1 the union. If Virginia's claims were invalid, then, the grants of land made by her were void and no one could be sure that his property was his Own. A petition, dated August 27, 1782, prayed Congress to admit the Kentucky country as a state in the union, since the charter under which Virginia claimed the western country had been dissolved and the land had reverted to the Crown and that the Revolution had diverted all Crown property to the national government." The silent appeal of Paine's Public Good was soon supplemented by certain radical agitators who appeared in Lexington and Louisville in 1784. One Galloway entered the former town in May and began to spread the doctrine that Virginia did not own Kentucky and therefore all she had done there was void. Congress, he declared, owned the land and would make a new distribution soon. He advised the people, in the meantime, to seize upon the land wherever they wanted it. The results of such inflammatory arguments and appeals can readily be imagined. In a newly settled country, as this was, there could always be found a certain class of floating ne'er-do-wells who were willing to follow any agitator especially when he should promise them gain; but, of course, the great mass of the citizens and the leaders of the community whose all depended on the maintenance of the existing order, were greatly wrought up. Galloway was immediately arrested and held for trial. But the question speedily came up as to what crime he had committed and how he could be punished. After a considerable search of the old Virginia laws, it was decided that he was guilty of the "propagation of false news, to the disturbance of the good people of the colony." He was, thus, tried under this old law, they had resurrected, and was fined one thousand pounds of tobacco. As he was unable to procure the tobacco, he was given his freedom with the understanding that he immediately leave the country, 10 At about the same time Galloway was spreading his doctrine in Lexington, one Pomeroy, doubtless his companion, was busily engaged in the same occupation in Louisville. He was soon arrested and tried under the same old Virginia law which had been made use of in the Lexington trial. But Pomeroy did not escape with so light a sentence as Galloway. He was fined 2000 pounds of tobacco and forced to "give security for his good behavior, himself in £1000, with two securities in £500, and pay costs, &c." But as the very nature of his occupation precluded the possibility of him having so extensive a stock of worldly goods, he, like Galloway, was let loose provided he should leave the country immediately.11 There was always a class of population whose fears and cupidity could always be played upon by agitation and rumors. They were never a majority, but their existence had its effect on the general situation, hastening on and augmenting the general feeling of discontent that was arising among all classes. About this time a group of petitioners informed. Virginia that they had recently heard that a committee of Congress had declared that the lands northwest of the Alleghany Mountains did not belong to Virginia, and that a pamphlet circulating through the country. stated the same. They suggested to Virginia that if the country did not belong to her, then, they believed it belonged to themselves. They added, however, that they were willing for Virginia to rule them.12 The unrest and discontent up to 1785 was most evident in that class of people who had not become prominent in the community and who Proceedings of the American Historical Association, III, 419-422; IV, 354 10 James Hall, Sketches of History, Life, and Manners of the West [Philadelphia, 1835], II, 22; G. W. Ranck, History of Lexington, Kentucky [Cincinnati, 1872], 106. 11 Ben Casseday, The History of Louisville [Louisville, 1852]; Collins, History of Kentucky, II, 373. 12 Robertson, Petitions of the Early Inhabitants of Kentucky, 78, 79. had not had the success in securing land and other property which they had anticipated. Many of them represented the most recent migrations. Those who had come from other states than Virginia tended to be less respectful toward that State's authority and traditions. During this period they were looked upon by many of the native Virginians as the chief agitators for separation. But this movement was becoming grounded in more fundamental causes than mere dislike for Virginia. James Speed wrote Governor Harrison in May, 1784, from Danville: "Many of the inhabitants of this place are not natives of Virginia, nor well affected to its government, and are sowing sedition among its inhabitants as fast as they can, which I fear will have too great an effect so long as they are pent up in forts and stations, notwithstanding the attorney-general has taken every step in his power to suppress them. ** *I fear the faction will increase, and ere long we shall revolt from government in order to try if we can govern ourselves, which, in my opinion, will be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire." 13 In this is indicated the two groups that were now fast evolving themselves out of the situation in Kentucky. Those who regardless of cost and consequences would set up a new state in the American union, and those conservatives mostly Virginia born who could see no good in a new state that would not be outweighed by the evils consequent to such a move. The latter group fast lost support when the series of conventions began, which after a most tangled and complicated course, finally changed the District of Kentucky into the Commonwealth of Kentucky. 