Page images
PDF
EPUB

British flag and should come within the range of his guns he would fire upon them. Wayne showed his contempt by consuming three days in ravaging the country and burning the trading posts up to the very walls of the fort. He then began his march up the river, sweeping the country for miles on each side of the stream.

The Indians were now so completely subdued in their spirit and ardor for more warfare that despite the efforts of the British agents to dissuade them from making a treaty with Wayne, they began to long for peace. Wayne marched back to Fort Defiance where he remained for a few weeks and then continud to the junction of the St. Mary and St. Joseph rivers, where he destroyed the Indian villages and cornfields and built another fort which was named for himself. Here the Kentuckians, who had become dissatisfied after the fighting seemed to be over, were mustered out as their term of service had expired. Leaving a garrison. in the new fort, Wayne marched to Fort Greenville where he took up winter quarters, and awaited the arrival of the Indian chiefs for a treaty. The hostile tribes had come to largely distrust their British allies, who had made many promises, but had never fulfilled them. In November the Wyandots sent a representative and during the following January ambassadors from the various other tribes arrived. There were some difficulties at first in beginning the negotiations, as small bands of Kentuckians were still slipping across the Ohio and carrying out forays against the Indians. At length in the summer of 1795, the formal treaty of Greenville was definitely agreed upon. The Indians gave up about twenty-five thousand square miles of territory north of the Ohio lying north and east of the mouth of the Kentucky River.

The rapid expansion of the settlements in the Northwest was now assured. The name of "Mad Anthony" Wayne carried a wholesome fear and respect with the Indians for years to come, and they dared not break the peace in a large fashion until the preliminaries of the second war with Great Britain ushered in hostilities with Tecumseh. The part Kentucky had been playing in the development and defence of the West was signally recognized by President Washington in giving Governor Shelby complete control over the defensive protection of the state.42 The heroic period in Kentucky frontier history had come to an end for a period; and Indian battles and campaigns were fought at the firesides with a generation which knew as yet little of the actualities of warfare, but was destined to repeat deeds of daring in finally crushing the hostile tribes east of the Mississippi and removing forever the disturbing elements of British agents and ambitions.

42 Knox to Shelby, May, 1795: "Gen. Wayne has been written to not interfere with the defensive protection of Kentucky, which is hereby, in the name of the president of the United States, confided to your excellency.. Collins, History

of Kentucky, II, 719.

99

CHAPTER XXXIV

THE SECOND CONSTITUTION

The elements that entered into the general population of the state were varied. Classes ranged from the large plantation owners to tenants and slavery. In a new population gathered from many quarters, as this was, solidifying influences and processes had not yet gone far. Differing in wealth, origin, and status in society, Kentuckians must of necessity have differed in their views of the power and duty of the state government on which each looked as a source of material advantages. Government must not only embrace proper political theories but it must also produce tangible results profitable to the individual. In so far as the government failed in these things, it fell that far short of individual expectation and consequently gave rise to dissatisfaction. Liberties fought for and won, but which were expressed only in high-sounding phrases and political axioms, were not often all liberties worth while. Government must be practical if valuable.

There was early a feeling that the Kentucky government was not meeting the real needs of the people generally, that it was in the hands of the few, and that it was principally run for their benefit. The cry of aristocracy arose in many places. Among a certain class, the constitution had never been popular, and so from the very beginning the voice of discontent was heard. The convention that framed the document was attacked for engaging in the work of legislating. It was claimed that by setting forth in the constitution the method of selecting the permanent capital, the convention had improperly taken upon itself the prerogative and duty of the legislature. The constitution generally, it was argued, was too aristocratic in its tendencies. The governor owed his election not to the people directly but to a group of electors who were aristocrats. The senate was elected in the same way, and was a stronghold of aristocracy. The people had been hoodwinked into believing that they were the rulers and that all of their rights and liberties had been secured in a bill of rights attached to the constitution; but, in fact, the document proper largely nullified these theoretical liberties.1

The senate was attacked as being far from the people and wholly out of sympathy with them. In connection with the body of electors who had given it its being, it was developing into a dangerous Oligarchy. It often rewarded electors by appointment to office, thus tending to perpetrate the power of each group. The authority possessed by the senate of electing its own speaker was nothing more or less than the right to elect the governor of the state, one degree removed; for did not the speaker of the senate succeed to the governorship upon the death or incapacity of the incumbent. Such power lodged in the upper branch of the law-making body was declared to be dangerous. Too often had this body of aristocrats shown its contempt for the people at large and their welfare. It had time and again opposed the calling of a constitutional convention, which might possibly take away some of its intrenched powers; and it had also steadily refused to pass bills enacted by the house whose purpose was to

