as her own General Charles Scott with sixteen hundred Kentucky volunteers had greatly contributed to the victory at Fallen Timbers. There is little wonder, then, that the customary complaint of a lack of protection for the frontier, was not to be found among this set of resolutions. But the most surprising manifestation of a changed attitude was the election of Humphrey Marshall to be a United States senator. Marshall had been a long and consistent critic of the Democratic leaders of the state and of all that they stood for; and had as uniformly upheld the Federal administration. His opponent for the senatorship was John Breckinridge, who was the outstanding leader of Kentucky democracy at this time. But Breckinridge had for the past year been the mouthpiece of Kentucky discontent and criticism of the Federal administration; Marshall had assumed the opposite role.24

Washington appointed as his agent to Kentucky, James Innes, a brother of Judge Harry Innes of the Federal District Court for Kentucky. It was Washington's intention and expectation that Innes would reach Kentucky in time to present his information to the session of the general assembly meeting in November, 1794. But in this Innes failed. In a letter of January 10, 1795, he stated that "A series of untoward events, prevented my arrival into Kentucky, at an earlier period." 25 The legislature had adjourned late in the previous December. Continuing in this letter, written from Frankfort, he informed Shelby that he had been appointed "a Special Commissioner to detail a faithful history of the negotiations pending between the United States and the Court of Madrid respecting the navigation of the Mississippi," and that he hoped he would make use of the information to quiet the people "by unfolding to them, the undisguised state of a negotiation, in the issue of which, altho they from local considerations, may feel themselves more immediately involved, yet in truth, is the whole American republic, materially concerned." Eleven days later, Shelby writing from his home in Lincoln County, in a happy vein, declared he would be glad to make the report public. He expressed the feeling that was common throughout the state: "All we ask of the General Government is, that we shall be considered as making a part of the people, and one government, and the same care should be taken of the acknowledged rights of any other part of the United States." 26 Innes then on the 15th of February proceeded to give a long and detailed account of the difficulties with Spain and the negotiations up to that time. He told of Thomas Pinckney's appointment to the Court of Madrid and of the instructions that had been given him. He noted particularly the point the President had made that he would enter into no commercial arrangements with Spain "until our right to the free use of the Mississippi shall be most unequivocally acknowledged and established, on principles never hereafter to be drawn into contestation." Of course, Innes was unable to give any results of this mission, as Pinckney did not arrive at Madrid until the following June. Shelby answered immediately telling of his great satisfaction at knowing now that the Federal administration was trying to secure their rights; but he added in a chidding tone: "The proper communications now made by you, sir, on this occasion, and the general satisfaction which I have no doubt will be the consequence of those communications, will, I hope, sufficiently prove, that a more early communication of the kind would have prevented all uneasiness and discontent in this country on this subject.' He concluded with a defence

24 Marshall, History of Kentucky, II, 161.

99

25 Marshall imputed bad motives to James Innes' delay. He charged that Innes had purposely delayed his report until after the legislature adjourned. See Ibid., 170, 171.

26 Kentucky Gazette, March 14, 1795. This correspondence is published in full there, taking up three of the four pages.

of Kentucky: "I flatter myself also, in saying that the citizens of this country, are as warmly attached to the American union as the inhabitants of any part of the continent, and that they possess too much understanding and independence to be deceived 'by the wicked machinations of mad and deluded ambition.''

At the next meeting of the legislature, in November of 1795, Governor Shelby laid before it the correspondence that had passed between himself and James Innes. This was not, however, the first knowledge the public had of the mission, as it was published in the Kentucky Gazette, directly after Innes had concluded his task.27 But as Pinckney's negotiations moved slowly in Spain, and no further information followed Innes' report, Shelby again became impatient and doubts and misgivings began to spring up. In his message to this general assembly he said that he had heard nothing since Innes had left "and that from the late encroachments made by the Spaniards on the territory of the United States, there is (I fear) little or not hope for a successful termination of that negotiation." 28 This impatience was also shared in by the legislature, which passed its customary resolutions calling for information, with this latest series made somewhat more vigorous by its growing concern and anxiety. On November 19th (1795), resolutions were passed calling on the Kentucky Senators at the national capitol "to take the most speedy and effectual measures, to obtain information respecting the situation of the negotiation with the Court of Spain, respecting the navigation of the Mississippi.