13 T. M. Green, The Spanish Conspiracy [Cincinnati, 1891], 56. Copied from the Calendar of Virginia State Papers [Richmond, 1875-1883]. Vol. I-19 CHAPTER XVII THE FIRST THREE CONVENTIONS As Kentucky continued to increase in population and wealth she gradually developed a self-consciousness which chafed under the control of a power hundreds of miles away. The idea of being a colony was not pleasing to the mass of the people, and especially did many of the leaders feel their opportunities for development circumscribed by such a condition. So large a community of people as Kentucky presented to view, and in so detached a situation from the mother state, was a challenge to those who would become statemakers and statesmen. Besides any laudable ambitions that might thus have been aroused, there were problems of moment pressing for an immediate solution. From the very nature of the case Virginia was unable to rule effectively and wisely so large a number of people so far away. And as the District of Kentucky was only so many counties of Virginia she must necessarily be ruled on the same basis as the Virginia counties east of the mountains. As a result, permission from the central authority must be had to do the most. minute things. In such important and highly necessary fields of activity as defense against the Indians, complete authority rested in the Virginia capitol. Indian uprisings and invasions might be preparing under their very eyes, with the Kentuckians unable to act. Invasions might be carried out and great destruction wrought before authority could be obtained from Virgina to deal with the situation. Not even a ferry or a grist mill could be set up nor a town incorporated without first obtaining the permission of Virginia. The distance from the seat of power and authority operated on every hand to the great detriment of these pioneers. The final authority in all suits at law rested east of the mountains. Only the rich could afford to carry a case to its final adjudication, if occasion should arise to contest it to the end. However fair and sympathetic the Virginia government might try to be in dealing with Kentucky, it must ever fall short of complete justice; for again distance operated against the Virginia government ever completely understanding the problems of the Kentuckians in their Indian troubles and along many other lines. Virginia, east of the mountains, had commercial problems and interests that pointed for solution eastward toward the Atlantic; whereas Virginia, west of the mountains, had commercial problems and aspirations that pointed for solution southward down the Mississippi. As long as the Alleghanies reared their masses as an impenetrable barrier to commercial intercourse between these two parts of a single state, so long must commercial interests suitable to the one be incompatible with those of the other.1 These problems became more pressing as time went on and Kentucky became more powerful. For years efforts to obtain and adapt laws made in Richmond to conditions in Kentucky had availed little. Opinion was becoming widespread that a concerted move must be made through the united action of all Kentucky. The occasion for the first proceeding 1 E. D. Warfield, "The Constitutional Aspect of Kentucky's Struggle for Autonomy, 1784-92," in Proceedings of the American Historical Association, IV, 354; Brown, Political Beginnings of Kentucky, 59. grew out of an effort to deal with one of the most important and immediately pressing difficulties that the Kentuckians had long been laboring under. This was an adequate means of defense against the Indians. In 1784 Col. Benjamin Logan learned that the Cherokees were making extensive preparations to invade Kentucky from the south, and that there was unusual Indian activity on the northern frontiers. It seemed criminal to him to sit down and wait for the storm to burst upon them, or what would practically amount to the same thing, await for authority from Virginia to deal with the menace. In this dilemma, Logan called a meeting of representative citizens to convene in Danville to consider what was best to be done. At the meeting the consensus of opinion was that measures should be undertaken at once to repel the invasion. But on further investigation it was found that there was no law which would permit the militia to be called out for offensive operations without war being declared. It was their good fortune that the expected Indian uprising did not take place; but it set them to thinking. Here was a potential state willing and able to take care of itself, but unable to act. This meeting, therefore, went on record as favoring a separation from Virginia and admission to the Union of states. As the best means for carrying out this movement, they decided to call a convention of the District to meet in Danville on December 27 [1784] to take into consideration means of preserving the country from impending danger.2 This convention was to be composed of delegates chosen by the militia companies. Thus was Kentucky set going in her quest for that illusive will-o'-the-wisp, statehood, and as has been aptly said "Nor can there in the whole history of American government be found a career of such multiplied disappointments and abortive assemblies, as in the labors of Kentucky, to be admitted into the Union." The military nature of this beginning is very evident. The preliminary meeting was virtually a council of war; it was thus a military necessity that precipitated the movement; and it was advanced its first step not through the civil powers but