1 Arguments of "A Plain Republican," in Kentucky Gazette, June 8, 1793.

alleviate the hard condition of the Green River settlers. On the contrary, though, it had passed a bill, fortunately killed by the house, which would have robbed the people of Green River lands, by selling them outright to a group of speculators for $250,000.2

The constitution was not only clearly bad in many of its parts, it was argued, but it was in fact dangerous in places because of its obscurities. The recent disputed election for the governorship, which was the very first time the part of the constitution concerning that subject was tested, came near bringing on great confusion and disorder, solely because the factions could not agree as to the meaning of the document on that subject. These dangerous obscurities should be cleared away, and to bring this about, a convention should be called to remake the constitution from beginning to end. It must be liberalized; the direct power of the people over their government must be increased; and the spirit of progress which was so evident in other fields must be given a chance in constitutional development.

The first constitutional convention had shown the feeling that its work was in a way experimental. It had therefore provided that the people should vote in 1797 and again in 1798, and if a majority were found in favor of a convention, then, the legislature should call one in 1799. But at any time two-thirds of the house senate could call a convention without the necessity of the people voting on the subject. The demand for a convention arose in some quarters almost as soon as the constitution had gone into effect; and little regard was shown to the constitutional provisions regarding the subject. In 1794 the Democratic Society of Bourbon County stopped discussing the Mississippi River question long enough to issue a bitter denunciation of the senate and of the constitution in general and to recommend to the voters that they vote for a convention at the next election, despite the fact that no such power was to be found in the constitution or in the laws of the legislature. The house, it is true, had passed a bill during the preceding session allowing the people to express their opinion on the expediency of a convention at the next election, but the senate had refused to concur in it. Arguments soon appeared in which it was claimed that the house alone represented the people, and that the vote should be taken regardless of what the senate should do or refuse to do. One enthusiastic supporter of a new convention advised the people to write "For Convention" on their ballot, and expressed the hope "that the sheriffs will prove more faithful and friendly to their country than a self-created body of men, who perhaps, are different of losing power they may not again possess:" 4

As time went on the movement became more persistent and widespread. It gathered up all the discontented elements, regardless of what the source of their complaint was. The more conservative classes began to take fright and to imagine that an attack was forming against the very fundamental principles of government. Many people believed that there was danger of the mob capturing the convention, should one be held, and proceeding to interfere with the rights to private property by dividing up the large estates and by emancipating all the slaves. John Breckinridge, who had amassed a small fortune since he had come to the state, became one of the principle protagonists of the conservative party. In answering a "Voter" who had been trying to bring on the convention, he declared it was all an attempt to confiscate the large estates and to free the slaves; that it was an effort to destroy the so-called "aristocracy." He puts the query, “Are you a large land holder?" and answered it "I sus2 Butler, History of Kentucky, 262; Marshall, History of Kentucky, II, 182, 183. 3 Kentucky Gazette, April 12, 1794.

Reuben Searchy, in Kentucky Gazette, March 1, 1794.

pect not, or you would scarcely be willing to endanger them in an attempt to rescind our compact with Virginia." He continued, "Are you a slave holder? No, I will give you my right hand if you are. This is the Canker that preys upon you. This is what produces all your bellowings about conventions, conventions. This is what stirs up your envy, wounds your pride and makes you cry out aristocracy. And where is the difference, whether I am robbed of my house by a highwayman, or of my slaves by a set of people called a convention." 5

* *

In answer to the arguments of the conservatives against a convention, Breckinridge's antagonist, "A Voter," attempted to allay their fears. "The man of landed property is told, he declared, "that agrarian laws will be passed; and the slave holder is alarmed by the fear of immediate emancipation." He pronounced all such fears as senseless and only trumped up to becloud the real issue of necessary reform. He asked whether any citizen had "brought forward a proposition for emancipation." Does any rational man or men of influence, wish for an immediate liberation of the slaves. If there are some (and doubtless there are many) who think slavery a crime; who think it contrary to the laws of nature, and to those principles for which we contended in the late glorious revolution; they are sensible that it ought and must be gradually removed. He strongly resented the idea which some enemies of reform had advanced that the people generally had not the sense and understanding necessary for making a constitution. "By whom was the present constitution made? By yourselves. Have any of the enlightened few by whom this system was formed, abandoned your country?" 6 William Warfield declared to Breckinridge that the foregoing subtle propaganda was "an artful and uncandid piece, and well calculated, I fear, to execute a foment in the minds of those who have hitherto been lukewarm in respect to the calling of a convention." 7

