advanced ammunition, as well as the others who had used their own money were "impatiently Expecting Mr. Michaux with Supplies of money."

" 40

Clark felt the need of money so keenly that he did not forget to petition Virginia in the very midst of this undertaking, after he had become a major-general in the French army and presumably a French Citizen.41 On November 11, 1793, he asked for full pay for five years, or half pay for life.42

Clark's name at the head of the enterprise had caused many not only to be ready to join it at the proper time, but had led them to advance their own money in payment for supplies. John Mongomery, who collected large amounts of provisions and ammunition in the District of Niro (Cumberland regions) wrote Clark in January, 1794, that these supplies had "been purchased on the Credit and faith of you and the French [na]tion with my exertions. I am ruined if neglected." 48 Clark not only had the trouble of trying to make his own collections, but was also importuned by others to aid them.44 Samuel Fulton became the chief claim agent for Clark and incidentally of the others. He first went to Philadelphia where he saw Fouchet. He was advised to lump all the claims together and present them at the same time.45 Soon finding out that he could do little in Philadelphia toward collecting them, he set sail for Paris to present them to the National Convention. He succeeded in getting them allowed in principle but due to the fact that they were not certified by the French minister they were not paid.46

Clark did not become exasperated at the delay in the settlement of his claims. He was not convinced for a year or two after the expedition had been abandoned that it might not be renewed. And he in fact urged another attempt on the French government. That there was much hope of a renewal in Clark's mind may well be doubted; rather must this continued interest manifested by Clark be laid to his sense of tact and judgment in remaining in the good graces of the French until he could make collections. In November, 1795, Clark wrote the Committee of Safety that the people still sympathized with France and that if they should attempt another expedition "no opposition that would be made in this quarter could stop their Career were they again to be put in Motion." He declared that since the Mississippi was the outlet for the western country the people were still upset over the question and that "They dispair of ever getting it opened through the mediation of the present American Ministry." He was quick to add that "This is not the only reason for their desire to assist France but a powerful one that of gratitude toward you and the Idea they possess of the rights of man." 47

Fulton also professed to be as much interested in a renewal of the enterprise as he had ever been for the original venture. He informed Clark of his belief that after he should see the National Convention it would most likely be renewed. In expectation of this, he said, he had refused an appointment in the United States army offered him by General 40 Clark to Genet, April 28, 1794, in American Historical Review, XVIII, 781, 782.

41 See Clark's letter to the French minister Feb. 5, 1793, in “Correspondence of Clark and Genet," 970.

42 Robertson, Petitions of the Early Inhabitants of Kentucky, 172, 174.

43 "Correspondence of Clark and Genet," 1034. Montgomery to Clark, Jan. 12, 1794.

44 See "Correspondence of Clark and Genet," 1085, 1096, 1097.

45 Ibid., 1067, 1069, passim. Fulton began his efforts in the summer of 1794. 46 The presumption is that these claims were never paid, as the whirl of governmental changes and confusion in France procluded such a settlement. See “Correspondence of Clark and Genet," 1088, 1089, 935.

47 "Correspondence of Clark and Genet," 1096. Letter dated Nov. 2, 1795.

Knox.4 48 About a year later he wrote Clark from Paris that he was up to that time unable to determine whether the French would begin anew the undertaking; but that in case they did he stood ready to set out for America to give his support to it.49 But events moved fast in the United States; in a short time conditions were so changed that a continuance of such French enterprises was out of the question.

48 Ibid., 1068. Fulton to Clark, July 26, 1794.

49 "Correspondence of Clark and Genet," 1086, 1087. Fulton to Clark, Feb. 13, March 2, 1795.

CHAPTER XXX

GOVERNOR SHELBY AND THE FRENCH ENTERPRISE

The official attitude which Kentucky might assume toward his enterprise was of prime importance to Genet. However, he had no fears, with his belief in the almost universal popular clamor in favor of France. He had so little apprehension apart from Washington and his immediate supporters that he had confided the main outlines of his plans to Jefferson, the Secretary of State. And no less a personage than George Rogers Clark, had on his own initiative urged the scheme and offered his services. He believed there were unmistakable signs of almost universal support from the people, and if not active assistance, at least passive acquiescence from the governmental officials. He had, therefore, sent Michaux West armed with ample letters of introduction to Governor Shelby. With no natural bent toward political intrigue, Michaux no doubt said little to Shelby concerning Genet's scheme.

