of a connection on republican principles. The patriots who formed our constitution, sensible of the impracticability of connecting permanently in a free government the extensive limits of the commonwealth, most wisely made provision for the act which we now solicit."

It ventured to praise the anticipated action of Virginia thus:

"Our application may exhibit a new spectacle, in the History and Politics of Mankind-A Sovereign Power; solely intent to bless its People agreeing to dismemberment of its parts, in order to secure Happiness of the whole-and we fondly flatter ourselves from motives not purely Local, it is to give Birth, to that catalogue of great events, which we persuade ourselves, is to diffuse throughout the World the inestimable blessings, which mankind may derive from the American Revolution." 13 This convention, unlike the preceding one, was bent on speedy action. It entrusted the address for delivery to the two most important officials of the District, who were also members of the convention. They were George Muter, chief justice of the District, and Harry Innes, the district attorney. As this action was supposed to secure final results, there was no call issued for a new convention, and thus this continuing authority, which had its inception in Logan's council of war and which had been passing from convention to convention, ceased. It was now believed. that the next assembly would be a sovereign convention, called by the authority of Virginia, whose duty it should be to provide a constitution for the new state. In fact, the Kentucky leaders had begun to contemplate the provisions that should go into their new constitution, as soon as the movement for separation began. Caleb Wallace wrote James Madison on August 23, 1785, for his view on a constitution for Kentucky. Wallace also invited Madison to move to Kentucky as a field for future power and preferment. Madison hesitated to entertain seriously "the idea of transplanting myself into your wilderness"; but he gave a long exposition on the importance and powers of legislative, executive, and judicial departments of government.14 No one could know at that time that these thoughts and contemplations on constitution-making which were engaging certain Kentuckians should long be forgotten before they should be needed.15

13 The full text of this address may be found in Brown, Political Beginnings of Kentucky, 240 et seq., and in Robertson, Petitions of the Early Inhabitants of Kentucky, 79-82.

14 The Writings of James Madison [New York, 1900-1910], II, 166-177.

15 The names of the members of the convention which met December 27, 1784, have not been found. The names of the members of the conventions of May 23, 1785, and August 8, 1785, are to be found, Collins, History of Kentucky, Vol. I, p. 354, and are given here:

Members of the convention held in Danville, on the 23d day of May, 1785— Samuel McDowell, president, George Muter, Christopher Greenup, James Speed, Robert Todd, James Baird, Matthew Walton, James Trotter, Ebenezer Brooks, Caleb Wallace, Richard Terrell, Robert Clarke, Robert Johnson, John Martin, Benjamin Logan, Willis Green, Harry Innes, Levi Todd, Isaac Cox, Richard Taylor, Richard Steele, Isaac Morrison, James Garrard, John Edwards, George Wilson, Edward Payne, James Rogers, Kincheloe.

Members of the convention which assembled at Danville, August 8, 1785-Samuel McDowell, president, George Muter, Christopher Irvine, William Kennedy, Benjamin Logan, Caleb Wallace, John Coburn, James Carter, Richard Terrell, George Wilson, Isaac Cox, Andrew Hynes, James Rogers, Harry Innes, John Edwards, James Speed, James Wilkinson, James Garrard, Levi Todd, John Craig, Robert Patterson, Benjamin Sebastian, Phillip Barbour, Isaac Morrison, Matthew Walton, James Trotter.

CHAPTER XVIII

THE FOURTH CONVENTION; THE FIRST AND SECOND ENABLING ACTS

Now, for the first time, the question of separating the District of Kentucky from the commonwealth was officially before the Virginia Legislature. The leaders in state affairs had not been oblivious of the agitation, interspersed with three conventions, that had been going on in Kentucky for the past year. Opinions varied as to the advisability of separation and as to the methods of bringing it about. The Virginia constitution which had been framed in 1776 contemplated the erection at some future time of states out of its vast domains, which not only included the Kentucky regions south of the Ohio River, but also embraced practically all of what came to be known as the Old Northwest. The constitution specifically provided that the boundaries of the commonwealth should be the same as they had been under James I, unless "one or more governments be established westward of the Alleghany Mountains." 1 The wisdom and foresight of this provision can hardly be overestimated, for without this constitutional permission, it would be difficult to predict what should have been the attitude of the Virginia Legislature toward Kentucky statehood.

