today the exact sites of many of them are unknown. Boonesborough is only a memory. To stimulating the establishing of towns as well as to delay a too rapid scattering of the population in the face of dangers that were still present, the county court in 1779 recommended "to the Inhabitants that they keep themselves as united and compact as possible one other year, settling themselves in towns and Forts, and that they may for their greater encouragement procure therein a permanent property to the Soil and Improvements, they recommend that the intended Citizens, choose three or more of the most Judicious of their Body, as Trustees. * * *"" These trustees were to have power to lay off such towns and regulate the residential requirements for the ownership of property as well as the character of buildings that should be erected. The court also delegated authority to them to "adjudge adequate and just compensation to any persons who may necessarily be grieved" on account of any regulations and also "to determine all disputes among the citizens in consequence thereof." The records of these town trustees were to be sent to the county court.30 This was an unusual authority exercised by the county court to set up necessary local self governments; but the characteristics of these sturdy Anglo-Saxons were such as to meet the situation despite legal technicalities.

There was, however, a general Virginia law permitting any group of settlers desirous of setting up a town to set aside six hundred and forty acres for such a purpose. Lots were distributed among the actual settlers, who were required to erect a dwelling house within three years, which must be at least sixteen feet square and have a chimney made of brick, stone, or dirt. Boonesborough was the first to take advantage of this law, when in October of 1779 it was incorporated by an act of Virginia.31 The following year the settlers around the Falls of the Ohio petitioned the Virginia House of Delegates to incorporate them as a town. They recited that they had laid out the town according to the recommendations of the county court, and now asked that the uncertainty concerning the Connolly lands be finally cleared away. This petition was granted and Louisville became in incorporated town in the same year. The incorporation of other towns soon followed, among which were Harrodsburg, Washington, and Maysville.

The plan for the town of Lexington was adopted in the latter part of 1781, when lots were sold to more than sixty people. Two years later another step was taken by the disposition of lots to thirty-four more settlers and the reservation of three lots for public use. The site of Lexington had been visited as early as 1775 and soon thereafter numerous land surveys were made in the vicinity. According to tradition and a general understanding that arose in the lifetime of the actors, Lexington was named by a party of hunters in June, 1775, upon hearing of the battle of Lexington. Timothy Flint in 1826, declared that it "received its name from some hunters, who were encamped under the shade of the original forest, where it is built, and who, receiving the first intelligence of Lexington battle in Massachusetts, named the town after that, where commenced the great struggle of American independence." 32 No efforts at establishing a town here were made until 1779 when Robert Patterson 30 MS. Record in Durrett MS. Collection. This is reproduced in Durrett, Centenary of Louisville, 137.

31 Robertson, "New Light on Early Kentucky," in Proceedings of the Mississippi Valley Historical Association, 1915, 1916, 90-98; Collins, History of Kentucky, II, 514.

32 Timothy Flint, Recollections of the Mississippi Valley (Boston, 1826), 353. This version of the naming of Lexington was given in a celebration at Maxwell's Spring (Lexington), in 1809, while John Maxwell, who was in Colonel Patterson's party of settlers in 1779, was still alive and present at the meeting. It was accepted without question at this time as the true version. Reporter, July 29, 1809. See also Mrs. W. T. Lafferty, The Town Branch MS., in Lexington Public Library.

with twenty-five men began a settlement.33 Although getting a later start than other Kentucky towns, Lexington was advantageously situated in an exceedingly fertile region and before the end of the century was the largest town in Kentucky, with strong prospects for the social, intellectual, and industrial center of the west.

The institutional development of Kentucky had thus far been a perfect reflection of the economic situation. The growth of separatism was the keynote.

33 Historical Address by George W. Ranck at the Centennial Celebration of the Settlement of Lexington, Kentucky (April 2, 1879), Pamphlet, 11 pp. Also see Collins, History of Kentucky, II, 179, 180.