through the militia companies. This in itself is a striking comment on the early society of the District, where the able bodied men were largely kept on a war footing. Thus were they a people cradled in the Revolution which for them was not yet ended. The time was ripe for such a move. The people responded with great interest in sending their representatives to the Danville meeting. The convention was organized with Samuel McDowell, president, and Thomas Todd, secretary-a combination that was followed in the nine succeeding conventions. Many visitors came to listen to the debates on the various questions discussed. There was nothing radical proposed or taken into consideration. The men who composed the membership were largely of Virginia nativity or sympathies; and although there were necessarily differences of opinion, it was unanimous in the sentiment that whatever was done should proceed along lines strictly according to law. There was a large majority in favor of petitioning Virginia for separation and through her for application for admission to the Confederation. But the call on which they were elected did not specifically direct them to formulate plans for statehood. So here began that extreme caution and nicety to the exactness of law which characterized the ever recurring conventions to the number of ten, before they succeeded in accomplishing what was expected to be done in one. They adopted seven resolutions in which they recounted the long distance and inconvenience attendant upon the transaction of business with 2 J. B. McMaster, History of the People of the United States, I, 163, 4; Proceedings of the American Historical Association, V, 357. 8 Mann Butler, A History of the Commonwealth of Kentucky [Cincinnati, 1836], a government so far away. They, therefore, called another convention. to meet in the following May to take into consideration the propriety of forming a new state. Shrinking from what they might well have done themselves, they passed the task on to a second convention. Instead of using the method of election under which they themselves had been chosen, they resolved that a civil vote should be taken in April and that representation should be based on the freehold population. They fixed the number of representatives from Lincoln County at twelve, and from Fayette and Jefferson at eight each. Here began a departure from the Virginia system of representation based on counties regardless of population, which was a harbinger of many other more democratic usages to be adopted by the Kentuckians. The last resolution admonished the people to select their best men.4 Four months elapsed from the adjournment of this meeting until the election for the second convention. During this period the people were given an opportunity to discuss the specific question of statehood and to determine on representatives who would carry out their views. According to call, the second convention convened in Danville on May 23 [1785]. The representatives were very decorous and deliberative, debating their problems a week before drawing up the sense of the body. Five resolutions were adopted containing the results of their deliberations on the action that should be taken. First, they resolved unanimously "That a petition be presented to the Assembly, praying this District may be established into a State, separate from Virginia." It was also their unanimous opinion that the District should be received into the American Union "and enjoy equal privileges in common with the said States." They issued a call for a third convention to meet in Danville in August to be elected on the principle of equal representation "and to continue by adjournment till the first day of April next, to take further under their consideration the state of the District.' It was a rather unusual procedure to prolong the life of the coming convention for eight months. But the people had found in these conventions a sort of semi-authority which they could exercise; the organized will of the District could thus act through a continuing body which could watch over the interests of Kentucky and act in an emergency. Besides the resolutions adopted, two addresses were drawn up: The one "To the Honorable General Assembly of Virginia," the other "To the Inhabitants of the District of Kentucky." But after considering all the problems of statehood and embodying its deliberations in resolutions and addresses, it had not the temerity to act on them. Their fifth resolution provided "That the petition to the Assembly for establishing this District into a State, and the several resolves of the former and present Conventions, upon which the petition is founded, together with all other matters relative to the interests of the District, that have been under their consideration, be referred to the future convention, that such further measures may be taken thereon as they shall judge proper."5 This action shows the utmost caution which the convention was using in every movement. It was in effect a species of referendum, whereby the people would be given, presumably, a final opportunity to pass on separation. But since the convention had voted unanimously for separation and must, as a popular body, have represented reasonably well the sentiment. of the people. it seems to have been prolonging unduly the period of uncertainty. However, it seems that no other motive may be imputed to them than their desire to represent the will of the people absolutely, and to be assured that public opinion was reasonably unanimous. This move • Brown, Political Beginnings of Kentucky, 60-62. |