, June 28, 1790. ] Only an imperfect obedience wasrendered either proclamation. 

Thus the settlement of the Northwest was fairly begun, on a systemhitherto untried. The fates and the careers of all the mighty stateswhich yet lay formless in the forest were in great measure determined bywhat was at this time done. The nation had decreed that they should allhave equal rights with the older States and with one another, and yetthat they should remain forever inseparable from the Union; and aboveall, it had been settled that the bondman should be unknown within theirborders. Their founding represented the triumph of the principle ofcollective national action over the spirit of intense individualismdisplayed so commonly on the frontier. The uncontrolled initiative ofthe individual, which was the chief force in the settlement of theSouthwest, was given comparatively little play in the settlement of theNorthwest. The Northwest owed its existence to the action of the nationas a whole. 

CHAPTER VII. 

The War in the Northwest. 1787-1790

The Federal troops were camped in the Federal territory north of theOhio. They garrisoned the forts and patrolled between the littlelog-towns. They were commanded by the Federal General Harmar, and theterritory was ruled by the Federal Governor St. Clair. Thenceforth thenational authorities and the regular troops played the chief parts inthe struggle for the Northwest. The frontier militia became a mereadjunct--often necessary, but always untrustworthy--of the regularforces. 

 The Regular Army in the Northwest. 

For some time the regulars fared ill in the warfare with the savages;and a succession of mortifying failures closed with a defeat moreruinous than any which had been experienced since the days of the"iron-tempered general the pipe-clay brain, "--for the disaster whichbefell St. Clair was as overwhelming as that wherein Braddock met hisdeath. The continued checks excited the anger of the Eastern people, andthe dismay and derision of the Westerners. They were keenly felt by theofficers of the army; and they furnished an excuse for those who wishedto jeer at regular troops, and exalt the militia. Jefferson, who neverunderstood anything about warfare, being a timid man, and who belongedto the visionary school which always denounced the army and navy, wasgiven a legitimate excuse to criticise the tactics of the regulars;[Footnote: Draper MSS. , G. R. Clark Papers. Jefferson to Innes, March 7, 1791. ] and of course he never sought occasion to comment on the evenworse failings of the militia. 

 Shortcomings of the Regulars. 

The truth was that the American military authorities fell into much thesame series of errors as their predecessors, the British, untaught bythe dreary and mortifying experience of the latter in fighting theseforest foes. The War Department at Washington, and the Federal generalswho first came to the Northwest, did not seem able to realize theformidable character of the Indian armies, and were certainly unable toteach their own troops how to fight them. Harmar and St. Clair were bothfair officers, and in open country were able to acquit themselvesrespectably in the face of civilized foes. But they did not have thepeculiar genius necessary to the successful Indian fighter, and theynever learned how to carry on a campaign in the woods. 

They had the justifiable distrust of the militia felt by all theofficers of the Continental Army. In the long campaigns waged againstHowe, Clinton, and Cornwallis they had learned the immense superiorityof the Continental troops to the local militia. They knew that theRevolution would have failed had it not been for the continental troops. They knew also, by the bitter experience common to all officers who hadbeen through the war, that, though the militia might on occasion dowell, yet they could never be trusted; they were certain to desert orgrow sulky and mutinous if exposed to the fatigue and hardship of a longcampaign, while in a pitched battle in the open they never fought asstubbornly as the regulars, and often would not fight at all. 

 The Regulars in Indian Warfare. 

All this was true; yet the officers of the regular army failed tounderstand that it did not imply the capacity of the regular troops tofight savages on their own ground. They showed little real comprehensionof the extraordinary difficulty of such warfare against such foes, andof the reasons which made it so hazardous. They could not help assigningother causes than the real ones for every defeat and failure. Theyattributed each in turn to the effects of ambuscade or surprise, insteadof realizing that in each the prime factor was the formidable fightingpower of the individual Indian warrior, when in the thick forest whichwas to him a home, and when acting under that species of wildernessdiscipline which was so effective for a single crisis in his peculiarwarfare. The Indian has rarely shown any marked excellence as a fighterin mass in the open; though of course there have been one or twobrilliant exceptions. At times in our wars we have tried the experimentof drilling bodies of Indians as if they were whites, and using them inthe ordinary way in battle. Under such conditions, as a rule, they haveshown themselves inferior to the white troops against whom they werepitted. In the same way they failed to show themselves a match for thewhite hunters of the great plains when on equal terms. But theirmarvellous faculty for taking advantage of cover, and for fighting inconcert when under cover, has always made the warlike tribes foes to bedreaded beyond all others when in the woods, or among wild brokenmountains. 

 Striking Contrasts in our Indian Wars. 

The history of our warfare with the Indians during the century followingthe close of the Revolution is marked by curiously sharp contrasts inthe efficiency shown by the regular troops in campaigns carried on atdifferent times and under varying conditions. These contrasts are duemuch more to the difference in the conditions under which the campaignswere waged than to the difference in the bodily prowess of the Indians. When we had been in existence as a nation for a century the Modocs intheir lava-beds and the Apaches amid their waterless mountains werestill waging against the regulars of the day the same tedious anddangerous warfare waged against Harmar and St. Clair by the forestIndians. There were the same weary, long-continued campaigns; the samedifficulty in bringing the savages to battle; the same blind fightingagainst hidden antagonists shielded by the peculiar nature of theirfastnesses; and, finally, the same great disparity of loss against thewhite troops. During the intervening hundred years there had been manysimilar struggles; as for instance that against the Seminoles. Yet therehad also been many struggles, against Indians naturally more formidable, in which the troops again and again worsted their Indian foes even whenthe odds in numbers were two or three to one against the whites. Thedifference between these different classes of wars was partly accountedfor by change in weapons and methods of fighting; partly by the changein the character of the battle grounds. The horse Indians of the plainswere as elusive and difficult to bring to battle as the Indians of themountains and forests; but in the actual fighting they had no chance totake advantage of cover in the way which rendered so formidable theirbrethren of the hills and the deep woods. In consequence theiroccasional slaughtering victories, including the most famous of all, thebattle of the Rosebud, in which Custer fell, took the form of theoverwhelming of a comparatively small number of whites by immense massesof mounted horsemen. When their weapons were inferior, as on the firstoccasions when they were brought into contact with troops carryingbreech-loading arms of precision, or when they tried the tactics ofdownright fighting, and of charging fairly in the open, they were oftenthemselves beaten or repulsed with fearful slaughter by mere handfuls ofwhites. In the years 1867-68, all the horse Indians of the plains wereat war with us, and many battles were fought with varying fortune. Twowere especially noteworthy. In each a small body of troops and frontierscouts, under the command of a regular army officer who was also aveteran Indian fighter, beat back an overwhelming Indian force, whichattempted to storm by open onslaught the position held by the whiteriflemen. In one instance fifty men under Major Geo. H. Forsyth beatback nine hundred warriors, killing or wounding double their own number. In the other a still more remarkable defence was made by thirty-one menunder Major James Powell against an even larger force, which chargedagain and again, and did not accept their repulse as final until theyhad lost three hundred of their foremost braves. For years the Siouxspoke with bated breath of this battle as the "medicine fight, " thedefeat so overwhelming that it could be accounted for only bysupernatural interference. [Footnote: For all this see Dodge's admirable"Our Wild Indians. "]

But no such victory was ever gained over mountain or forest Indians whohad become accustomed to fighting the white men. Every officer who hasever faced these foes has had to spend years in learning his work, andhas then been forced to see a bitterly inadequate reward for his labors. The officers of the regular army who served in the forests north of theOhio just after the Revolution had to undergo a strange and painfultraining; and were obliged to content themselves with scanty andhard-won triumphs even after this training had been undergone. 

 Difficulties Experienced by the Officers. 

The officers took some time to learn their duties as Indian fighters, but the case was much worse with the rank and file who served underthem. From the beginning of our history it often proved difficult to getthe best type of native American to go into the regular army save intime of war with a powerful enemy, for the low rate of pay was notattractive, while the disciplined subordination of the soldiers to theirofficers seemed irksome to people with an exaggerated idea of individualfreedom and no proper conception of the value of obedience. Very many ofthe regular soldiers have always been of foreign birth; and in 1787, onthe Ohio, the percentage of Irish and Germans in the ranks was probablyfully as large as it was on the Great Plains a century later. [Footnote:Denny's Journal, _passim_. ] They, as others, at that early date, were, to a great extent, drawn from the least desirable classes of the easternsea-board. [Footnote: For fear of misunderstanding, I wish to add thatat many periods the rank and file have been composed of excellentmaterial; of recent years their character has steadily risen, and thestuff itself has always proved good when handled for a sufficient lengthof time by good commanders. ] Three or four years later an unfriendlyobserver wrote of St. Clair's soldiers that they were a wretched set ofmen, weak and feeble, many of them mere boys, while others were rottenwith drink and debauchery. He remarked that men "purchased from theprisons, wheel-barrows, and brothels of the nation at foolishly lowwages, would never do to fight Indians"; and that against such foes, whowere terrible enemies in the woods, there was need of first-class, specially trained troops, instead of trying to use "a set of men whoenlisted because they could no longer live unhung any other way. "[Footnote: Draper Collection. Letter of John Cleves Symmes to EliasBoudinot, January 12, 1792. ]

Doubtless this estimate, made under the sting of defeat, was too harsh;and it was even more applicable to the forced levies of militia than tothe Federal soldiers; but the shortcomings of the regular troops weresufficiently serious to need no exaggeration. Their own officers werefar from pleased with the recruits they got. 

To the younger officers, with a taste for sport, the life beyond theOhio was delightful. The climate was pleasant, the country beautiful, the water was clear as crystal, and game abounded. In hard weather thetroops lived on salt beef; but at other times their daily rations weretwo pounds of turkey or venison, or a pound and a half of bear meat orbuffalo beef. Yet this game was supplied by hired hunters, not by thesoldiers themselves. One of the officers wrote that he had to keep histroops practising steadily at a target, for they were incompetent tomeet an enemy with the musket; they could not kill in a week enough gameto last them a day. [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , No. 150; Doughty'sLetter, March 15, 1786; also, November 30, 1785. ] It was almostimpossible to train such troops, in a limited number of months or years, so as to enable them to meet their forest foes on equal terms. Thediscipline to which they were accustomed was admirably fitted forwarfare in the open; but it was not suited for warfare in the woods. They had to learn even the use of their fire-arms with painful labor. Itwas merely hopeless to try to teach them to fight Indian fashion, allscattering out for themselves, and each taking a tree trunk, and tryingto slay an individual enemy. They were too clumsy; they utterly lackedthe wild-creature qualities proper to the men of the wilderness, the menwho inherited wolf-cunning and panther-stealth from countlessgenerations, who bought bare life itself only at the price ofnever-ceasing watchfulness, craft, and ferocity. 

 The Regulars Superior to the Militia. 