* * *" 29

But all these resolutions for information and statements of impatience and anxiety, would have been left unthought of and unwritten had Kentucky known that Pinckney signed with Spain the treaty of San Lorenzo, on the preceding October. This treaty apparently secured all of those rights to the navigation of the Mississippi that the Western settlers had been contending for since the end of the Revolution. Navigation was now opened to the Americans and New Orleans was given them as a place of deposit for three years with the right to send their goods out free of duty. And in the words of the treaty, "His Majesty promises either to continue this permission, if he finds during that time that it is not prejudicial to the interests of Spain, or if he should not agree to continue it there, he will assign to them on another part of the banks of the Mississippi an equivalent establishment." 30

When the news reached Kentucky, she felt a considerable relief from her dozen years of strife and agitation for this principle; but this joy and comfort was considerably tempered by certain violent dislikes on another question that was being loudly expressed at this time. This was the settlement with England so long put off but which Jay had finally secured.

Although England had won for herself a secure place among the abominations of the Kentuckians, still the first place had long been filled by Spain. Therefore, when renewed efforts were made to settle her international difficulties, the United States picked England to receive first attention; and Kentucky was, thereby, given one more reason for

27 Marshall erroneously says this correspondence was "withheld from the public" until Shelby made it public by officially presenting it to the legislature. Marshall, History of Kentucky, II, 170. Doubtless on account of too close a reliance on Marshall, Butler said, "It is to be regretted that Governor Shelby should not have felt himself at liberty, to have laid these communications before the public, in order to tranqualize their apprehensions and suspicions." Butler, History of Kentucky, 256. Both, thus, ignored or were ignorant of the fact that the whole correspondence was published immediately after its conclusion in the Kentucky Gazette.

28 Kentucky Gazette, Nov. 28, 1795.

20 Innes MSS., Vol. 19, No. 60.

30 Fish, American Diplomacy, 124. The exact date was Oct. 27, 1795.

feeling discontented. The more pressing problem with Spain was allowed to wait, perchance, because the trouble with England touched more closely the interests of the Easterners. But no better method could have been chosen to add insult to neglect than by choosing John Jay, the declared enemy of the West, to conduct those negotiations. Kentuckians never could forget that it was Jay who had once offered to barter away the welfare and happiness of the West for some commercial arrangements advantageous to Easterners only. It was therefore entirely befitting that the Kentucky Democratic Society in its meeting in Lexington on May 24, 1794, should allot one of its famous thirteen resolutions to Jay. The ninth resolution declared, "That the recent appointment of the enemy of the Western country to negotiate with that nation [Great Britain], and the tame submission of the general government, when we alone were injured by Great Britain, make it highly necessary, that we should at this time state our just demands to the President and Congress." 31

The twenty-fourth of May was for another reason an important day in Lexington history, as, indeed, that of Kentucky. On this day Lexington was the storm-center of Kentucky discontent, and here were gathered together representatives from throughout the state. This day was appointed by the Democratic Society of Kentucky, and all proceedings were either in its name or under its influence. Apart from the meeting and proceedings of the Democratic Society, the remainder of the day was devoted to a carnival of ridicule and contempt for John Jay. The appointment of this "enemy of the Western Country" so vividly recalled to its inhabitants "his former iniquitous attempt to barter away their most valued right, that they could not refrain from openly testifying their abhorrence of the man whose appointment at this critical period of their affairs they consider as tragically ominous." As the crowds gathered and their anger began to arise and be communicated to one another, a mode of procedure soon began to crystallize with the result that they "ordered a likeness of this Evil Genius of Western America to be made which was soon well executed." It was then "Ushered forth from a barber's shop, amidst the shouts of the people, dressed in a courtly manner, and placed erect on the platform of the pillory. In his right hand he held uplifted a rod of iron. In his left he held extended, Swift's late speech in Congress on the subject of British depredation; on one side of which was written: Nemo repente fuit turpissimus.-Juv., Sat., 2, V. p. 33. No man ever reached the heights of vice at first. And on the other-Non deficit alter. Virg., Aen., 6. A second is not wanting." Hanging to his neck suspended by a hempen string was "Adam's defence of the American Constitution; on the cover of which was written: Scribere jussit auram.— Ov., Ep. God made me write it."