CHAPTER XVI

BEGINNINGS IN THE MOVEMENT FOR SEPARATION FROM VIRGINIA

The experience of the settlers in Kentucky from the very beginning had been such as to develop self-reliance and strong initiative. All through the Revolution they had been the vanguard of American opposition in the West. The war had scarcely begun before the few pioneers then west of the Alleghanies cast about to take up their part in the struggle. Through the dark days when the whole region was all but deserted those who remained struggled on with whatever resources they could command, separated from the little aid Virginia had to offer by hundreds of miles of almost impassable mountains. They presented much the appearance of a part of an army separated from the main body surrounded by the foe on every side, but fighting on regardless of help. These pioneers had thus been subject to the worst possible conditions; but they had lived through it, and that largely through no power but their own. It is little wonder then that ideas should early arise among these people, that they could easily take care of themselves in peace, if they could survive so far in a war as trying as they had recently experienced, and, indeed, which was not yet ended.

But the movement that sprang up for separation from Virginia was by no means based wholly on the mere feeling of an ability to take care of themselves. The tangled web that began to be woven as early as 1780 was no simple fabric. They entered into it a thousand strands colored by as many shades and hues. The history of Kentucky from 1780 for a full dozen years, until separation was finally secured, revolved around good motives and bad, patriotism, pelf, and complicated intrigue. The leaders and the masses were never able to settle any one of their pressing problems on its merits alone, so tangled and mixed were public affairs in the West.

During this period the problem of separation from Virginia was of continuing interest, the securement of which in most minds, would largely solve all the other difficulties. This movement was not well developed until about 1785; but before the Revolution had ended, there began to appear unmistakable signs that the hardy pioneer warriors of the Kentucky country would not long rest contented under the government of rulers hundreds of miles away. Neither would the tens of thousands of immigrants who were beginning to enter Kentucky rest until their dreams of the West should be realized in the control of their own government. A petition dated August 23, 1780, and signed by more than 350 persons was sent to the Continental Congress. They recited the difficulties and troubles they were having in securing and holding their land, with other attendant circumstances that made their lives disagreeable. They had taken into consideration solutions and would now suggest three. In the first place, they could stay in Kentucky and take the oath of allegiance to Virginia which she was then demanding. Again, they might leave Kentucky and even the United States and take land "on some part of Mexico" and become citizens of the king of Spain. The third solution they offered was to move across the Ohio River and settle in the savage

1

country. This they declared would suit them better than either of the first two means suggested. They then appealed to "the Honorable Congress to allow them Liberty of making such Regulations amongst themselves as they shall find necessary to govern themselves by, being subject to the United States at large and no other States or power whatsoever." Thus, these early petitioners would separate from Virginia, but not in order to escape government. The pioneers throughout the whole settlement of the West developed and exhibited no stronger trait than that for a government. They might disregard laws which they did not approve, but they never desired the absence of laws. These petitioners were undoubtedly early arrivals in the western country and had not yet settled down sufficiently to identify themselves with their surroundings.

Certain conditions which George Rogers Clark describes in a letter to his father may not be wholly unconnected with the above petition. On the very day the petition was signed Clark wrote: "The partizans in these Counties are again Soliciting me to head them as [the]ir Governor General as all those from foreign States are for a new Government but my duty obliges me to suppress all such proceedings I consequently shall loose the Interest of that party. This is an early indication of the position on the separation question that became general with those settlers who had not migrated from Virginia.

Three months earlier a petition for separation from Virginia had been sent to the Continental Congress. This was signed by 672 persons. Instead of being from Kentuckians only, it included many settlers in the County of Illinois. They desired Congress to create them into a separate state.3 As they placed no restrictions on the limits of the new state, it, therefore, seems to have been the intent of the petitioners to form a state lying on both sides of the Ohio River.

Congress was not the only power appealed to by the Kentuckians. Virginia naturally came in for a constant stream of petitions when once opinions began to form and crystallize on the wants and needs of her western settlers. This was an old and accepted method east of the mountains, and so the great number of petitions that went up from the Kentuckians is not extraordinary. These petitions dealt with all the public needs of the times. They show how completely dependent for authority in government the Kentuckians were on their Virginia rulers. They are also an ever reminder of that close connection with Virginia which must have been instilled into the Kentuckians, whether they had been born in the Old Dominion or in some other state. As before suggested, these petitions covered the whole field of governmental activity and bear no far-fetched general relationship to the modern method known as the initiative. The laws of Virginia passed for the Kentucky country bear a very close relationship to the petitions. In many of the laws a part of the petition appeared in the preamble. Not all petitions were answered in laws, but most of the laws found their inception in petitions. Virginia was, thus, very considerate and attentive to her western citizens.4 But despite this sympathy and consideration of the mother state for her offspring, there were many problems of the Kentuckians that could be.

