CHAPTER XXXIX

EARLY PARTIES AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT

Political divisions in Kentucky at first grew on principles entirely local and peculiar to that region, and therefore, without relation to the conditions that produced party differences east of the mountains. While Kentucky was still a district of Virginia the first political cleavage in the population became evident. The fundamental cause was the question. of separation from the mother state. In the early Seventeen Hundred Eighties the movement for statehood began with few people in favor of it. There were a few leaders who saw their opportunities restricted unless statehood were gained, and aided by the various circumstances heretofore set forth, they started the movement definitely in the convention which met in Danville in 1784. From this time down until 1790, the politics of the district was completely given over to this absorbing question with its attendant allurements.

Although the movement for statehood gained in power and force with the progress of time; still there was always a persistent element that stood for the old order. They were the conservatives. But at times their ranks were greatly increased; through conditions brought about by the secret agents of foreign nations, and their treacherous accomplices. The intrigue with Spain stood out so boldly in 1788, that many Kentuckians became startled, through the fear that their leaders might carry their efforts too far in order to secure separation from Virginia. The great mass wanted separation, but followed with statehood; whereas a small group were apparently willing to set up independence, or annex the region outright to Spain. The fright was sufficient to show those who would understand, that Kentucky abhored a political connection with Spain, however much she might want to enjoy rights which that nation might give.

Kentucky's separation from Virginia and admission into the union. was soon assured; and the party formerly based on opposition to separation had now no leg left on which to stand. The majority party naturally framed the new constitution and seized full control of the State Government. Men who had stood out persistently against separation at specific times, or against certain radical measures proposed in the various conventions, or who were irrevocably against separation at any time or under any conditions-such men were generally left out of the new state organization or given inferior positions. The names of those who filled high offices were those who had been the leaders for separation, e. g. Isaac Shelby, governor; James Brown, secretary of state; John Brown, United States senator; Harry Innes, chief justice of the Court of Appeals; Benjamin Sebastian, a judge in the same court; and John Logan, treasurer. George Muter, who, it would seem, stood in line for a judgeship in the highest court, was given a rather insignificant position on the bench of the Court of Oyer and Terminer. It was said by some that this was due to his too conservative stand in the movement or separation.

It thus happened that the party of opposition which immediately prang up against the administration forces was composed largely of

those who had been left out of office, and who at the same time were those who had been conservative in the separation movement. As politics go, this was only to be expected. The irreconcilable Humphrey Marshall, who had already succeeded in making enemies, political as well as personal of most of the prominent leaders of the state, sharpened his trenchant pen and at once set upon the party in power. Writing over the name "Coriolonus," he began his attacks on Governor Shelby before he was comfortably settled in office. He disagreed with the governor's political appointments, and criticized generally his acts. He even dealt in such puerile attacks as to note Shelby's bearing and demeanor during the inaugural ceremonies.1 It was only a short step from such political cricitisms to personalities-and the politics of the day soon developed a plenty of this element. The classic quarrel that filled the public prints ad nauseam was between Marshall and Innes.2 In September, 1792, the latter dismissed Marshall for the time being with the following pithy statement: "If he was a man of character, I would adopt proper measures to punish him for his insolence for the publication in your Gazette of the 22d of September addressed to me. But as Coriolonus is that abandoned man Humphrey Marshall, of Woodford County, I shall take no further notice of him, than to publish his name to your candid readers. * * *" 3 Another gentle enemy of Marshall's eighteen years later begins an attack on him in the Kentucky Gazette with the following expression of self-restraint: "I will not call you liar, villian, or scoundrel; but, with all the politeness imaginable, I could prove you so." 4

The methods which were being used by Jefferson and his associates to weld together a party of opposition to the national administration under Washington and Adams were peculiarly valuable and effective in Kentucky and the West generally. Whatever group that might have been in control of the national government during this period would, however, have met with strong opposition in Kentucky; for the besetting problems of the West could not be settled in a day by any party contrary to the belief of most Kentuckians. It was therefore in one sense a misfortune for the rising federalist party that it was in power during the troublous times in the West. The opening of the Mississippi was not procured by the National Government, despite its ceaseless efforts, until 1795. For six years, then, it had been under the fire of the Kentuckians. At times opposition to the National Administration became so pronounced that fears arose as to the actual loyalty of the West to the union of the states, and to counteract any dangerous movement, decisive steps were now and then taken. The personal mission under James Innes sent to Governor Shelby by President Washington is a striking example. And even when the Treaty of San Lorenzo in 1795 settled the navigation of the Mississippi in favor of the West, there was conspicuously absent any open rejoicing or celebrations. Kentuckians more aptly expressed themselves in the feeling that there had now tardily come a right which should have been in their possession and enjoyment for the past dozen years, but which had been allowed to sleep through the hostility of an unsympathetic national administration.