After being subjected to the jibes and jeers of the crowd, it was taken down and guillotined. It was then set on fire, and having previously been filled with powder, it "produced such a explosion that after it there was scarcely to be found a particle of the Dejecti membra Plenipo."

"32

Jay's appointment had been an unwelcomed surprise in other parts of the nation also. However, he was soon on his way to England, and after meeting many difficulties and showing considerable diplomatic skill, he was finally able to conclude a treaty with England, which was signed on November 19, 1794. It was a comprehensive document, including a settlement of numerous points of dispute and principles of international law. The part that directly affected Kentucky, was the clause in which England

31 "Correspondence of Clark and Genet," 1057.

32 The description in MS. is in Breckinridge MSS. (1794). This was most likely the copy for the account which appeared in the Kentucky Gazette, May 31, 1794. A copy from the Gazette is in McElroy, Kentucky in the Nation's History, 188, 190.

promised to evacuate the Northwest posts on or before June 1, 1796. The treaty did not arrive in America until June, 1795, when it was immediately sent to the Senate for secret discussion and ratification. On June 24th, it was ratified with certain exceptions. The secrecy that surrounded the contents of the treaty as well as the proceedings concerning it was soon broken by Senator Mason of Virginia, who furnished a copy to the press. Immediately there followed a storm of indignation throughout the country. Public speakers who were hardy enough to defend it were hissed and jeered at and sometimes even stoned from the platform.

The storm burst in Kentucky with great fury. The full text of the treaty appeared in the Kentucky Gazette of August 1, 1795; and from then on its columns were filled with denunciation of the treaty and of those who voted for it. As Humphrey Marshall was the only Kentucky senator so voting, he immediately was made the object of attack and abuse. The treaty itself was opposed to a large extent because it had been negotiated by Jay and because it was a Federalist measure. John Brown declared that no credit for securing the evacuation of the Western posts could be claimed by Jay, as it was really the French victories over England on European battlefields that got for him this concession.33

* *

This general western opposition to the treaty and to all who had anything to do with it was well set forth in the "Political Creed of Western America," which appeared in the Kentucky Gazette. Among the tenets of this creed were these: "I believe that the treaty formed by Jay and the British King, is the offspring of a vile aristocratic few, who are enemies to the equality of man, friends to no government, but that whose funds they can convert to their private emolument." "I believe the political dotage of our good old American Chief has arrived. And as for Humphrey Marshall, "I do sincerely believe (from a knowledge of the man), that the Senator from Kentucky, who voted in favor of the treaty, was actuated by motives the most dishonorable that he is a stranger to virtue, either private or public, and that he would sell his country for a price, easily to be told. "I do also believe that Kentucky has as little reason to complain on this important occasion, as any of her sister States; as she had a perfect knowledge of the character of the man she delegated to represent her, knew that he possessed a soul incapable of good, and sentiment opposed to her interest." 34

* * *

Marshall beat back at his political opponents, which was almost synonymous with personal enemies, using the Kentucky Gazette as his chief mode of expression.35 Some issues of the paper were almost wholly taken up by his long defense of the treaty. The other newspaper published in Lexington, the Lexington Herald, refused to accept Marshall's long letters, giving as its reason that it would not be fair to the subscribers to crowd out all the news of the times in order to give currency to one man's arguments on the treaty.3 The Gazette accepted and published them only after it was assured that it would be "paid for printing them, as for articles of a private nature." 37