The regulars were certainly not ideal troops with which to oppose suchfoes; but they were the best attainable at that time. They possessedtraits which were lacking in even the best of the frontier militia; andmost of the militia fell far short of the best. When properly trainedthe regulars could be trusted to persevere through a campaign; whereasthe militia were sure to disband if kept out for any length of time. Moreover, a regular army formed a weapon with a temper tried and known;whereas a militia force was the most brittle of swords which might giveone true stroke, or might fly into splinters at the first slight blow. Regulars were the only troops who could be trusted to wear out theirfoes in a succession of weary and hard-fought campaigns. 

The best backwoods fighters, however, such men as Kenton and Brady hadin their scout companies, were much superior to the regulars, and wereable to meet the Indians on at least equal terms. But there were only avery few such men; and they were too impatient of discipline to beembodied in an army. The bulk of the frontier militia consisted of menwho were better riflemen than the regulars and often physically abler, but who were otherwise in every military sense inferior, possessingtheir defects, sometimes in an accentuated form, and not possessingtheir compensating virtues. Like the regulars, these militia fought theIndians at a terrible disadvantage. A defeat for either meant murderousslaughter; for whereas the trained Indian fighters fought or fled eachfor himself, the ordinary troops huddled together in a mass, an easymark for their savage foes. 

 Extreme Difficulty of the War. 

The task set the leaders of the army in the Northwest was one of extremedifficulty and danger. They had to overcome a foe trained through untoldages how to fight most effectively on the very battle-ground where thecontest was to be waged. To the whites a march through the wildernesswas fraught with incredible toil; whereas the Indians moved withoutbaggage, and scattered and came together as they wished, so that it wasimpossible to bring them to battle against their will. All that could bedone was to try to beat them when they chose to receive or deliver anattack. With ordinary militia it was hopeless to attempt to accomplishanything needing prolonged and sustained effort, and, as already said, the thoroughly trained Indian fighters who were able to beat the savagesat their own game were too few in numbers, and too unaccustomed tocontrol and restraint, to permit of their forming the main body of thearmy in an offensive campaign. There remained only the regulars: and theraw recruits had to undergo a long and special training, and be putunder the command of a thoroughly capable leader, like old Mad AnthonyWayne, before they could be employed to advantage. 

 The Feeling between the Regulars and Frontiersmen. 

The feeling between the regular troops and the frontiersmen was oftenvery bitter, and on several occasions violent brawls resulted. One suchoccurred at Limestone, where the brutal Indian-fighter Wetzel lived. Wetzel had murdered a friendly Indian, and the soldiers bore him agrudge. When they were sent to arrest him the townspeople sallied to hissupport. Wetzel himself resisted, and was, very properly, roughlyhandled in consequence. The interference of the townspeople wasvigorously repaid in kind; they soon gave up the attempt, and afterwardsone or two of them were ill-treated or plundered by the soldiers. Theymade complaint to the civil authorities, and a court-martial was thenordered by the Federal commanders. This court-martial acquitted thesoldiers. Wetzel soon afterwards made his escape, and the incidentended. [Footnote: Draper MSS. Harmar's letter to Henry Lee, Sept. 27, 1789. Also depositions of McCurdy, Lawler, Caldwell, and others, andproceedings of court-martial. The depositions conflict. ]

 Fury of the Indian Ravages. 

By 1787 the Indian war had begun with all its old fury. The thicklysettled districts were not much troubled, and the towns which, likeMarietta in the following year, grew up under the shadow of a Federalfort, were comparatively safe. But the frontier of Kentucky, and ofVirginia proper along the Ohio, suffered severely. There was greatscarcity of powder and lead, and even of guns, and there was difficultyin procuring provisions for those militia who consented to leave theirwork and turn out when summoned. The settlers were harried, and thesurveyors feared to go out to their work on the range. There were theusual horrible incidents of Indian warfare. A glimpse of one of theinnumerable dreadful tragedies is afforded by the statement of one partyof scouts, who, in following the trail of an Indian war band, found atthe crossing of the river "the small tracks of a number of children, "prisoners from a raid made on the Monongahela settlements. [Footnote:State Dept. MSS. , No. 71, vol. Ii. Letters of David Shepherd to GovernorRandolph, April 30, and May 24, 1787. ]

 Difficulties in Extending Help to the Frontiersmen. 

The settlers in the harried territory sent urgent appeals for help tothe Governor of Virginia and to Congress. In these appeals stress waslaid upon the poverty of the frontiersmen, and their lack of ammunition. The writers pointed out that the men of the border should receivesupport, if only from motives of policy; for it was of great importanceto the people in the thickly settled districts that the war should bekept on the frontier, and that the men who lived there should remain asa barrier against the Indians. If the latter broke through and got amongthe less hardy and warlike people of the interior, they would work muchgreater havoc; for in Indian warfare the borderers were as much superiorto the more peaceful people behind them as a veteran to a raw recruit. [Footnote: Draper MSS. Lt. Marshall to Franklin, Nov. 6, 1787. ]

These appeals did not go unheeded; but there was embarrassment inaffording the frontier adequate protection, both because the party towhich the borderers themselves belonged foolishly objected to theemployment of a fair-sized regular army, and because Congress stillclung to the belief that war could be averted by treaty, and so forbadethe taking of proper offensive measures. In the years 1787, '88, and'89, the ravages continued; many settlers were slain, with theirfamilies, and many bodies of immigrants destroyed; while the scoutingand rescue parties of whites killed a few Indians in return. [Footnote:Va. State Papers, iv. , 357. ] All the Indians were not yet at war, however; and curious agreements were entered into by individuals on bothsides. In the absence on either side of any government with fullauthority and power, the leaders would often negotiate some special ortemporary truce, referring only to certain limited localities, or tocertain people; and would agree between themselves for the interchangeor ransom of prisoners. There is a letter of Boone's extant in which henotifies a leading Kentucky colonel that a certain captive woman must begiven up, in accordance with an agreement he has made with one of thenoted Indian chiefs; and he insists upon the immediate surrender of thewoman, to clear his "promise and obligation. " [Footnote: Draper MSS. , Boone Papers. Boone to Robert Patterson, March 16, 1787. ]

 The Indians Harry the Boats on the Ohio. 

The Indians watched the Ohio with especial care, and took their tollfrom the immense numbers of immigrants who went down it. After passingthe Muskingum no boat was safe. If the war parties, lurking along thebanks, came on a boat moored to the shore, or swept thither by wind orcurrent, the crew was at their mercy; and grown bold by success, theysometimes launched small flotillas of canoes and attacked the scows onthe water. In such attacks they were often successful, for they alwaysmade the assault with the odds in their favor; though they weresometimes beaten back with heavy loss. 

When the war was at its height the boats going down the Ohio preferredto move in brigades. An army officer has left a description [Footnote:Denny's Military Journal, April 19, 1790. ] of one such flotilla, overwhich he had assumed command. It contained sixteen flat-boats, thenusually called "Kentuck boats, " and two keels. The flat-boats werelashed three together and kept in one line. The women, children, andcattle were put in the middle scows, while the outside were manned andworked by the men. The keel boats kept on either flank. This particularflotilla was unmolested by the Indians, but was almost wrecked in afurious storm of wind and rain. 

 Vain Efforts to Conclude Treaties of Peace. 

The Federal authorities were still hopelessly endeavoring to come tosome understanding with the Indians; they were holding treaties withsome of the tribes, sending addresses and making speeches to others, andkeeping envoys in the neighborhood of Detroit. These envoys watched theIndians who were there, and tried to influence the great gatherings ofdifferent tribes who came together at Sandusky to consult as to thewhite advance. [Footnote: State Department MSS. , No. 150, vol. Iii. Harmar's speech to the Indians at Vincennes, September 17, 1787. RichardButler to the Secretary of War, May 4, 1788, etc. ]

These efforts to negotiate were as disheartening as was usually the caseunder such circumstances. There were many different tribes, and somewere for peace, while others were for war; and even the peaceful onescould not restrain their turbulent young men. Far off nations of Indianswho had never been harmed by the whites, and were in no danger fromthem, sent war parties to the Ohio; and the friendly tribes let thempass without interference. The Iroquois were eagerly consulted by thewestern Indians, and in the summer of 1788 a great party of them came toSandusky to meet in council all the tribes of the Lakes and the Ohiovalley, and even some from the upper Mississippi. With the Iroquois camethe famous chief Joseph Brant, a mighty warrior, and a man of education, who in his letters to the United States officials showed much polisheddiplomacy. [Footnote: _Do_. , pp. 47 and 51. ]

 The Indians Hold Great Councils. 

The tribes who gathered at this great council met on the soil which, bytreaty with England, had been declared American, and came from regionswhich the same treaty had defined as lying within the boundaries of theUnited States. But these provisions of the treaty had never beenexecuted, owing largely to a failure on the part of the Americansthemselves to execute certain other provisions. The land was really asmuch British as ever, and was so treated by the British Governor ofCanada, Lord Dorchester, who had just made a tour of the Lake Posts. Thetribes were feudatory to the British, and in their talks spoke of theKing of Great Britain as "father, " and Brant was a British pensioner. British agents were in constant communication with the Indians at thecouncils, and they distributed gifts among them with a hithertounheard-of lavishness. In every way they showed their resolution toremain in full touch with their red allies. [Footnote: _Do_. , St. Clairto Knox, September 14, 1788; St. Clair to Jay, December 13, 1788. ]

Nevertheless, they were anxious that peace should be made. The Wyandots, too, seconded them, and addressed the Wabash Indians at one of thecouncils, urging them to cease their outrages on the Americans. [Footnote: _Do_. , p. 267, Detroit River's Mouth, July 23, 1788. ] TheseWyandots had long been converted, and in addressing their heathenbrethren, said proudly: "We are not as other nations are--we, theWyandots--we are Christians. " They certainly showed themselves thebetter for their religion, and they were still the bravest of the brave. But though the Wabash Indians in answering spake them fair, they had nowish to go to peace; and the Wyandots were the only tribes who stroveearnestly to prevent war. The American agents who had gone to theDetroit River were forced to report that there was little hope ofputting an end to hostilities. [Footnote: _Do_. , James Rinkin to RichardButler, July 20, 1788. ] The councils accomplished nothing towardsaverting a war; on the contrary, they tended to band all thenorthwestern Indians together in a loose confederacy, so that activehostilities against some were sure in the end to involve all. 

 Even the Far-Off Chippewas Make Forays. 

While the councils were sitting and while the Americans were preparingfor the treaties, outrages of the most flagrant kind occurred. One, outof many; was noteworthy as showing both the treachery of the Indians, and the further fact that some tribes went to war, not because they hadbeen in any way maltreated, but from mere lust of blood and plunder. InJuly of this year 1788, Governor St. Clair was making ready for a treatyto which he had invited some of the tribes. It was to be held on theMuskingum, and he sent to the appointed place provisions for the Indianswith a guard of men. One day a party of Indians, whose tribe was thenunknown, though later they turned out to be Chippewas from the UpperLakes, suddenly fell on the guard. They charged home with great spirit, using their sharp spears well, and killed, wounded, or captured severalsoldiers; but they were repulsed, and retreated, carrying with themtheir dead, save one warrior. [Footnote: St. Clair Papers, ii. , 50. ] Afew days afterwards they imprudently ventured back, pretendinginnocence, and six were seized, and sent to one of the forts asprisoners. Their act of treacherous violence had, of course, caused theimmediate abandonment of the proposed treaty. 