The ever watchful and intriguing Spaniards had received information of the French plans, even before Genet had dispatched a single emissary to Kentucky. The Spanish minister made representations to Jefferson that the French were bent on inciting the Kentuckians against the Spanish power in Louisiana, and demanded that the United States put a stop to the proceedings.1 Jefferson therefore on August 29, 1793, wrote Governor Shelby of the Spanish accusations and reminded him of the impropriety and danger of such proceedings against a friendly power, and especially against Spain under present relations with that country, and instructed him "to take those legal measures which shall be necessary to prevent any such enterprise."2 This letter no doubt gave Shelby his first idea as to the actual importance of the French scheme. On October 5, he replied to Jefferson that he would be on the watch for such expedition. fitting out in the state and prevent it. He added that he was "well persuaded at present none such is in contemplation in this State. The citizens of Kentucky possess too just a sense of the obligation they owe the General Government, to embark in any enterprise that would be so injurious to the United States." 4

But at this very time, Genet's chief political agent was in Kentucky and four other principal aids were there or were shortly to arrive. In fact two days before Shelby answered Jefferson, Clark's enthusiasm for the enterprise led him to say that had he received a quicker answer from Genet, he could by that time have been in "Complete Possession of the Mississippi." There must, therefore, have been certain evidences of the expedition fitting in Kentucky reported to Jefferson, apart from the panicky Spanish minister's charge that four Frenchmen had recently gone there to aid the enterprise. Jefferson was so far convinced and alarmed that he addressed Governor Shelby again on November 6 (1793), and

1 American State Papers, Foreign Relations, I, 455. This was prior to Aug.

29, 1793.

2 Ibid., 455.

3 Between the time when Jefferson wrote this letter and the date of Shelby's reply, Michaux had paid his first visit to the latter. (Sept. 13.)

American State Papers, Foreign Relations, I, 455.

asked him to use every legal means to frustrate the French designs. He threw out the suggestion, that when such possible legal means "failed or are inadequate, a suppression by the militia of the State has been ordered and practiced in the other states." He expressed his concern "that the citizens of Kentucky will not be decoyed into any participation into these illegal enterprises against the peace of this country by any effect they may expect from them on the navigation of the Mississippi. Their good sense will tell them, that that is not to be effected by half measures of this kind, and that their surest dependence is on those regular measures which are pursuing, and will be pursued, by the General Government, and which flow from the united authority of all the States."5 The solicitude of the national government that this enterprise be seized in the bud was evident in a letter from the Secretary of War three days later. General Knox declared to Shelby that he had been instructed by President Washington to state to him that if peaceful means should fail "to request that your excellency will use effectual military force to prevent the execution of the plan of the said Frenchmen, or any other persons who may support or abet their design." To which he added the further persuasion that, "for the lawful expenses of which the United States will be responsible.

Shortly after the receipt of this letter, Shelby was addressed in separate communications by two of the four French agents that Jefferson had warned him against, La Chaise and De Pauw, the former wrote: "Dispatched by the ambassador of the French republic, to co-operate with Citizen Michaux, in the object of his mission as agent of the republic (of which I presume you have already been informed), I now take the liberty of expressing my regret that it is out of my power to wait upon you to deliver the letters which I was entrusted with by the minister; and to assure you to the lively affection which I feel for the inhabitants of that country, whose interests are so dear to you. * * * Impressed with a conviction that you feel yourself deeply interested in the success of our arms, I transmit you an account of our late brilliant achievements. I also add a copy of our excellent constitution, which has been generally accepted, and which has reconciled all parties."7