James Monroe, while not entertaining a pronounced antagonism to Kentucky statehood, believed that the admission of western states should be restricted as much as possible. He was not actuated by any hostility. to the West; but, rather, he feared the diminishing importance of Virginia as western states were admitted. Speaking of the Kentucky situation, he said: "My opinion is we cod so model our regulations as to accommodate our government to their convenience, and unquestionably the more we diminish the State, the less consequence we will have in the Union." 2 This opinion was expressed in August of 1785. Shortly thereafter Monroe made a visit to Kentucky, passing down the Ohio River to Limestone [Maysville] and thence to Lexington and back to Virginia over the Wilderness Road. He later changed his views, and contemplated for a time casting his lot with the Kentuckians. Instead of believing that the separation of Kentucky from Virginia would lessen the latter's importance, he now thought that Kentucky should become at state, among other reasons because as a state she would add her power to Virginia's influence in the Union.1

The many-sided Jefferson had long been interested in Kentucky and the West in general. He was not directly opposed to a separation, but would proceed with due caution. Washington was at least as sympathetic, if not more so. He wrote Jefferson in September, 1785: "The inhabitants of Kentucky have held several conventions, and have resolved to apply for separation; but what may be the final issue of it, is not for me to inform you." He said opinions varied on this point; but "I have

1 See Proceedings of the American Historical Association, V, 358.

2 The Writings of James Monroe, edited by S. M. Hamilton [New York, 18981903], I, 107.

3 Lewis and Richard H. Collins, History of Kentucky [Covington, 1874], I, 21. 4 F. J. Turner, "Western State-Making in the Revolutionary Era" in the American Historical Review, I, 262, 263.

uniformily given it as mine, to meet them upon their own ground, draw the best line and make the best terms we can, and part good friends." 5 It was only natural for most Virginians to want to hold onto the rich domains of Kentucky, if the whole could be knit together into one harmonious commonwealth. In pursuance of this idea the Legislature in 1779 had passed an act for opening a road across the Cumberlands to Kentucky. In the words of the preamble, "To afford mutual aid and support to one another and cement in one common interest all the citizens of the state a good wagon road through the great mountains into the settlements will greatly contribute."

In due time Muter and Innes appeared in the Virginia General Assembly with the Kentucky petition. They were received with courtesy and consideration. With almost the appearance of haste, Virginia, on January 10, 1786, granted permission for separation, embraced in a law which came to be known as the First Enabling Act. But there were laid down certain conditions incident upon a separation, and others necessary as a precaution against the uncertainties of political attachments in the West. Some time before this, Madison had sounded a warning: "No interval whatever should be suffered between the release of our hold on that Country and its taking on itself the obligations of a member of the federal body. Should it be made a separate State without this precaution, it might possibly be tempted to remain so, as well with regard to the U. S. as to Virginia. * *"8 Madison was here not thinking of possible foreign intrigues so much as the allurement of an escape from the general debt and national taxation. Jefferson also had fears as to Kentucky's ultimate attachments. In January, 1786, he wrote: "I fear * * that the people of Kentucky think of separating, not only from Virginia (in which they are right), but also from the confederacy. I own, I should think this a most calamitous event, and such a one as every good citizen should set himself against."9

*

* *

This Enabling Act began by agreeing with the Kentuckians on the propriety of a separation on account of the great distance with the concomitant disadvantages. But instead of ca ling a constitutional convention for the Kentuckians, which doubless most of them thought would be the next step, the General Assembly called another convention to be made up of representatives elected by the free male inhabitants in the August following [1786] and to meet in Danville the fourth Monday in September. In this convention the people were given an opportunity to determine whether they wanted statehood on the conditions laid down. Thus, it did not represent a feeling on the part of Virginia that the masses had been heretofore hoodwinked into separation by the convention leaders and that now they should be given a referendum under the authority of Virginia to register their true will. These were the conditions laid down on which Virginia was willing to let Kentucky separate: The boundary of the new state to remain the same as the District; that Kentucky assume her proportion of the Virginia public deb; that private rights and land holdings based on Virginia laws prior to separation be not disturbed; that residents and non-residents be treated alike in taxation and security of property; that all land titles made under the authority of Virginia and surveyed before 1788 be held valid; that the lands that Virgina had reserved for different kinds of services be held for her until September, 1788; that the Ohio River be open and Writings of George Washington [Boston, 1840], Edited by Jared Sparks, IX, 134.

Robertson, Petitions of the Early Inhabitants of Kentucky, 18, 19

7 Brown, Political Beginnings of Kentucky, 72, 73.

8 The Writings of James Madison, II, 149.

The Writings of Thomas Jefferson [Washington, 1904]. Library Edition, V, 259. This letter was written to A. Stuart from Paris, January 25, 1786.

free to all citizens of the United States; and, that in case of disputes arising over these conditions, they be settled by arbitration by commissioners.

Finally, there was the provision that if the convention called to meet in the coming September should decide on separation, then it must fix a date prior to September 1, 1787, when Virginia's authority should cease; provided, however, that previous to June 1, 1787, Congress should agree to this partition and agree to receive Kentucky into the Union.10 This was one of the most important conditions in the compact. It was this provision which set going that train of events that kept the would-be state wandering through a labyrinth of six more conventions for as many years; but it was this same provision that saved her the unnecessary temptations which were beginning to dangle before her eyes in the shape of foreign intrigues. It could not have been wholly accidental that not the slightest mention of a desire to enter the American Union was made throughout the address to Virginia, which Wilkinson wrote and which Muter and Innes carried to Richmond. Instead of following the common practice in the former petitions of private citizens and addresses of conventions praying Virginia to intercede with Congress for their admission into the Union as a state, this address asked "That an act may pass at the ensuing session of the Assembly, declaring and acknowledging the Sovereignty & Independence of this district." 11 The precaution that Virginia took was not wholly uncalled for.