The remaining Chippewas marched towards home, with the scalps of the menthey had slain, and with one captured soldier. They passed by Detroit, telling the French villagers that "their father [the British Commandant]was a dog, " because he had given them no arms or ammunition, and that inconsequence they would not deliver him their prisoner, but would takethe poor wretch with them to their Mackinaw home. Accordingly theycarried him on to the far-off island at the mouth of Lake Michigan; butjust as they were preparing to make him run the gauntlet the Britishcommander of the lonely little post interfered. This subaltern with hisparty of a dozen soldiers was surrounded by many times his number offerocious savages, and was completely isolated in the wilderness; buthis courage stood as high as his humanity, and he broke through theIndians, threatening them with death if they interfered, rescued thecaptive American, and sent him home in safety. [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , No. 150, vol. Iii. William Wilson and James Rinkin to RichardButler, August 4, 1788; Wilson and Rinkin to St. Clair, August 31, 1788. ]

The other Indians made no attempt to check the Chippewas; on thecontrary, the envoys of the Iroquois and Delawares made vain efforts tosecure the release of the Chippewa prisoners. On the other hand, thegenerous gallantry of the British commander at Mackinaw was in some sortequalled by the action of the traders on the Maumee, who went to greatexpense in buying from the Shawnees Americans whom they had doomed tothe terrible torture of death at the stake. [Footnote: _Do_. , Rinkin toButler, July 2, 1788; St. Clair to Knox, September 4, 1788. ]

Under such circumstances the treaties of course came to naught. Afterinterminable delays the Indians either refused to treat at all, or elsethe acts of those who did were promptly repudiated by those who did not. In consequence throughout this period even the treaties that were madewere quite worthless, for they bound nobody. Moreover, there were theusual clashes between the National and State authorities. While Harmarwas trying to treat, the Kentuckians were organizing retaliatoryinroads; and while the United States Commissioners were trying to holdbig peace councils on the Ohio, the New York and MassachusettsCommissioners were conducting independent negotiations at what is nowBuffalo, to determine the western boundary of New York. [Footnote:_Do_. , Wilson and Rinkin to St. Clair, July 29, 1788. These treatiesmade at the Ohio forts are quite unworthy of preservation, save for merecuriosity; they really settled nothing whatever and conferred no rightsthat were not taken with the strong hand; yet they are solemnly quotedin some books as if they were the real sources of title to parts of theNorthwest. ]

 Continued Ravages. 

All the while the ravages grew steadily more severe. The Federalofficers at the little widely scattered forts were at their wits' endsin trying to protect the outlying settlers and retaliate on the Indians;and as the latter grew bolder they menaced the forts themselves andharried the troops who convoyed provisions to them. Of the innumerabletragedies which occurred, the record of a few has by chance beenpreserved. One may be worth giving merely as a sample of many others. Onthe Virginian side of the Ohio lived a pioneer farmer of some note, named Van Swearingen. [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , No. 150, vol. Ii. , Van Swearingen to William Butler, Washington County, Sept. 29, 1787. ]One day his son crossed the river to hunt with a party of strangers. Near a "waste cabbin, " the deserted log hut of some reckless adventurer, an Indian war-band came on them unawares, slew three, and carried offthe young man. His father did not know whether they had killed him ornot. He could find no trace of him, and he wrote to the commander of thenearest fort, begging him to try to get news from the Indian villages asto whether his son were alive or dead, and to employ for the purpose anyfriendly Indian or white scout, at whatever price was set--he would payit "to the utmost farthing. " He could give no clue to the Indians whohad done the deed; all he could say was that a few days before, one ofthese war parties, while driving off a number of horses, was overtakenby the riflemen of the neighborhood and scattered, after a fight inwhich one white man and two red men were killed. 

The old frontiersman never found his son; doubtless the boy was slain;but his fate, like the fate of hundreds of others, was swallowed up inthe gloomy mystery of the wilderness. So far from being unusual, theincident attracted no comment, for it was one of every-day occurrence. Its only interest lies in the fact that it was of a kind that befell thefamily of almost every dweller in the wilds. Danger and death were socommon that the particular expression which each might take made smallimpress on the minds of the old pioneers. Every one of them had a longscore of slain friends and kinsfolk to avenge upon his savage foes. 

 The Indians Harass the Regular Troops. 

The subalterns in command of the little detachments which moved betweenthe posts, whether they went by land or water, were forced to be ever onthe watch against surprise and ambush. This was particularly the casewith the garrison at Vincennes. The Wabash Indians were all the time outin parties to murder and plunder; and yet these same thieves andmurderers were continually coming into town and strolling innocentlyabout the fort; for it was impossible to tell the peaceful Indians fromthe hostile. They were ever in communication with the equallytreacherous and ferocious Miami tribes, to whose towns the war partiesoften brought five or six scalps in a day, and prisoners, too, doomed toa death of awful torture at the stake. There is no need to wastesympathy on the northwestern Indians for their final fate; never weredefeat and subjection more richly deserved. 

The bands of fierce and crafty braves who lounged about the wooden fortat Vincennes watched eagerly the outgoing and incoming of the troops, and were prompt to dog and waylay any party they thought they couldovercome. They took advantage of the unwillingness of the Federalcommander to harass Indians who might be friendly; and plotted at easethe destruction of the very troops who spent much of the time in keepingintruders off their lands. In the summer of 1788 they twice followedparties of soldiers from the town, when they went down the Wabash, andattacked them by surprise, from the river-banks, as they sat in theirboats. In one instance, the lieutenant in command got off with the lossof but two or three men. In the other, of the thirty-six soldiers whocomposed the party ten were killed, eight wounded, and the greater partof the provisions and goods they were conveying were captured; while thesurvivors, pushing down-stream, ultimately made their way to theIllinois towns. [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , No. 150, vol. Iii. Lt. Spear to Harmar, June 2, 1788; Hamtranck to Harmar, Aug. 12, 1788. ] Thislast tragedy was avenged by a band of thirty mounted riflemen fromKentucky, led by the noted backwoods fighter Hardin. They had crossedthe Ohio on a retaliatory foray, many of their horses having been stolenby the Indians. When near Vincennes they happened to stumble on the warparty that had attacked the soldiers, slew ten, and scattered the othersto the winds, capturing thirty horses. [Footnote: Draper MSS. Wm. ClarkPapers. N. T. Dalton to W. Clark, Vincennes, Aug. 23, 1788; also Denny, p. 528. ]

 Dreadful Nature of the Warfare. 

The war bands who harried the settlements, or lurked along the banks ofthe Ohio, bent on theft and murder, did terrible deeds, and at timessuffered terrible fates in return, when some untoward chance threw themin the way of the grim border vengeance. The books of the old annalistsare filled with tales of disaster and retribution, of horrible sufferingand of fierce prowess. Countless stories are told of heroic fight andpanic rout; of midnight assault on lonely cabins, and ambush ofheavy-laden immigrant scows; of the deaths of brave men and cowards, andthe dreadful butchery of women and children; of bloody raid andrevengeful counter stroke. Sometimes a band of painted marauders wouldkill family after family, without suffering any loss, would capture boatafter boat without effective resistance from the immigrants, paralyzedby panic fright, and would finally escape unmolested, or beat off withease a possibly larger party of pursuers, who happened to be ill led, orto be men with little training in wilderness warfare. 

At other times all this might be reversed. A cabin might be defendedwith such maddened courage by some stout rifleman, fighting for hiscowering wife and children, that a score of savages would recoilbaffled, leaving many of their number dead. A boat's crew of resolutemen might beat back, with heavy loss, an over-eager onslaught of Indiansin canoes, or push their slow, unwieldy craft from shore under a rain ofrifle-balls, while the wounded oarsmen strained at the bloody handles ofthe sweeps, and the men who did not row gave shot for shot, firing atthe flame tongues in the dark woods. A party of scouts, true wildernessveterans, equal to their foes in woodcraft and cunning, and superior inmarksmanship and reckless courage, might follow and scatter some warband and return in triumph with scalps and retaken captives and horses. 

 Deeds of a War Party. 

A volume could readily be filled with adventures of this kind, allvarying infinitely in detail, but all alike in their bloody ferocity. During the years 1789 and 1790 scores of Indian war parties went on suchtrips, to meet every kind of success and failure. The deeds of one such, which happen to be recorded, may be given merely to serve as a sample ofwhat happened in countless other cases. In the early spring of 1790 aband of fifty-four Indians of various tribes, but chiefly Cherokees andShawnees, established a camp near the mouth of the Scioto. [Footnote:American State Papers, Indian Affairs, vol. I. , pp. 87, 88, 91. ] Theyfirst attacked a small new-built station, on one of the bottoms of theOhio, some twenty miles from Limestone, and killed or captured all itsfifteen inhabitants. They spared the lives of two of the captives, butforced the wretches to act as decoys so as to try to lure passing boatswithin reach. 

Their first success was with a boat going downriver, and containing fourmen and two unmarried girls, besides a quantity of goods intended forthe stores in the Kentucky towns. The two decoys appeared on the rightbank, begging piteously to be taken on board, and stating that they hadjust escaped from the savages. Three of the voyagers, not liking thelooks of the men, refused to land, but the fourth, a reckless fellownamed Flynn, and the two girls, who were coarse, foolish, good-naturedfrontier women of the lower sort, took pity upon the seeming fugitives, and insisted on taking them aboard. Accordingly the scow was shovedinshore, and Flynn jumped on the bank, only to be immediately seized bythe Indians, who then opened fire on the others. They tried to put off, and fired back, but they were helpless; one man and a girl were shot, another wounded, and the savages then swarmed aboard, seized everything, and got very drunk on a keg of whiskey. The fates of the captives werevarious, each falling to some different group of savages. Flynn, thecause of the trouble, fell to the Cherokees, who took him to the Miamitown, and burned him alive, with dreadful torments. The remaining girl, after suffering outrage and hardship, was bound to the stake, but savedby a merciful Indian, who sent her home. Of the two remaining men, oneran the gauntlet successfully, and afterwards escaped and reached homethrough the woods, while the other was ransomed by a French trader atSandusky. 

Before thus disposing of their captives the Indians hung about the mouthof the Scioto for some time. They captured a pirogue going up-stream, and killed all six paddlers. Soon afterwards three heavily laden scowspassed, drifting down with the current. Aboard these were twenty-eightmen, with their women and children, together with many horses and balesof merchandise. They had but sixteen guns among them, and many wereimmigrants, unaccustomed to savage warfare, and therefore they made noeffort to repel the attack, which could easily have been done byresolute, well-armed veterans. The Indians crowded into the craft theyhad captured, and paddled and rowed after the scows, whooping andfiring. They nearly overtook the last scow, whereupon its people shiftedto the second, and abandoned it. When further pressed the people shiftedinto the headmost scow, cut holes in its sides so as to work all theoars, and escaped down-stream, leaving the Indians to plunder the twoabandoned boats, which contained twenty-eight horses and fifteen hundredpounds' worth of goods. 