The occupation by the British of the Northwest posts was another grievance the West held not so much against Great Britain as against the National Administration for not forcing their evacuation. The whole question of Indian depredations and frontier protection was in the minds of Kentuckians predicated on the British occupation in the Northwest. They believed that the British were at the bottom of most of

1 Kentucky Gazette, August 25, 1792.

2 For instance Ibid, December 8, 1792.

8 Ibid, December 1, 1792.

4 Kentucky Gazette, September 11, 1810.

the Indian hostility. And when finally the United States was able to secure the Jay Treaty, a storm of opposition arose against it in Kentucky. True enough, it provided for the evacuation of the Northwest posts, but it was secured through the Federalist administration and was actually negotiated by John Jay, regarded as the bitterest enemy of the West. It was furthermore a general settlement with Great Britain, toward whom the federalists were inclined to lean, and a provocation to France, who was still an inspiration to Jefferson and his Western followers.

Humphrey Marshall, who had slipped into the United States senatorship from Kentucky at an opportune moment, and who as a good federalist supported the treaty, was execrated for his truckling to the East. Having exhaustive invective, his political enemies resorted to other means in their attacks. George Muter and Benjamin Sebastian, judges of the Court of Appeals, declared in a pamphlet that Marshall had had a suit in court and from the records and documents it appeared "that he had committed a gross fraud," and so evident was it that the court gave a decree against him. It was further stated that although in the investigation "he was publicly charged of being guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury, in order to screen himself from the consequences of his fraud, yet so conscious was he of his guilt, that he had never since dared, by way of suit or any other mode, to bring forward an examination into the truth of the charge; indeed, callous as he is, he appeared at the time to be so fully convicted, that he had scarcely affrontery enough to deny it." The Legislature seized this charge against Marshall as calling loudly for an investigation by the United States Senate, to consider whether Marshall was a fit person to sit in that august body. In a resolution of December 21, 1795, this call was made by the Kentucky Legislature upon the National Senate. The resolution said in part: "Important, indeed, it is to society, that those intrusted with the exercise of the power of Government should be men of unshaken virtue and integrity; without these qualities, in vain shall they expect the confidence of the people, when the basis on which alone that confidence can be founded is wanting.

"We mean not to give an opinion on the justice of the charge which has been made against Humphrey Marshall; it has been made, and is of such a nature as must render him unworthy, if true, of any, still more so of the highest trust; while it is untried, unexamined, and undecided upon, doubts will exist; those doubts cannot but have the worst effects on the public mind.

"The character of the Senator may involve the reputation of the State which he represents; it is also highly interesting to the honor and dignity to the House of which he is a member. We, therefore, conclude with requesting that an investigation may immediately take place relative to the charges stated; and if Humphrey Marshall can evince his innocence, that such exculpation may be promulgated throughout the United States, that himself, as well as our State, may be exonerated from the imputation of such a crime; but if the charges can be fixed upon him, that he may be expelled from a seat in your house." 5

The committee of the Senate to whom was referred this memorial made its report on March 11 (1796). It observed that the suit in which Marshall was concerned was tried eighteen months before he had been elected United States Senator, "and that, previous to his election, mutual accusations had taken place between him and the judges of the said court, relating to the same suit." It also stated that no copy of Marshall's answer under oath, no fact of the testimony, none of the records or documents, nor "the copy of any paper in the cause," had been fur• American State Papers, Miscellaneous, Vol. XX, Part I, 141.

nished the committee by the Kentucky representatives, "nor have they intimated a design to bring forward those or any other proof. The committee then gave as its decision that "as no persons appears to prosecute. and there is no evidence adduced to the Senate, nor even a specific charge, the committee think any further inquiry by the Senate would be improper." Marshall had, however, waived the point of jurisdiction of the Senate in the case, and had welcomed an investigation, regardless of its irregularity. The committee considered that this, nevertheless, did not give the right to proceed. It then intimated that the over-zealous Democratic Legislature of Kentucky had proceeded too fast in its accusations: "They [the committee] think that, in a case of this kind, no person can be held to answer for an infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury; and that, in all such prosecutions, the accused ought to be tried by an impartial jury of the State and district, wherein the crime shall have been committed. If, in the present case, the party has been guilty in the manner suggested, no reason has been alledged by the memoralists why he had not long since been tried in the State and the district where he committed the offense. Until he is legally convicted, the principles of the constitution and of the common law concur in presuming that he is innocent. And the committee are compelled, by a sense of justice, to declare that, in their opinion, this presumption in favor of Mr. Marshall is not diminished by recriminating publications which manifest strong resentment against him. And they are also of opinion that, as the constitution does not give jurisdiction to the Senate, the consent of the party cannot give it; and that, therefore, the said memorial ought to be dismissed." G

Thus, was Marshall vindicated by a Federalist Senate, and the Democratic Kentucky Legislature rebuked and robbed of a political victory it was striving to gain.