[ocr errors]

A veritable war of hand-bills and pamphlets raged during the years of 1798 and 1799. The Kentucky Gazette and the Kentucky Herald were crowded with articles from both parties. Almost all other discussion during these years was subordinated to the arguments for and against the convention. As the battle of words continued and waxed hotter, the fears of the conservatives increased. John Breckinridge wrote Isaac Shelby, "If the envious, the discontented or the needy, can, at any time they may take a fancy to any of the property of their fellow-citizens; or envy their situation & wish to reduce them in point of property to a level with themselves, produce a ferment and assemble a convention, and under it, perpetrate acts of Injustice, there is an end to all good Govt.* ** If they can by one experiment emancipate our slaves, the same principle pursued will enable them at a second experiment to extinguish our land title, for both are held by rights equally sacred. * *"8

*

A handbill signed by "Keiling" sought to answer with ridicule an opposing argument that had recently appeared in which the latter attempted to show that a convention would tend to move Kentucky closer to the Atlantic States in their ways of doing things. "Keiling" pledged himself "that the most sanguine conventionalist has never thought of moving Kentucky one inch nearer the Atlantic-and should a future convention be mad enough to attempt it, I hope the people, who no doubt, are pleased with their situation, will exercise their power to prevent them from carrying it into effect." He further declared that the present constitution was faulty and bad notwithstanding laborious arguments produced by the enemies of reform to the contrary. "Your constitution has existed for 5 Original copy in Breckinridge MSS. (1798). Dated April 20, 1798. Stewart's Kentucky Herald, April 17, 1798.

7 Breckinridge MSS. (1798). Dated April 22, 1798.

8 Durrett MSS. Dated March 11, 1798.

six years, and this is only the second time it has by its ambiguity thrown you into a state of fermentation." 9

As typical of the flood of handbills spread out by the conservatives in their efforts to stop the movement that was becoming stronger every day. The following quotations and arguments are given from one dated April 30, 1798:

"To Messrs. Voter, Grocchus, Scawala, Keiling and others Inspired Penmen, who have wrote in favor of a Convention. We acknowledge our ignorance; confess that we are not capable of thinking for ourselves; and feel the most grateful sensations toward you, for your extreme condescensions in communicating to us your bright ideas, on a subject in which we are so deeply interested; for awakening us, from our lethargic, stupid state; for pointing out the necessity for innovation in our affairs; for your willingness to judge for us, and your desire to establish a perfect system of government." The suggestion is then thrown out that the conservatives would rather do those things for themselves. As to the much-talked of evils in the constitution, they existed only in the imagination of agitators. "We have felt no oppression-we have experienced no real injuries-there have been no infringement on our rights-our persons and property are well secured under our present constitution, why then be discontented!" 10

The question of slavery early entered into the discussion and did more than any other thing to arouse the fears and apprehensions of the conservatives. The religious denominations, especially, were agitating for gradual emancipation, and although at times desires were expressed for immediate freedom for the slaves, no persons of any responsibility stood championing such ideas. The arguments against this institution were generally based on economic reasons. A handbill, signed by "Franklin" argued that slavery was bad economically for the individual as well as for the state, that it corrupted the country, retarded the progress of knowledge, that religion suffered, and that now was the time to act "because it is probable we shall not revise the constitution for fifty years; because the longer we permit the evil to continue, the more difficult it will be to remedy, as it is daily increasing by the importation of slaves from the other states, and because, if not remedied may be attended with a dreadful and destructive convulsion." It called upon the people to work for emancipation as a primary object in the convention.11

A clever as well as biting satire on those standing for emancipation appeared in what purported to be the minutes and constitution of a fictitious anti-slavery society formed in Lexington in 1798. No person who owned slaves was permitted to become a member, "except he be a teacher of the Gospel" in which case having to preach, he would have no time to work, and hence might have slaves to labor for him. The ministers had drawn upon themselves much criticism for their emancipationist ideas as here indicated. Also no person owning over one hundred acres of land was eligible unless they should acquire more through the proceeds of the sale of slaves; but on the other hand any persons who "never owned a slave or slaves worth [one thousand dollars] & who by his course of life will in all probability ever remain so," was to be received without further question. Further limitations on membership were, that no colored persons except those about to receive freedom and not more than one lawyer should be admitted.

The oath required of all members was "I do solemnly swear, that I could not in justice to my conscience own a single slave were I ever so

One of these handbills is preserved in Breckinridge MSS. (1798). 10 One of these handbills may be found in Breckinridge MSS. (1798). 11 Handbill in Breckinridge MSS. (1798).

« PreviousContinue »