36

Public indignation also flared up in numerous meetings throughout the state. A meeting of citizens in Clark County sent a remonstrance to the President in the hope of preventing him from signing the treaty. They declared, "Should you, sir! concur with the Senate in the signature of that treaty, our prognostication is, that Western America is gone forever * * * lost to the Union, and grasped by the voracious clutches of that

33 Innes MSS., Vol. 19, No. 19. Brown to Harry Innes, July 31, 1795.

34 Kentucky Gazette, Sept. 16, 1795. Quoted in part in McElroy, Kentucky in the Nation's History, 193, 194.

35 These arguments ran through the issues of October, 1795.

36 Kentucky Gazette, Oct. 3, 1795.

37 Marshall, History of Kentucky, II, 173.

insatiable and iniquitous George, the Third, of Britain." 38 A meeting at Harrodsburg declared that Marshall in voting for the Jay treaty "had betrayed the trust reposed in him," that if it ever came up for vote again he should vote against it, and that he should vote for no other treaty with England "which shall sacrifice the honor, the faith, the independence, the just privileges, or the true interest of the United States." As a direct slap at Marshall, resolutions were passed declaring that six years was too long for a United States senator to hold office, and calling on the legislature to instruct the Kentucky representatives in Congress to propose a constitutional amendment reducing the term, and also to allow a recall of a senator if demanded by a two-thirds majority of the state legislature.39 A meeting of protest was also held in Lexington, which the supporters of the treaty declared had been reported to be much larger in numbers and greater in influence than it really was.40

When the legislature met in November it soon took note of the popular clamor throughout the state by attempting to instruct Marshall by name to vote against the treaty should it come up again. It was later modified so as to demand that Kentucky's "senators" vote against the treaty, despite the fact that John Brown, the other senator, had voted against it. Marshall declared that as the British government accepted the modifications made by the Senate,41 the treaty did not come before the Senate again, "which saved the erratic senator, from another offence: For certain it is, that with the impressions, under the influence of which he acted, he should have disobeyed the instructions." 42

In his message to the legislature, Governor Shelby gave his views in no uncertain tones. He declared he would not be discharging the duty he owed his country if he did not call the attention of the legislature to the "treaty lately concluded between America and Great Britain." He continued, "If this treaty contained stipulations which were only contrary to good policy, although it would be the undoubted right of the State Legislatures to express their opinions of those stipulations, it might be a matter of doubt whether it would be expedient for them to do so. But as many stipulations contained in this treaty are evidently contrary to the Constitution of the General Government, I consider it as the indispensable duty of the State Legislature to express their sentiments upon such parts of the treaty as are unconstitutional, with the firmness and decency becoming the representatives of freemen. If you view this important question in the same light that I do, I have no doubt that you will act upon it, in such a manner as will do honor to yourselves and our constituents.'

"43

With the lapse of time and the evacuation of the posts by the British the opposition of the Kentuckians died down. Their hatred of England, however, suffered little diminution, as evidences were not lacking that the British were continuing to incite the Indians against the Western frontiers. A second war was destined to be fought with that nation before this and other perplexing questions were finally settled.

But in the settlement with Spain in 1795, the rights supposedly secured were yet to be contested again, but a final solution was secured long before difficulties with England were adjudicated.

38 Kentucky Gazette, Sept. 19, 1795. Quoted in McElroy, Kentucky in the Nation's History, 193.

39 Kentucky Gazette, Oct. 3, 1795.

40 Ibid., Sept. 19, 1795.

41 Jay had made the inexcusable blunder of agreeing to give up the right of the United States to export cotton and certain other products in American vessels, in return for the freedom of trading with the West Indies in vessels of not over seventy tons' burden. See Fish, American Diplomacy, 118, 119.

42 Marshall, History of Kentucky, II, 172.

43 Text in Kentucky Gazette, Nov. 28, 1795. See also McMaster, History of the People of the United States, II, 256.