 Pursuit of the War Party. 

The Kentuckians of the neighborhood sent word to General Harmar, begginghim to break up this nest of plunderers. Accordingly he started afterthem, with his regular troops. He was joined by a number of Kentuckymounted riflemen, under the command of Col. Charles Scott, a roughIndian fighter, and veteran of the Revolutionary War, who afterwardsbecame governor of the State. Scott had moved to Kentucky not long afterthe close of the war with England; he had lost a son at the hands of thesavages, [Footnote: State Dept. MSS. , No. 71, vol. Ii. , p. 563. ] and hedelighted in war against them. 

Harmar made a circuit and came down along the Scioto, hoping to surprisethe Indian camp; but he might as well have hoped to surprise a party oftimber wolves. His foes scattered and disappeared in the dense forest. Nevertheless, coming across some moccasin tracks, Scott's horsemenfollowed the trail, killed four Indians, and carried in the scalps toLimestone. The chastisement proved of little avail. A month later fiveimmigrant boats, while moored to the bank a few miles from Limestone, were rushed by the Indians at night; one boat was taken, all thethirteen souls aboard being killed or captured. 

 Misadventures of Vigo. 

Among the men who suffered about this time was the Italian Vigo; a fine, manly, generous fellow, of whom St. Clair spoke as having put the UnitedStates under heavy obligations, and as being "in truth the mostdisinterested person" he had ever known. [Footnote: American StatePapers, Indian Affairs, vol. I. , Sept. 19, 1790. ] While taking histrading boat up the Wabash, Vigo was attacked by an Indian war party, three of his men were killed, and he was forced to drop down-stream. Meeting another trading boat manned by Americans, he again essayed toforce a passage in company with it, but they were both attacked withfury. The other boat got off; but Vigo's was captured. However, theIndians, when they found the crew consisted of Creoles, molested none ofthem, telling them that they only warred against the Americans; thoughthey plundered the boat. 

 Preparations to Attack the Indians. 

By the summer of 1790 the raids of the Indians had become unbearable. Fresh robberies and murders were committed every day in Kentucky, oralong the Wabash and Ohio. Writing to the Secretary of War, a prominentKentuckian, well knowing all the facts, estimated that during the sevenyears which had elapsed since the close of the Revolutionary War theIndians had slain fifteen hundred people in Kentucky itself, or on theimmigrant routes leading thither, and had stolen twenty thousand horses, besides destroying immense quantities of other property. [Footnote:American State Papers, Indian Affairs, vol. I. Innes to Sec. Of War, July 7, 1790. ] The Federal generals were also urgent in asserting thefolly of carrying on a merely defensive war against such foes. All theefforts of the Federal authorities to make treaties with the Indians andpersuade them to be peaceful had failed. The Indians themselves hadrenewed hostilities, and the different tribes had one by one joined inthe war, behaving with a treachery only equalled by their ferocity. Withgreat reluctance the National Government concluded that an effort tochastise the hostile savages could no longer be delayed; and those onthe Maumee, or Miami of the Lakes, and on the Wabash, whose guilt hadbeen peculiarly heinous, were singled out as the objects of attack. 

The expedition against the Wabash towns was led by the Federal commanderat Vincennes, Major Hamtranck. No resistance was encountered; and afterburning a few villages of bark huts and destroying some corn he returnedto Vincennes. 

 Harmar's Expedition against the Miami Towns. 

The main expedition was that against the Miami Indians, and was led byGeneral Harmar himself. It was arranged that there should be a nucleusof regular troops, but that the force should consist mainly of militiafrom Kentucky and Pennsylvania, the former furnishing twice as many asthe latter. The troops were to gather on the 15th of September at FortWashington, on the north bank of the Ohio, a day's journey down-streamfrom Limestone. 

 Poor Quality of the Militia. 

At the appointed time the militia began to straggle in; the regularofficers had long been busy getting their own troops, artillery, andmilitary stores in readiness. The regulars felt the utmostdisappointment at the appearance of the militia. They numbered but fewof the trained Indian fighters of the frontier; many of them were hiredsubstitutes; most of them were entirely unacquainted with Indianwarfare, and were new to the life of the wilderness; and they were badlyarmed. [Footnote: American State Papers, Indian Affairs, vol. I. , pp. 104, 105; Military Affairs, i. , 20. ] The Pennsylvanians were of evenpoorer stuff than the Kentuckians, numbering many infirm old men, andmany mere boys. They were undisciplined, with little regard forauthority, and inclined to be disorderly and mutinous. 

 The Army Assembles. 

By the end of September one battalion of Pennsylvania, and threebattalions of Kentucky, militia, had arrived, and the troops began theirmarch to the Miami. All told there were 1453 men, 320 being Federaltroops and 1133 militia, many of whom were mounted; and there were threelight brass field-pieces. [Footnote: _Do. _, Indian Affairs, i. , p. 104;also p. 105. For this expedition see also Military Affairs, i. , pp. 20, 28, and Denny's Military Journal, pp. 343, 354. ] In point of numbers theforce was amply sufficient for its work; but Harmar, though a gallantman, was not fitted to command even a small army against Indians, andthe bulk of the militia, who composed nearly four-fifths of his force, were worthless. A difficulty immediately occurred in choosing acommander for the militia. Undoubtedly the best one among their officerswas Colonel John Hardin, who (like his fellow Kentuckian, ColonelScott), was a veteran of the Revolutionary War, and a man of experiencein the innumerable deadly Indian skirmishes of the time. He had nospecial qualifications for the command of more than a handful of troops, but he was a brave and honorable man, who had done well in leading smallparties of rangers against their red foes. Nevertheless, the militiathreatened mutiny unless they were allowed to choose their own leader, and they chose a mere incompetent, a Colonel Trotter. Harmar yielded, for the home authorities had dwelt much on the necessity of hispreventing friction between the regulars and the militia; and he had solittle control over the latter, that he was very anxious to keep themgood-humored. Moreover, the commissariat arrangements were poor. Undersuch circumstances the keenest observers on the frontier foretoldfailure from the start. [Footnote: Am. State Papers, Indian Affairs, i. Jno. O'Fallan to the President, Lexington, Ky. , Sept. 25, 1790. ]

 The March to the Miami. 

For several days the army marched slowly forward. The regular officershad endless difficulty with the pack horsemen, who allowed their chargesto stray or be stolen, and they strove to instruct the militia in therudiments of their duties, on the march, in camp, and in battle. Afortnight's halting progress through the wilderness brought the army toa small branch of the Miami of the Lakes. Here a horse patrol captured aMaumee Indian, who informed his captors that the Indians knew of theirapproach and were leaving their towns. On hearing this an effort wasmade to hurry forward; but when the army reached the Miami towns, onOctober 17th, they had been deserted. They stood at the junction of twobranches of the Miami, the St. Mary and the St. Joseph, about onehundred and seventy miles from Fort Washington. The troops had marchedabout ten miles a day. The towns consisted of a couple of hundredwigwams, with some good log huts; and there were gardens, orchards, andimmense fields of corn. All these the soldiers destroyed, and themilitia loaded themselves with plunder. 

 Failure and Defeat of a Militia Expedition. 

On the 18th Colonel Trotter was ordered out with three hundred men tospend a couple of days exploring the country, and finding out where theIndians were. After marching a few miles, they came across two Indians. Both were killed by the advanced horsemen. All four of the fieldofficers of the militia--two colonels and two majors--joinedhelter-skelter in the chase, leaving their troops for half an hourwithout a leader. Apparently satisfied with this feat, Trotter marchedhome, having accomplished nothing. 

 Defeat of a Small Detachment of Troops. 

Much angered, Harmar gave the command to Hardin, who left the camp nextmorning with two hundred men, including thirty regulars. But the militiahad turned sulky. They did not wish to go, and they began to desert andreturn to camp immediately after leaving it. At least half of them hadthus left him, when he stumbled on a body of about a hundred Indians. The Indians advanced firing, and the militia fled with abject cowardice, many not even discharging their guns. The thirty regulars stood to theirwork, and about ten of the militia stayed with them. This smalldetachment fought bravely, and was cut to pieces, but six or seven menescaping. Their captain, after valiant fighting, broke through thesavages, and got into a swamp near by. Here he hid, and returned to campnext day; he was so near the place of the fight that he had seen thevictory dance of the Indians over their slain and mutilated foes. 

 The Army Begins its Retreat. 

This defeat took the heart out of the militia. The army left the Miamitowns, and moved back a couple of miles to the Shawnee town ofChilicothe. A few Indians began to lurk about, stealing horses, and twoof the militia captains determined to try to kill one of the thieves. Accordingly, at nightfall, they hobbled a horse with a bell, near ahazel thicket in which they hid. Soon an Indian stalked up to the horse, whereupon they killed him, and brought his head into camp, proclaimingthat it should at least be worth the price of a wolf scalp. 

Next day was spent by the army in completing the destruction of all thecorn, the huts, and the belongings of the Indians. A band of a dozenwarriors tried to harass one of the burning parties; but some of themounted troops got on their flank, killed two and drove the others off, they themselves suffering no loss. 

 A Detachment Sent Back to Attack Indians. 

The following day, the 21st, the army took up the line of march for FortWashington, having destroyed six Indian towns, and an immense quantityof corn. But Hardin was very anxious to redeem himself by trying anotherstroke at the Indians, who, he rightly judged, would gather at theirtowns as soon as the troops left. Harmar also wished to revenge hislosses, and to forestall any attempt of the Indians to harass his shakenand retreating forces. Accordingly that night he sent back against thetowns a detachment of four hundred men, sixty of whom were regulars, andthe rest picked militia. They were commanded by Major Wyllys, of theregulars. It was a capital mistake of Harmar's to send off a meredetachment on such a business. He should have taken a force composed ofall his regulars and the best of the militia, and led it in person. 

 This Detachment Roughly Handled. 

The detachment marched soon after midnight, and reached the Miami atdaybreak on October 22d. It was divided into three columns, whichmarched a few hundred yards apart, and were supposed to keep in touchwith one another. The middle column was led by Wyllys in person, andincluded the regulars and a few militia. The rest of the militiacomposed the flank columns and marched under their own officers. 

Immediately after crossing the Miami, and reaching the neighborhood ofthe town, Indians were seen. The columns were out of touch, and both ofthose on the flanks pressed forward against small parties of braves, whom they drove before them up the St. Joseph. Heedless of the ordersthey had received, the militia thus pressed forward, killing andscattering the small parties in their front and losing all connectionwith the middle column of regulars. Meanwhile the main body of theIndians gathered to assail this column, and overwhelmed it by numbers;whether they had led the militia away by accident or by design is notknown. The regulars fought well and died hard, but they were completelycut off, and most of them, including their commander, were slain. A fewescaped, and either fled back to camp or up the St. Joseph. Those whotook the latter course met the militia returning and informed them ofwhat had happened. Soon afterwards the victorious Indians themselvesappeared, on the opposite side of the St. Joseph, and attempted to forcetheir way across. But the militia were flushed by the easy triumph ofthe morning and fought well, repulsing the Indians and finally forcingthem to withdraw. They then marched slowly back to the Miami towns, gathered their wounded, arrayed their ranks, and rejoined the main army. The Indians had suffered heavily, and were too dispirited, both by theirloss, and by their last repulse, to attempt further to harass eitherthis detachment or the main army itself on its retreat. 