As the time grew near for the August election, which was to provide for the fourth convention to meet in the following month, interest in the general movement for separation was intensified. There was growing up a feeling of exasperation at the interminable delay that seemed to be pursuing the quest for statehood. The former convention had been largely controlled by this element, which was becoming bolder and more outspoken for immediate action, regardless of the Enabling Act. In this movement Wilkinson first began to develop a popular leadership. He entered the campaign in Fayette County as one of the candidates to represent that county in the forthcoming convention. Here the campaign waxed especially hot. Wilkinson came out boldly for immediate independence, and so vehement was he in his denunciation of delay that he overreached his mark. A strong opposition grew up against him, so widespread that he all but failed of election, despite the fact that he modified his statements; and his enemies declared that it was only through fraud that he succeeded.12

But in the meantime, Indian depredations had become so unbearable that two important expeditions were fitted out to carry the war across the Ohio River into the Indian country. Logan went against the Shawnees on the headwaters of Mad River, while Clark led 1,000 volunteers up the Wabash against the Indian towns on the Vermilion.18 This was the situation in the District when the Fourth Convention met in Danville in September, 1786. As a result, when the meeting was called to order, no quorum was present-a large number of the members-elect having gone on the Indian expeditions. The minority thus unable to organize, adjourned from day to day, awaiting the return of the absent

10 McElroy, Kentucky in the Nation's History, 129-130.

11 Robertson, Petitions of the Early Inhabitants of Kentucky, 82. Madison wrote Washington concerning the Kentucky attitude on these conditions: "The apparent coolness of the representative of Kentucky, as to a separation, since these terms were defined, indicates that they had some views that will not be favored by them. They dislike much to be hung on the will of Congress." Green, Spanish Conspiracy, 62, quoted from Writings of George Washington, IX, 510. 12 Collins, History of Kentucky, I, 262; McElroy, Kentucky in the Nation's History, 130.

13 A more extended account of these expeditions will be found on pages

members. Although not competent to transact business in the name of the convention, this minority prepared a memorial to the Virginia Legislature, reciting the circumstances in Kentucky that made it impossible to proceed with the convention, but at the same time they asked that certain changes be made in the provisions of the Enabling Act. They appointed John Marshall, afterwards to become the great chief justice, as their agent in Richmond to present the memorial.14 Among the amendments asked for was an extension of the time limit required for the sanction of Congress. Virginia, willing to please her western settlers and to solve this important internal difficulty as soon as possible, revised the old Enabling Act on January 10, 1787. Regardless of the request of this rump convention, Virginia would have been under the necessity of revising her enabling act, as the Kentucky convention had been delayed so long it could not have fulfilled its time requirements. Some argued that so unimportant an item as merely the time limit should not be made to bring about delay, which could not be less than at least a year. But even John Marshall, who was here intrusted with Kentucky's interests, favored a new law. He believed with the General Assembly that to proceed under the old act of separation would augment party differences in Kentucky, "that, as you are very much divided among yourselves, and there does not appear to be in the minority a disposition to submit with temper to the decision of the majority," there ought to be a new act passed.15

He agreed with the Legislature that everything should be done strictly according to the letter of the law, for when once the law was set aside in the slightest degree, a breech was opened for more serious departures. The terms of this new act were virtually the same as the First Enabling Act, except as to the time limits. An election was called for in August following [1787] for a fifth convention to meet on the third Monday in September in Danville to again vote whether it would have separation or not. A longer period than in the first act was set for the termination of Virginia's authority, should the convention vote for separation. Her authority was now not to cease until January 1, 1789, and Congress must agree by July 4, 1788, to "release this Commonwealth from all its federal obligations arising from said District, as being part thereof, and shall agree that the proposed state shall immediately after the day fixed as aforesaid, or at some convenient time future thereto, be admitted into the Federal Union. 16

In the meantime the members of the convention who had been away on the military expeditions returned, and in January [1787] a quorum was found present. The convention immediately voted with great unanimity to agree to the Virginia terms of separation. But shortly thereafter the intelligence of the new enabling act reached Kentucky. The convention, thus deprived of any further authority, adjourned, with the erstwhile members departing to their various homes throughout the District in an ugly temper.17

14 Brown, Political Beginnings of Kentucky, 73-78.

15 Brown, Political Beginnings of Kentucky, 78.

16 Brown, Political Beginnings of Kentucky, 73-78.

17 Collins, History of Kentucky, I, 264; J. D. Monette, History of the Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi [New York, 1848], II, 172-192.