1 Chenoweth Massacre, Etc. [n. p., n. d.] A publication of the Kentucky State Historical Society.

2 George Rogers Clark Papers, 1771-1781, p. 453. Edited by J. A. James. [Illinois Historical Collections, Vol. VIII, Springfield, 1912.]

3 J. M. Brown, The Political Beginnings of Kentucky [Louisville, 1889], 59. 4 A large number of the petitions have been published in James R. Robertson, Petitions of the Early Inhabitants of Kentucky [Louisville, 1914]. This is Filson Club Publication, Number 27. Also see by the same author "New Light on Early Kentucky" in Proceedings of the Mississippi Valley Historical Association, 19151916, Vol. 9, pp. 90-98.

solved only through the organization of a new state, and so the movement for separation was not appreciably stayed in Virginia's answer to petitions.

One of the most fruitful causes of complaint was the uncertainty and confusion in obtaining and holding land as well as the operations of speculators who had begun to get control of large tracts. In 1782 a petition was sent to the Virginia General Assembly making such complaints as noted above. It was alleged that the real settlers were greatly handicapped by the flock of speculators. A change in the land laws was sought. If this could not be had, a separation ought to be granted. If Virginia should agree to a separation, the petitioners would have her intercede with Congress to admit the new state into the union.5

But all the elements of discontent were not to be found in Kentucky alone. The situation in the nation at this time on the question of the ownership of all the western lands was anything but reassuring to the Kentuckians. This had been one of the most difficult problems the struggling young nation had to deal with. The Articles of Confederation had been held from going into effect for two or three years by this very question. Not until 1786 were all the Northwestern lands ceded to Congress. Virginia had the most extensive claims of any of the states. They not only included Kentucky but virtually all of the Northwest. The numerous arguments put forth to prove that the states had no valid claim to these lands had the direct effect of creating a state of uncertainty in the minds of the Kentucky settlers. In 1780 Thomas Paine enlisted his trenchant pen in the cause, arguing with considerable force in Public Good that Virginia had no just and valid claim to any of the western territory. This was a forty-one page pamphlet widely circulated and having the sub-title "being an Examination into the Claim of Virginia to the vacant Western Territory, and of the Right of the United States to the same to which is added proposals for laying off a New State, to be applied as a fund for carrying on the war, or redeeming the National Debt." "6 Paine argued the uncertainty and confusion in the very charter through which Virginia claimed the land, that the Proclamation of 1763 limited her western boundary by the Alleghany Mountains, and that even if the land did belong to her it would be bad policy to hold it. He declared Virginia would lose more in taxes from her citizens migrating to the westward then she could gain in land sales in that region. He would carve out and erect a new state running from the western boundary of Pennsylvania down the Ohio River to the Falls, thence to the North Carolina boundary [Tennessee now] and thence eastward to the mountains. His argument for a new state for these settlers, who themselves at this early time had scarcely thought of it, had the effect of increasing and crystallizing this sentiment. The following argument and prophecy was largely borne out by subsequent events: "The present settlers being beyond her reach, and her supposed authority remaining in herself, they will appear to her as revolters, and she to them as oppressors; and this will produce such a spirit of mutual dislike, that in a little time a total disagreement will take place, to the disadvantage of both."7

Two years after Paine had written his Public Good its doctrines had reached the wilderness of Kentucky and was producing confusion and discontent. Virginia was notified in a petition this year that "an Inflammatory Pamphlet intitled public Good" had made its appearance and was greatly augmenting the unrest so prevalent among the people. These doubts as to the ownership of the western country furthered the movement for separation from Virginia and the erection of a new state into

Robertson, Petitions of the Early Inhabitants of Kentucky, 62-5.

6 Writing of Thomas Paine [Albany, 1792], contains the text of this pamphlet.

7 Paine, Public Goods, 38.

8 Robertson, Petitions of the Early Inhabitants of Kentucky, 64.