 Practical failure of the expedition. 

Nevertheless, the net result was a mortifying failure. In all, theregulars had lost 75 men killed and 3 wounded, while of the militia 28had been wounded and 108 had been killed or were missing. The march backwas very dreary; and the militia became nearly ungovernable, so that atone time Harmar reduced them to order only by threatening to fire onthem with the artillery. 

The loss of all their provisions and dwellings exposed the Miami tribesto severe suffering and want during the following winter; and they hadalso lost many of their warriors. But the blow was only severe enough toanger and unite them, not to cripple or crush them. All the otherwestern tribes made common cause with them. They banded together andwarred openly; and their vengeful forays on the frontier increased innumber, so that the suffering of the settlers was great. Along the Ohiopeople lived in hourly dread of tomahawk and scalping knife; the attacksfell unceasingly on all the settlements from Marietta to Louisville. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

THE SOUTHWEST TERRITORY, 1788-1790. 

 Uneasiness in the southwest

During the years 1788 and 1789 there was much disquiet and restlessnessthroughout the southwestern territory, the land lying between Kentuckyand the southern Indians. The disturbances caused by the erection of thestate of Franklin were subsiding, the authority of North Carolina wasre-established over the whole territory, and by degrees a more assuredand healthy feeling began to prevail among the settlers; but as yettheir future was by no means certain, nor was their lot irrevocably castin with that of their fellows in the other portions of the Union. 

As already said, the sense of national unity among the frontiersmen wassmall. The men of the Cumberland in writing to the Creeks spoke of theFranklin people as if they belonged to an entirely distinct nation, andas if a war with or by one community concerned in no way the other[Footnote: Robertson MSS. Robertson to McGillivray, Nashville, 1788. "Those aggressors live in a different state and are governed bydifferent laws, consequently we are not culpable for theirmisconduct. "]; while the leaders of Franklin were carrying on with theSpaniards negotiations quite incompatible with the continued sovereigntyof the United States. Indeed it was some time before the southwesternpeople realized that after the Constitution went into effect they had noauthority to negotiate commercial treaties on their own account. AndrewJackson, who had recently taken up his abode in the Cumberland country, was one of the many men who endeavored to convince the Spanish agentsthat it would be a good thing for both parties if the Cumberland peoplewere allowed to trade with the Spaniards; in which event the latterwould of course put a stop to the Indian hostilities. [Footnote:Tennessee Hist. Soc. MSS. Andrew Jackson to D. Smith, introducing theSpanish agent, Captain Fargo, Feb. 13, 1789. ]

 Fear of Indians Strengthens the Federal Bond. 

This dangerous loosening of the Federal tie shows that it wouldcertainly have given way entirely had the population at this time beenscattered over a wider territory. The obstinate and bloody warfare wagedby the Indians against the frontiersmen was in one way of great serviceto the nation, for it kept back the frontier, and forced the settlementsto remain more or less compact and in touch with the country behindthem. If the red men had been as weak as, for instance, theblack-fellows of Australia, the settlers would have roamed hither andthither without regard to them, and would have settled, each manwherever he liked, across to the Pacific. Moreover the Indians formedthe bulwarks which defended the British and Spanish possessions from theadventurers of the border; save for the shield thus offered by thefighting tribes it would have been impossible to bar the frontiersmenfrom the territory either to the north or to the south of the boundariesof the United States. 

Congress had tried hard to bring about peace with the southern Indians, both by sending commissioners to them and by trying to persuade thethree southern States to enter into mutually beneficial treaties withthem. A successful effort was also made to detach the Chickasaws fromthe others, and keep them friendly with the United States. Congress asusual sympathized with the Indians against the intruding whites, although it was plain that only by warfare could the red men bepermanently subdued. [Footnote: State Dep. MSS. , No. 180, p. 66; No. 151, p. 275. Also letters of Richard Winn to Knox, June 25, 1788; JamesWhite to Knox, Aug. 1, 1788; Joseph Martin to Knox, July 25, 1788. ]

 Sufferings of the Cumberland People. 

The Cumberland people felt the full weight of the warfare, the Creeksbeing their special enemies. Robertson himself lost a son and a brotherin the various Indian attacks. To him fell the task of trying to put astop to the ravages. He was the leader of his people in every way, theircommander in war and their spokesman when they sought peace; and earlyin 1788 he wrote a long letter on their behalf to the Creek chiefMcGillivray. After disclaiming all responsibility for or connection withthe Franklin men, he said that the settlers for whom he spoke had nothad the most distant idea that any Indians would object to theirsettling on the Cumberland, in a country that had been purchasedoutright at the Henderson treaty. He further stated that he had believedthe Creek chief would approve of the expedition to punish the maraudersat the Muscle Shell Shoals, inasmuch as the Creeks had repeatedlyassured him that these marauders were refractory people who would pay noheed to their laws and commands. Robertson knew this to be good point, for as a matter of fact the Creeks, though pretending to be peaceful, had made no effort to suppress these banditti, and had resented by forceof arms the destruction of their stronghold. [Footnote: Robertson MSS. Robertson to McGillivray. Letters already cited. ]

 Robertson's Letters to the Creek Chief McGillivray

Robertson then came to his personal wrongs. His quaintly worded letterruns in part: "I had the mortification to see one of my children Killedand uncommonly Massacred ... From my earliest youth I have endeavored toarm myself with a sufficient share of Fortitude to meet anything thatNature might have intended, but to see an innocent child so UncommonlyMassacred by people who ought to have both sense and bravery has in ameasure unmanned me.... I have always striven to do justice to the redpeople; last fall, trusting in Cherokee friendship, I with utmostdifficulty prevented a great army from marching against them. The returnis very inadequate to the services I have rendered them as last summerthey killed an affectionate brother and three days ago an innocentchild. " The letter concludes with an emphatic warning that the Indiansmust expect heavy chastisement if they do not stop their depredations. 

 His Letter to Martin. 

Robertson looked on his own woes and losses with much of the stoicismfor which his Indian foes were famed. He accepted the fate of his sonwith a kind of grim stolidity; and did not let it interfere with hisefforts to bring about a peace. Writing to his friend General Martin, hesaid: "On my return home [from the North Carolina Legislature to whichhe was a delegate] I found distressing times in the country. A number ofpersons have been killed since; among those unfortunate persons were mythird son.... We sent Captains Hackett and Ewing to the Creeks who havebrought very favorable accounts, and we do not doubt but a lasting peacewill be shortly concluded between us and that nation. The Cherokees weshall flog, if they do not behave well. " [Footnote: State DepartmentMSS. , No. 71, vol. Ii. Robertson to Martin, Pleasant Grove, May 7, 1788. ] He wished to make peace if he could; but if that was impossible, he was ready to make war with the same stern acceptance of fate. 

The letter then goes on to express the opinion that, if Congress doesnot take action to bring about a peace, the Creeks will undoubtedlyinvade Georgia with some five thousand warriors, for McGillivray hasannounced that he will consent to settle the boundary question withCongress, but will do nothing with Georgia. The letter shows with ratherstartling clearness how little Robertson regarded the Cumberland peopleand the Georgians as being both in the same nation; he saw nothingstrange in one portion of the country concluding a firm peace with anenemy who was about to devastate another portion. 

Robertson was anxious to encourage immigration, and for this purpose hehad done his best to hurry forward the construction of a road betweenthe Holston and the Cumberland settlements. In his letter to Martin heurged him to proclaim to possible settlers the likelihood of peace, andguaranteed that the road would be ready before winter. It was opened inthe fall; and parties of settlers began to come in over it. To protectthem, the district from time to time raised strong guards of mountedriflemen to patrol the road, as well as the neighborhood of thesettlements, and to convoy the immigrant companies. To defray theexpenses of the troops, the Cumberland court raised taxes. Exactly asthe Franklin people had taken peltries as the basis for their currency, so those of the Cumberland, in arranging for payment in kind, chose thenecessaries of life as the best medium of exchange. They enacted thatthe tax should be paid one quarter in corn, one half in beef, pork, bearmeat, and venison, one eighth in salt, and one eighth in money. [Footnote: Ramsey, p. 504. ] It was still as easy to shoot bear and deeras to raise hogs and oxen. 

 McGillivray's Letter to Robertson. 

Robertson wrote several times to McGillivray, alone or in conjunctionwith another veteran frontier leader, Col. Anthony Bledsoe. Variousother men of note on the border, both from Virginia and North Carolina, wrote likewise. To these letters McGillivray responded promptly in astyle rather more polished though less frank than that of hiscorrespondents. His tone was distinctly more warlike and lessconciliatory than theirs. He avowed, without hesitation, that the Creeksand not the Americans had been the original aggressors, saying that "mynation has waged war against your people for several years past; butthat we had no motive of revenge, nor did it proceed from any sense ofinjuries sustained from your people, but being warmly attached to theBritish and being under their influence our operations were directed bythem against you in common with other Americans. " He then acknowledgedthat after the close of the war the Americans had sent overtures ofpeace, which he had accepted--although as a matter of fact the Creeksnever ceased their ravages, --but complained that Robertson's expeditionagainst the Muscle Shoals again brought on war. [Footnote: StateDepartment MSS. , No. 71, vol. Ii. , p. 620. McGillivray to Bledsoe andRobertson; no date. ]

There was, of course, nothing in this complaint of the injustice ofRobertson's expedition, for the Muscle Shoal Indians had been constantlyplundering and murdering before it was planned, and it was undertakenmerely to put a stop to their ravages. However, McGillivray made adroituse of it. He stated that the expedition itself, carried on, as heunderstood it, mainly against the French traders, "was no concern ofours and would have been entirely disregarded by us; but in theexecution of it some of our people were there, who went as well frommotives of curiosity as to traffic in silverware; and six of whom wererashly killed by your men" [Footnote: McGillivray's Letter of April 17, 1788, p. 521. ]; and inasmuch as these slain men were prominent indifferent Creek towns, the deed led to retaliatory raids. But now thatvengeance had been taken, McGillivray declared that a stable peace wouldbe secured, and he expressed "considerable concern" over the "tragicalend" of Robertson's slain kinsfolk As for the Georgians, he announcedthat if they were wise and would agree to an honorable peace he wouldbury the red hatchet, and if not then he would march against themwhenever he saw fit. [Footnote: _Do. _ p. 625; McGillivray's Letter ofApril 15, 1788. ] Writing again at the end of the year, he reiterated hisassurances of the peaceful inclinations of the Creeks, though theirtroubles with Georgia were still unsettled. [Footnote: Robertson MSS. McGillivray to Robertson, December 1, 1788. This letter contains thecautious, non-committal answer to Robertson's letter in which the latterproposed that Cumberland should be put under Spanish protection; theletter itself McGillivray had forwarded to the Spaniards. ]

 Continuance of the Ravages. 