La Chaise's letter gave little information beyond the fact that he could not at that time deliver certain letters, that he was a French Agent, and that he was a well-wisher of Kentucky. His associate, De Pauw, who has already been noted, was in Central Kentucky at Clark's orders collecting provisions, was more open and exact in communicating his designs to Governor Shelby. His letter bore the same date, November 25, 1793, as La Chaise's. It follows: "It may appear quite a strange to write to you on a subject in which, although it is of some consequence, with confidence from the French ambassador I have been dispatched with more Frenchmen to join the expedition of the Mississippi, as I am to procure the provision I am happy to communicate to you, whatever you shall think worthy of my notice, as I hope I have in no way disoblige you; if I have, I will most willingly ask your pardon. For nobody can be more than I am, willing for your prosperity and happiness. As some strange reports has reached my ears that your excellence has positive orders to arrest all citizens inclining to our assistance, and as my remembrance know by your conduct, in justice you will satisfy in this uncommon request. Please let me know as I shall not make my supply till your excellence please to honor me with a small answer." He added as a

5 American State Papers, Foreign Relations, I, 455.

6 American State Papers, Foreign Relations, I, 458. The letters from Jefferson

and Knox were sent together to Shelby.

7 Marshall, History of Kentucky, III, 99.

Vol. I-26

postscript, "Please to participate some of these hand bills to that noble society of democrats. I also enclose a paper from Pittsburg." 8

This was a bold and undisguised attempt to enlist the power of the state government in the enterprise. Willing to take the governor into his confidence and promising to delay his collection of provisions until he should receive a reply, he did not let Shelby's answer interfere with his duties as a French agent. Three days later in his straightforward reply, without exhibiting resentment or indignation, Governor Shelby said, "I will just state to you what I have in charge from the Secretary of State at Philadelphia on that subject (the expedition down the Mississippi).” He then gave the substance of Jefferson's letter to him of November 6, to which he added "to this charge I must pay that attention which my present situation obliges me. I am Sir with respect,

Your Most Obt. Servt

Isaac Shelby."9

As heretofore set forth, there was no expression of apprehension from Clark and the Frenchmen at any governmental efforts to stop them. Their chief concern was obtaining needed supplies. Preparations, therefore, went on apparently, with no effort at concealment. It was known in the East that extraordinary things were happening in Kentucky and that Clark was at the head of affairs. John Brown, who was by no means unsympathetic, wrote Harry Innes from Philadelphia on December 31, 1793, that these things "have excited some attention & perhaps, some apprehension lest the impatience of the Western Brethren may precipitate them into some measure which may envolve the U. states in an unequal contest." 10 On December 7, 1793, Governor St. Clair, chiefly on the information received from a copy of Jefferson's letter to Shelby of November 6th, had issued his proclamation previously noted, calling on the people within his jurisdiction northwest of the Ohio to refrain from aiding the French enterprise. Two days later he informed General Wayne of the movement being fostered in Kentucky and stated that he had previously written Governor Shelby about it and cautioned him to be on his guard.11

Much agitation was going on around the fringes of the area of chief disturbance, but silence seemed to predominate within. Early in January, 1794, General Wayne, seeking to bring about action of some sort, addressed a letter to Governor Shelby, in which he offered him the use of a detachment of Federal troops stationed near Lexington, enclosed his order to the commander, to that effect, and promised to send more if they should be desired.12 There was certainly much more anxiety and activity in the Northwest Territory concerning the French enterprise than in Kentucky where it was in part being carried on. Governor Shelby saw a proclamation issue from a territorial governor in the north, who should have had less concern in any project forming in Kentucky than he, himself; also, he had received a letter from the same source concerning the necessity of dealing with the same project. In addition he had received letters more or less mildly admonishing him on the same subject, from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, and the Commander of the United States Army in the West.

It may not be an unwarranted assumption to make that Governor

8 Collins, History of Kentucky, I, 278, 279.

9 "Correspondence of Clark and Genet," 1023. Also in Marshall, History of Kentucky, II, 101.

10 Innes MSS., Vol. 19, Nos. 16, 161⁄2.

11 Marshall, History of Kentucky, II, 102; Collins, History of Kentucky, II, 112, 113: The St. Clair Papers. II, 320, 321.

12 American State Papers, Foreign Relations, I, 458. Letter dated Jan. 6, 1794