As before intimated the question of frontier protection and foreign sympathies, played their part in welding together the Western Democracy. Federalists, and especially those from New England, had, from the beginning, looked with hostility upon western expansion. They greatly feared that the center of national affairs might move west of the Alleghanies. Therefore down until 1790, little aid at all was given the frontiersmen in their constant clashing with the Indians, and not until 1795, were the Indians finally subdued for a time, and were the Kentuckians conscious of national protection. The national administration suffered for the delay.

In foreign sympathies the Kentuckians early followed their Virginia traditions and came to develop warm feelings for the French. They felt that the national administration had not stood by its obligations established in the French Treaty of 1778, when it issued the neutrality proclamation in 1793. It appeared to them to be a move in favor of the detested British toward whom the federalists were inclined to be too friendly. The Kentuckians were, therefore, not to be expected to dismiss hastily Genet and his scheme to conquer Louisiana and open the Mississippi especially as it seemed as much to their own interest as to the French that it should be carried out. Governor Shelby was not over-zealous in enforcing against the French project general laws which he believed did not clearly establish a right or duty on his part to act.

Apart from all the specific acts of the national administration and absence of them, the Kentuckians were irresistibly drawn away from the party in power for other reasons. Kentuckians were frontiersmen who had the problems and ways of thinking of frontiersmen. Their

• American State Papers, Miscellaneous, Vol. XX, Part I, 144. This report has been a precedent for Senatorial procedure in all subsequent investigations of like character.

tastes were democratic and it was impossible to develop and satisfy any other kind. Theirs was the democracy and equality not of theory but of fact. Their very circumstances and surroundings were compelling. With their characteristic impatience of restraint, they were naturally drawn to the Jeffersonian way of thinking where the least government was considered the best. Thus it was that not only Kentucky but the whole West allied itself with the Jeffersonian opposition and became in time the controlling factor in the democratic party.7

8

It thereby also follows that the federalist party was never strong in the West, and especially in Kentucky. It was forced to bear the burden of Western opposition from the very beginning. Just as the elements of opposition to the National Administration throughout the country were welded together by Jefferson into the democratic party, so it was that the opponents to the administration in Kentucky laid the foundation for whatever federalist party existed in the state. The most prominent and persistent leader was Humphrey Marshall. He constantly took full advantage of every mistake of the opposition. In 1795, due to a sudden wave of enthusiasm for the national administration following the brilliant victory of "Mad Anthony" Wayne over the Northwest Indians, Marshall unexpectedly defeated for the United States senatorship, John Breckinridge who had been too bold a leader of the discontented. At various other times Marshall was a representative in the Legislature. But the federalist party was never large in the state, and its leaders never obtained power except at rare intervals, and then from temporary causes. William Littell, in the Kentucky Gazette, in 1803, characterized thus federalism in the state: "In regard to Federal politics there is a unanimity in Kentucky beyond what I ever knew in any other state. There is no such thing as a federal party avowing itself hereFederalism (in the popular sense of the word) is of all political sins deemed the most mortal, and the charge of it once proved on the most popular man in the state, would as effectively terminate his political respectability as a conviction of sheep-stealing would ruin his moral character." However, he added that "it is not considered as a badge of moral turptitude. On the contrary a man possessing it is supposed to be capable of as many private virtues as a republican, and is universally credited and respected for as many as he possesses."9 Humphrey Marshall, who often felt the weight of popular disapproval on account of his politics, declared that, "No matter what the service to be performed, or the question to be decided was; to establish upon a candidate that he was a Federalist, was the equivalent of his exclusion from office." 10

The sin of once having held federalist views was difficult to live down. Joseph Hamilton Daviess ran for representative in Congress in 1803 on doctrines that were hard to distinguish from Jeffersonian principles. He heretofore held a record of federalist support; he had favored the Jay Treaty, the Alien and Sedition Laws, and had supported in general the Adams administration. The people were not at this time going to forget it. He was asked some pointed questions by a democrat who had been one from the beginning. His querist wanted to know the reasons for his sudden support of Jeffersonian doctrines and the present administration: "Satisfactory information must therefore be given. whether you are displeased with Mr. Adams because he is out of office, or

The party was variously called, republican, democratic, and democratic-republican; but as it developed into the present democratic party, it has been deemed best to designate it with the continuing name, democratic.

8 He represented Woodford County in 1793, and Franklin County in 1807, 1808, 1809 and 1823. For a short estimate of Marshall see Library of Southern Literature, XV, 288, 289.