Nevertheless these peaceful protestations produced absolutely no effectupon the Indian ravages, which continued with unabated fury. Manyinstances of revolting brutality and aggression by the whites againstthe Cherokees took place in Tennessee, both earlier and later than this, and in eastern Tennessee at this very time; but the Cumberland people, from the earliest days of their settlement, had not sinned against thered men, while as regards all the Tennesseans, the Creeks throughoutthis period appeared always, and the Cherokees appeared sometimes, asthe wrong-doers, the men who began the long and ferocious wars ofreprisal. 

 Death of Bledsoe. 

Robertson's companion, Bledsoe, was among the many settlers who suffereddeath in the summer of 1788. He was roused from sleep by the sound ofhis cattle running across the yard in front of the twin log-housesoccupied by himself and his brother and their families. As he opened thedoor he was shot by Indians, who were lurking behind the fence, and oneof his hired men was also shot down. [Footnote: Putnam, 298. ] Thesavages fled, and Bledsoe lived through the night, while the otherinmates of the house kept watch at the loop-holes until day broke andthe fear was passed. Under the laws of North Carolina at that time, allthe lands went to the sons of a man dying intestate, and Bledsoe'swealth consisted almost exclusively in great tracts of land. As he laydying in his cabin, his sister suggested to him that unless he made awill he would leave his seven daughters penniless; and so the will wasdrawn, and the old frontiersman signed it just before he drew his lastbreath, leaving each of his children provided with a share of his land. 

 Robertson Wounded. 

In the following year, 1789, Robertson himself had a narrow escape. Hewas at work with some of his field hands in a clearing. One man was onguard and became alarmed at some sound; Robertson snatched up his gun, and, while he was peering into the woods, the Indians fired on him. Heran toward the station and escaped, but only at the cost of a bulletthrough the foot. Immediately sixty mounted riflemen gathered atRobertson's station, and set out after the fleeing Indians; but findingthat in the thick wood they did not gain on their foes, and werehampered by their horses, twenty picked men were sent ahead. Among thesetwenty men was fierce, moody young Andrew Jackson. They found theIndians in camp, at daybreak, but fired from too great a distance; theykilled one, wounded others, and scattered the rest, who left sixteenguns behind them in their flight. [Footnote: Haywood, 244. ]

 Wrongs Committed by Both Sides. 

During these two years many people were killed, both in the settlements, on the trail through the woods, and on the Tennessee River, as theydrifted down-stream in their boats. As always in these contests theinnocent suffered with the guilty. The hideous border ruffians, thebrutal men who murdered peaceful Indians in times of truce and butcheredsquaws and children in time of war, fared no worse than unoffendingsettlers or men of mark who had been staunch friends of the Indianpeoples. The Legislatures of the seaboard States, and Congress itself, passed laws to punish men who committed outrages on the Indians, butthey could not be executed. Often the border people themselvesinterfered to prevent such outrages, or expressed disapproval of them, and rescued the victims; but they never visited the criminals with thestern and ruthless punishment which alone would have availed to checkthe crimes. For this failure they must receive hearty condemnation, andbe adjudged to have forfeited much of the respect to which they wereotherwise entitled by their strong traits, and their deeds of daring. Inthe same way, but to an even greater degree, the peaceful Indians alwaysfailed to punish or restrain their brethren who were bent on murder andplunder; and the braves who went on the warpath made no discriminationbetween good and bad, strong and weak, man and woman, young and old. 

One of the sufferers was General Joseph Martin, who had always been afirm friend of the red race, and had earnestly striven to secure justicefor them. [Footnote: American State Papers, Indian Affairs, vol. I. Martin to Knox, Jan. 15, 1789. ] He had gone for a few days to hisplantation on the borders of Georgia, and during his visit the place wasattacked by a Creek war party. They drove away his horses and woundedhis overseer; but he managed to get into his house and stood at bay, shooting one warrior and beating off the others. 

 Attack on an Emigrant Boat. 

Among many attacks on the boats that went down the Tennessee it happensthat a full record has been kept of one. A North Carolinian, namedBrown, had served in the Revolutionary War with the troop of Light-HorseHarry Lee, and had received in payment a land certificate. Under thiscertificate he entered several tracts of western land, including some onthe Cumberland; and in the spring of 1788 he started by boat down theTennessee, to take possession of his claims. He took with him his wifeand his seven children; and three or four young men also went along. When they reached the Chicamauga towns the Indians swarmed out towardsthem in canoes. On Brown's boat was a swivel, and with this and therifles of the men they might have made good their defence; but as soonas the Indians saw them preparing for resistance they halted and hailedthe crew, shouting out that they were peaceful and that in consequenceof the recent Holston treaties war had ceased between the white men andthe red. Brown was not used to Indians; he was deceived, and before hemade up his mind what to do, the Indians were alongside, and many ofthem came aboard. [Footnote: Narrative of Col. Joseph Brown, _Southwestern Monthly_, Nashville, 1851, i. , p. 14. The story was toldwhen Brown was a very old man, and doubtless some of the details areinaccurate. ] They then seized the boat and massacred the men, while themother and children were taken ashore and hurried off in variousdirections by the Indians who claimed to have captured them. One of theboys, Joseph, long afterwards wrote an account of his captivity. He wasnot treated with deliberate cruelty, though he suffered now and thenfrom the casual barbarity of some of his captors, and toiled like anordinary slave. Once he was doomed to death by a party of Indians, whomade him undress, so as to avoid bloodying his clothes; but theyabandoned this purpose through fear of his owner, a half-breed, and adreaded warrior, who had killed many whites. 

 Sevier Secures Release of Prisoners. 

After about a year's captivity, Joseph and his mother and sisters wereall released, though at different times. Their release was brought aboutby Sevier. When in the fall of 1788 a big band of Creeks and Cherokeestook Gillespie's station, on Little River, a branch of the upperTennessee, they carried off over a score of women and children. The fourhighest chiefs, headed by one with the appropriate name of BloodyFellow, left behind a note addressed to Sevier and Martin, in which theytaunted the whites with their barbarities, and especially with themurder of the friendly Cherokee chief Tassel, and warned them to moveoff the Indian land. [Footnote: Ramsey, 519. ] In response Sevier madeone of his swift raids, destroyed an Indian town on the Coosa River, andtook prisoner a large number of Indian women and children. These werewell treated, but were carefully guarded, and were exchanged for thewhite women and children who were in captivity among the Indians. TheBrowns were among the fortunate people who were thus rescued from thehorrors of Indian slavery. It is small wonder that the rough frontierpeople, whose wives and little ones, friends and neighbors, were in suchmanner rescued by Nolichucky Jack, should have looked with leniency ontheir darling leader's shortcomings, even when these shortcomings tookthe form of failure to prevent or punish the massacre of friendlyIndians. 

 Efforts of the Settlers to Defend Themselves. 

The ravages of the Indians were precisely the same in character thatthey had always been, and always were until peace was won. There was theusual endless succession of dwellings burned, horses driven off, settlers slain while hunting or working, and immigrant parties ambushedand destroyed; and there was the same ferocious retaliation whenopportunity offered. When Robertson's hopes of peace gave out he tooksteps to keep the militia in constant readiness to meet the foe;for he was the military commander of the district. The countylieutenants--there were now several counties on the Cumberland--wereordered to see that their men were well mounted and ready to march at amoment's notice; and were warned that this was a duty to which they mustattend themselves, and not delegate it to their subalterns. The lawswere to be strictly enforced; and the subalterns were promptly to notifytheir men of the time and place to meet. Those who failed to attendwould be fined by court-martial. Frequent private musters were to beheld; and each man was to keep ready a good gun, nine charges of powderand ball, and a spare flint. It was especially ordered that everymarauding band should be followed; for thus some would be overtaken andsignally punished, which would be a warning to the others. [Footnote:Robertson MSS. , General Orders, April 5, 1789. ]

 The Creeks and the Georgians. 

The wrath of the Creeks was directed chiefly against the Georgians. TheGeorgians were pushing steadily westward, and were grasping the Creekhunting-grounds with ferocious greed. They had repeatedly endeavored tohold treaties with the Creeks. On each occasion the chiefs and warriorsof a few towns met them, and either declined to do anything, or elsesigned an agreement which they had no power to enforce. A sample treatyof this kind was that entered into at Galphinton in 1785. The Creeks hadbeen solemnly summoned to meet representatives both of the FederalCongress and of Georgia; but on the appointed day only two towns out ofa hundred were represented. The Federal Commissioners thereupon declinedto enter into negotiations; but those from Georgia persevered. Bypresents and strong drink they procured, and their government eagerlyaccepted, a large cession of land to which the two towns in question hadno more title than was vested in all the others. 

The treaty was fraudulent. The Georgians knew that the Creeks who signedit were giving away what they did not possess; while the Indian signerscared only to get the goods they were offered, and were perfectlywilling to make all kinds of promises, inasmuch as they had no intentionwhatever of keeping any of them. The other Creeks immediately repudiatedthe transaction, and the war dragged on its course of dismal savagery, growing fiercer year by year, and being waged on nearly even terms. [Footnote: American State Papers, Indian Affairs, vol. I. , p. 15. ]

 McGillivray Signs a Treaty of Peace. 

Soon after the Constitution went into effect the National Governmentmade a vigorous effort to conclude peace on a stable basis. Commissioners were sent to the southern Indians. Under their persuasionMcGillivray and the leading kings and chiefs of the Muscogee confederacycame to New York and there entered into a solemn treaty. In this treatythe Creeks acknowledged the United States, to the exclusion of Spain, asthe sole power with which they could treat; they covenanted to keepfaith and friendship with the Americans; and in return for substantialpayments and guaranties they agreed to cede some land to the Georgians, though less than was claimed under the treaty of Galphinton. 

 The Creeks Pay No Heed to the Treaty. 

This treaty was solemnly entered into by the recognized chiefs andleaders of the Creeks; and the Americans fondly hoped that it would endhostilities. It did nothing of the kind. Though the terms were veryfavorable to the Indians, so much so as to make the frontiersmengrumble, the Creeks scornfully repudiated the promises made on theirbehalf by their authorized representatives. Their motive in going towar, and keeping up the war, was not so much anger at the encroachmentsof the whites, as the eager thirst for glory, scalps, and plunder, to bewon at the expense of the settlers. The war parties raided the frontieras freely as ever. [Footnote: Robertson MSS. , Williamson to Robertson, Aug. 2, 1789, and Aug. 7, 1790. American State Papers, Indian Affairs, i. , 81. Milfort 131, 142. ] The simple truth was that the Creeks could bekept quiet only when cowed by physical fear. If the white men did notbreak the treaties, then the red men did. It is idle to dispute aboutthe rights or wrongs of the contests. Two peoples, in two stages ofculture which were separated by untold ages, stood face to face; one orthe other had to perish; and the whites went forward from sheernecessity. 

 Growth of Immigration. 

Throughout these years of Indian warfare the influx of settlers into theHolston and Cumberland regions steadily continued. Men in search ofhomes, or seeking to acquire fortunes by the purchase of wild lands, came more and more freely to the Cumberland country as the settlerstherein increased in number and became better able to cope with andrepel their savage foes. The settlements on the Holston grew with greatrapidity as soon as the Franklin disturbances were at an end. As thepeople increased in military power, they increased also in materialcomfort, and political stability. The crude social life deepened andbroadened. Comfortable homes began to appear among the huts and hovelsof the little towns. The outlying settlers still lived in wooden fortsor stations; but where the population was thicker, the terror of theIndians diminished, and the people lived in the ordinary style offrontier farmers. 

 The South-western Territory Organized. 

Early in 1790, North Carolina finally ceded, and the National Governmentfinally accepted, what is now Tennessee; and in May, Congress passed alaw for the government of this Territory Southwest of the River Ohio, asthey chose to call it. This law followed on the general lines of theOrdinance of 1787, for the government of the Northwest; but there wasone important difference. North Carolina had made her cessionconditional upon the non-passage of any law tending to emancipateslaves. At that time such a condition was inevitable; but it doomed theSouthwest to suffer under the curse of negro bondage. 

 Blount Made Governor. 

William Blount of North Carolina was appointed Governor of theTerritory, and at once proceeded to his new home to organize the civilgovernment. [Footnote: Blount MSS. Biography of Blount, in manuscript, compiled by one of his descendants from the family papers. ] He laid outKnoxville as his capital, where he built a good house with a lawn infront. On his recommendation Sevier was appointed Brigadier-General forthe Eastern District and Robertson for the Western; the two districtsknown as Washington and Miro respectively. 

Blount was the first man of leadership in the West who was of Cavalierancestry; for though so much is said of the Cavalier type in thesouthern States it was everywhere insignificant in numbers, andcomparatively few of the southern men of mark have belonged to it. Blount was really of Cavalier blood. He was descended from a Royalistbaronet, who was roughly handled by the Cromwellians, and whose threesons came to America. One of them settled in North Carolina, nearAlbemarle Sound, and from him came the new governor of the southwesternterritory. Blount was a good-looking, well-bred man, with cultivatedtastes; but he was also a man of force and energy, who knew well how toget on with the backwoodsmen, so that he soon became popular among them. 

 Retrospect: What had been Accomplished during the Seven Years. 

The West had grown with astonishing rapidity during the seven yearsfollowing the close of the Revolutionary War. In 1790 there were inKentucky nearly seventy-four thousand, and in the Southwest Territorynearly thirty-six thousand souls. In the Northwest Territory the periodof rapid growth Years had not yet begun, and the old French inhabitantsstill formed the majority of the population. 

The changes during these seven years had been vital. In the West, aselsewhere through the Union, the years succeeding the triumphant closeof the Revolution were those which determined whether the victory was orwas not worth winning. To throw off the yoke of the stranger was uselessand worse than useless if we showed ourselves unable to turn to goodaccount the freedom we had gained. Unless we could build up a greatnation, and unless we possessed the power and self-restraint to frame anorderly and stable government, and to live under its laws when framed, the long years of warfare against the armies of the king were wasted andwent for naught. 

At the close of the Revolution the West was seething with sedition. There were three tasks before the Westerners; all three had to beaccomplished, under pain of utter failure. It was their duty to invadeand tame the shaggy wilderness; to drive back the Indians and theirEuropean allies; and to erect free governments which should form partsof the indissoluble Union. If the spirit of sedition, of lawlessness, and of wild individualism and separatism had conquered, then our historywould merely have anticipated the dismal tale of the Spanish-Americanrepublics. 

Viewed from this standpoint the history of the West during theseeventful years has a special and peculiar interest. The inflow of theteeming throng of settlers was the most striking feature; but it was nomore important than the half-seen struggle in which the Union partyfinally triumphed over the restless strivers for disunion. The extentand reality of the danger are shown by the numerous separatistmovements. The intrigues in which so many of the leaders engaged withSpain, for the purpose of setting up barrier states, in some degreefeudatory to the Spaniards; the movement in Kentucky for violentseparation from Virginia, and the more secret movement for separationfrom the United States; the turbulent career of the commonwealth ofFranklin; the attitude of isolation of interest from all their neighborsassumed by the Cumberland settlers:--all these various movements andattitudes were significant of the looseness of the Federal tie, and wereominous of the anarchic violence, weakness, and misrule which would havefollowed the breaking of that tie. 

The career of Franklin gave the clearest glimpse of what might havebeen; for it showed the gradual breaking down of law and order, the riseof factions ready to appeal to arms for success, the bitter broils withneighboring States, the reckless readiness to provoke war with theIndians, unheeding their rights or the woes such wars caused otherfrontier communities, and finally the entire willingness of the leadersto seek foreign aid when their cause was declining. Had not theConstitution been adopted, and a more perfect union been thus calledinto being, the history of the state of Franklin would have beenrepeated in fifty communities from the Alleghanies to the Pacific coast;only these little states, instead of dying in the bud, would have gonethrough a rank flowering period of bloody and aimless revolutions, ofsilly and ferocious warfare against their neighbors, and of degradingalliance with the foreigner. From these and a hundred other woes theWest no less than the East was saved by the knitting together of theStates into a Nation. 

This knitting process passed through its first and most critical stage, in the West, during the period intervening between the close of the warfor independence, and the year which saw the organization of theSouthwest into a territory ruled under the laws, and by the agent, ofthe National Government. During this time no step was taken towardssettling the question of boundary lines with our British and Spanishneighbors; that remained as it had been, the Americans never abandoningclaims which they had not yet the power to enforce, and which theirantagonists declined to yield. Neither were the Indian wars settled; onthe contrary, they had become steadily more serious, though for thefirst time a definite solution was promised by the active interferenceof the National Government. But a vast change had been made by theinflow of population; and an even vaster by the growing solidarity ofthe western settlements with one another, and with the CentralGovernment. The settlement of the Northwest, so different in some of itscharacteristics from the settlement of the Southwest, had begun. Kentucky was about to become a State of the Union. The territories northand south of it were organized as part of the domain of the UnitedStates. The West was no longer a mere wilderness dotted with cabins andhamlets, whose backwoods builders were held by but the loosest tie ofallegiance to any government, even their own. It had become an integralpart of the mighty American Republic. 

THE END OF VOL. III. 

INDEX. 

 Allen, Ethan, separatist leader; relations with British authorities. Army, regular, relations of officers to Kentuckians; friction with frontiersmen; distrust of militia; failure to understand how to fight Indians; shortcomings of; superiority to the militia; further friction with frontiersmen. Baptist preachers. Black Wolf, Indian chief, death of. Bledsoe, Anthony, corresponds with McGillivray; slain by Indians. Bloody Fellow, Cherokee chief, writes note taunting Sevier and Martin. Blount, William, Governor of Southwest Territory. Bolivar, Spanish-American general. Boone, Daniel, hunter and deputy surveyor; in Virginia Legislature; trader; creed; keeps faith with Indians. Borarth, Mrs. , feat of, against Indians. Bradford, John, publisher of _Kentucke Gazette_. Brady, Sam, feats of; his scouts formidable fighters. Brant, Joseph, Iroquois chief. British, keep country round great lakes; support Indians against frontiersmen; deeds of British troops; foes of frontiersmen. Brown, John, Kentucky delegate in Congress, allied to Wilkinson; he and Madison have intercourse with Gardoqui; letter advising independence for Kentucky; disunionist, not corrupt; misrepresents action of Continental Congress. Brown, Joseph, story of his capture by Indians. Caldwell, British partisan. Campbell, Arthur, sides with state of Franklin. Carondolet, Spanish governor, excites Indians against Americans. Castleman, Indian fighter. Cherokees, complain of violation of treaties; chief killed; hold council with Franklin people; hostilities with Franklin; uneasiness under pressure of borderers; embroiled with Kentuckians; outrages against; butchery of; war with. Chickamaugas, a banditti; ravages by; beat back Martin's expedition. Chickasaws, war with Kickapoos; uneasy over American advance. Chippewas, thirst for liquor; wanton outrages by. Choctaws, alarmed by coming of frontier settlers. Christian, Col. William, death of. Clark, George Rogers, closes land office as war measure; land-poor; manner of life; commission to treat with Indians; encroaches on Indian lands; believes treaties to be futile; advocates war; appealed to by Vincennes Americans; moves against Indians; failure of expedition; experiences of friend in river-trade; seizes goods of Spanish trader; back-woodsmen approve this deed; it is condemned by Federal and Virginian authorities; his motives suspected; his acts disapproved by Kentucky Convention; he writes to Gardoqui proposing to found a colony in Illinois; friendship for Gibault. Cocke, William, envoy from state of Franklin; writes to Benj. Franklin. Coldwater, Indian town on; French traders at; destroyed by Robertson. Colonies, proposals to found them in Spanish territory; Colonial systems, varieties of; United States makes new departure in. Commerce on Mississippi, peculiarities and dangers of; profits of; uncertainties of; hampered by Spaniards; extent of. Conolly attempts intrigue in Kentucky. Contested election in state of Franklin. Continental troops, best class of immigrants. Convention, held at Danville to erect Kentucky into a State; second convention declares for separate statehood; third convention; wrangles with Virginia Legislature; further conventions. Cornplanter, the Iroquois, speech and deeds. Corn Tassel, friendly Cherokee chief, murdered by whites. Council, of northern Indians at Sandusky. Creeks, trouble with Georgians; hostility to Americans; feudatory to Spaniards; ravages by; constant clashing with Georgians; bad faith towards United States. Cumberland, river, fertile lands along; speculation in lands; settlements in great bend, II; settlers on, take no share in the Franklin quarrel; they have slight national feeling; their currency; their troubles with Indians; increase in their numbers. Cunningham family murdered by Indians. Cutler, Manasseh, represents Ohio Company before Congress; perhaps writes draft of ordinance; visits Ohio. Dane, Nathan, share in ordinance of 1787. Delawares, divided councils of. Detroit, important British post; life at. Disunion spirit on frontier; folly of; extent in Vermont and Kentucky; equivocal attitude of disunion leaders; Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, and Hartford Convention. Doolin family murdered by Indians. Dorchester, Lord, rouses Indians against Americans; his attitude as Governor of Canada. Elliott, British partisan. Federal Government treats with Indians. Filson, John, misadventure of; goes for help to Louisville. Fleming, Col. Wm. , visits Kentucky; presides over first Danville Convention. Frankland, proposal to alter name of Franklin to; proposed constitution for. Franklin, insurrectionary state of, founded; government and finance; memorial to Congress; named after the philosopher; piratical attitude towards Indians; friendship for Georgia; workings of the government; revolt against; Virginia unfriendly, but Georgia friendly; grasps at Indian lands; war with Indians; quarrels with North Carolina and the Cherokees; totters to its fall; collapse. French, complaints against Americans; friendship with Indians. French towns, chaos in. French traders excite Indians against Americans. Frontier, attracts adventurous spirits; social characteristics of frontiersmen. Galvez, victories of; Viceroy of Mexico. Game, abundance of, in Kentucky. Gardoqui, Don Diego, Spanish Minister in New York; negotiations with Jay; declines Jay's propositions; intrigues with separatist leaders; letter to Robertson; negotiations with Morgan; fruitlessness of his diplomacy; inability to understand Americans; intercourse with leaders in Congress; correspondence with Sevier; sends envoy to Franklin; negotiations with the Franklin leaders. Georgia, room for growth within. Gibault, priest at Cahokia. Gillespie, Captain, protects Indian prisoner; his station captured by Indians. Girty, Simon, British partisan; ransoms captive. Grayson, William, share in ordinance. Hamtranck, expedition against Wabash Indians Hardin, John, Col. , skirmish with Indians; wounded; successful foray; commands militia under Harmar; is defeated. Harmar, General, investigates alleged filibustering expedition from Franklin; takes possession of French towns; quarrels with backwoodsmen; stateliness of life; foray against Shawnees; marches against Miami towns; poor quality of army; destroys towns; his detachments defeated; his retreat. Hart, Israel, family butchered by Indians. Henry, Patrick, authorizes Kentuckians to attack Indians; services of; hostility to state of Franklin. Holston, river, settlements on; trail from these settlements to Cumberland; rapid growth of settlements. Hopewell, treaty of. Houston, Samuel, proposes constitution of Frankland Illinois, American settlers in the; quarrels of Americans and creoles; creoles petition Congress; relations of both with Federal troops. Indian fighters. Indians, futile treaties with; treachery of; double dealing of; wish war; ravages of; wrongs committed against; horrors of warfare with; terrible qualities of; wage war of aggression; attack immigrants; their ravages; ravages increase; varying conditions of warfare against; further ravages; attacks on Ohio boats; extent of damage done by, in Kentucky. Individual initiative of settlers, chief characteristic of settlement of Northwest Innes threatens disunion. Jackson, Andrew, intercourse with Spanish agents; share in Indian fighting. Jay, John, does not realize growth of West; renders great services to West; negotiations with Gardoqui; offers temporary suspension of right to navigate Mississippi; anger of Westerners at this; his attitude and advice on subject. Jefferson, fatuous military judgment of; wise attitude towards West; against slavery in Northwest. Johnson boys, adventure of. Jonesboro, convention at, declares for independence. Kenton, Simon, surveyor and hunter; Indian fighter; rescues white captives; leads raids against Indians; his scout company. _Kentucky Gazette_. Kentucky, great growth of; good poor man's country; emigrants to, American, German, Scotch, Irish; characteristics of people; their attitude towards Spain; misery of early settlers; great change in; scourged by Indians; prosperity of; politics; movement for separate statehood; movement compared to that in Franklin; wrangles with Virginia; delays in movement; Kentucky becomes a State. King, Rufus, opposes slavery in Northwest. Kirk, John, his family murdered by Indians; brutal deed of his son. Lake posts, held by British, importance of, to frontiersmen. Land claims of States; differences in substantial value of; those of Virginia and North Carolina most important; those of the other States very shadowy; misconduct of Georgia; attitude of the non-claimant States; Continental Congress wrestle with; question settled by compromise and bargain; Connecticut's sharp bargain; small money value of land. Land companies. Lands, western, eagerly sought by both settlers and speculators; intense interest in. Lee, "Lighthorse Harry, " agrees with Jay about Mississippi; borrows money of Gardoqui. Lee, Richard Henry, share in ordinance. Legrace, J. M. P. , French commandant at Vincennes. Lincoln family attacked by Indians. Logan, Benjamin, protects immigrants; presides at meeting of Kentucky field officers; successful raid against Shawnee towns; fails to enforce discipline; leads other forays; prominence of; takes lead in movement for statehood. Logan, John, scatters Cherokee war party. Louisville, population in 1786. Madison, intercourse with Gardoqui. Mansker, Indian fighter. Marshall, Humphrey, historian and Union leader in Kentucky. Marshall, Thomas, Union leader in Kentucky. Martin, Alexander, Gov. Of North Carolina, corresponds with Sevier. Martin, Joseph, general and Indian agent; tries to protect Cherokees; removes from among them; his opinion of them; beaten by Chickamaugas; his plantation attacked by Creeks. May, John, Col. , visits lands of Ohio Company. McClure, Mrs. , terrible experience of. McDowell, Col. Samuel, presides over second Danville Convention. McGarry, foul murder committed by. McGillivray, Creek chief, correspondence with Robertson; with Robertson and Bledsoe; makes groundless complaints; makes treaty at New York; this treaty repudiated by Creeks. Merrill, Mrs. John, her feat against Indians. Methodism, great advance of. Miami Company. Miami Indians, hostile; expedition against. Miro, Don Estevan, severity of, towards American traders; intrigues with separatist leaders; duplicity of; correspondence with Wilkinson and Sebastia. Michilimakinac, British post. Molunthee, Shawnee chief, advocates peace; foully murdered by McGarry. Morgan, Col. George, proposes to form colony in Spanish territory. Muscle Shoals, failure of settlement at, under claim of Georgia. Navarro, Martin, Spanish Intendant of Louisiana; wishes to separate the West from the Union. Navigation of Mississippi, importance of, to West; subject of tedious diplomatic negotiations; excitement over; right to, asserted by Congress. New England people, spread north and west; settle in Northwest. New Madrid founded. New York, its people expand within its own boundaries. Niagara, British post. Northwest, the, won by nation as a whole; individual settlers of less consequence than in Southwest. Ohio Company, formed in 1786; secures abolition of slavery in Northwest; purchase of lands on Ohio; founds town of Marietta; importance of its action; contrasts with feats of early pioneers. Ohio, first permanent settlers in. Ohio, river, fertile lands along; speculation in; river route, chief highway for immigrants; immense number of immigrants using it. Ordinance concerning sale of public lands. Ordinance of 1787, vital to Northwest; importance of; its history; good conduct of Southern States on slavery question; provisions of ordinance; articles of compact; prohibits slavery; importance of, as state paper; formulates new departure in colonial system. Outlaw, backwoods colonel, kills friendly Cherokees. Patterson, Robert, Colonel, good conduct of. Patton, skirmish with Indians. Pickens, Andrew, and his fellow-justices of Abbeville, S. C. , denounce Franklin men for murder of Cherokees. Pioneers, changes among; succession of types among; characteristics of different types. Presbyterian ministers. Putnam, Rufus, one of founders of Ohio. Robertson, James, attacks Indians at Coldwater; writes to Illinois about the slain French traders; and to Delaware; writes to McGillivray about separation of Southwest from Union; lack of national feeling; correspondence about Indians with Miro and Gardoqui; attends North Carolina Legislature; son and brother killed by Indians; letter to McGillivray; to Martin; encourages immigration to Cumberland; wounded by Indians; commands militia; brigadier-general. Scott, Charles, a Kentucky Indian fighter. Scott, settler, family butchered by Indians. Sebastian, Judge, in pay of Spaniards; ally of Wilkinson; conspires to dismember the Union; corrupt. Sectional intolerance. Separatist spirit, strength of, at different times in different sections; leaders of; similarity to Spanish-American revolutionists; their evil influence; partial justification of separatist movement by narrowness of eastern people; especially of New Englanders; examples of this narrowness; excuses for certain; separatist leaders; separatist feeling in Kentucky; anger of Virginians over; separatist feeling in West; separatist movement in West Virginia; in Kentucky; failure of movement. Settlers, character of; occupation of. Sevier, James, goes to Gardoqui. Sevier, John, president of Jonesboro Convention; Governor of Franklin; correspondence with Gov. Martin; and Patrick Henry; issues manifesto; rivalry with Tipton; brawls with Tipton; asks help of Evan Shelby; friendly relations with Georgia; member of Cincinnati; he and his men compared with bygone colonizers; leads forays against Indians; corresponds with Benj. Franklin; with Shelby; end of term as governor; in dire straits; fight with Tipton's men; further forays against Indians; fails to protect Indian prisoners; reprobated for his failure; abandoned for moment by frontiersmen; arrest ordered by Governor of North Carolina; leads other forays; is arrested; escapes; proceedings against him dropped; corresponds with Gardoqui; offers to enter into alliance with Spain; becomes a Federalist; destroys Indian town on Coosa; ransoms captive whites; made brigadier-general. Sevier, Valentine, at Muscle Shoals. Shawnees, hostile; surrender prisoners; burn prisoners. Shelby, Evan, appealed to by state of Franklin; corresponds with Sevier; hostile to state of Franklin. Slavery, negro, in West; a curse to the whites; prohibited in Northwest. Slim Tom, an Indian, brutal murder by. Spaniards, on southwestern frontier; their dominion jeopardized by backwoodsmen; who look at them as the Germans once looked at the Roman Empire; they recognize the frontiersmen as their special foes; treachery of; diplomatic negotiations with; corruption of officials; outrages by American and creole traders; seize goods of Cumberland trader; dread the backwoodsmen; try to keep the Indians their allies; and incite them to war against settlers; towards whom they behave with shameful duplicity; religious intolerance of; expel American traders from among the southern tribes. St. Clair, Arthur, Governor of Northwest Territory; christens capital Cincinnati; his share in governing the Northwest; holds treaties with Indians. Sullivan, Daniel, fight with Indians. Sullivan, John, proposes filibustering expedition. Symmes, John Cleves, judge in Northwest. Tennessee, river, rich lands along; settlements along headwaters of; immigrant route down; three counties on, proceed to form new government; elect delegates to meet at Jonesboro. Tipton, John, in Jonesboro Convention; rivalry with Sevier; revolts against Franklin government; hostility to Sevier; defeats Sevier's forces; captures Sevier. Treaties, failure of; violated by Indians. Trotter, Robert, Col. , good conduct of; misconduct of. Union, the, immense importance of, to welfare of race; without its adoption the revolutionary war would have gone for nought; triumph of Union feeling in West; western movement in favor of. Van Swearingen, son killed by Indians. Vermont, affairs similar to those in Kentucky. Vigo, Francis, trading on Ohio; misadventure with Indians. Vincennes, condition of, in 1786; anarchy at; Indians threaten; garrison established at, by Clark; citizens surrender charter. Wabash, American settlers on. Wabash Indians, hostile; misconduct of; treachery of; harass the Vincennes garrison. Wabash, river, land speculation. Wallace, Judge Caleb, position in Kentucky. War with Indians, unavoidable; justifiable; horrible; importance of. Washington, wise attitude on Mississippi question. Watauga, river, settlements along. Westerners, eagerness of, to acquire Spanish lands. Wetzel, John, adventure of. Wetzel, Lewis, brawl with soldiers. White, James, in pay of Spain; corrupt; sent to Franklin by Gardoqui. Whitley, William, feats against Indians. Wilderness trail to Kentucky. Wilkinson, James, his base character; embarks in river commerce; corrupt and disloyal negotiations with Spaniards; influence in Kentucky; a separatist leader; proposal to form a barrier state; hostility to all Spanish schemes save his own; takes bribes from Spaniards; his leadership in the disunion movements; pensioned by Spaniards; corruption of; leads Kentucky separatists; urges violent action; goes to New Orleans; returns; opposes ratification of Federal constitution. Wyandots, doubtful attitude of; declare for peace. Yazoo river, speculation in lands.