USA > Kentucky > History of pioneer Kentucky > Part 15
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18
It would be far from the truth, however, to believe that the Kentuckians of 1783 realized that there would be no further danger from the Indians. To their minds the peril was as great as ever. They were slow to forget the carnage of the Licks and persistent in thinking that it could have been prevented had Virginia built the much-desired forts in northern Kentucky. The failure to protect Kentucky had not been entirely due to indif- ference on the part of Virginia; Clarke, the ranking officer in the west, had neglected, through sloth or dis- obedience, to carry out his instructions. From 1780 until 1786 the question of fortifying northern Kentucky was the most vital topic that the Kentuckians had to consider; it occupied a much larger share of their atten- tion than did the Statehood movement or the agitation for the free navigation of the Mississippi. For this
202
HISTORY OF PIONEER KENTUCKY
reason it is necessary to consider somewhat in detail the entire question of how the demand arose for the erecting of these forts, at what places they were designed to be placed and the reason for the failure to construct them. The movement for building a fort at the mouth of the Licking originated soon after the great siege of Boonesborough and was founded on the belief that such a post would do much toward preventing similar inva- sions for the future. Representations were made to the Virginia authorities to this effect, and in June, 1780, as has been related, the Virginia Council ordered the erec- tion of the fort on the Licking as well as one on the Big Sandy. She ordered a regiment of Virginia troops under Colonel Crockett to proceed westward and gar- rison the fort. But Clarke was obsessed with the idea of fortifying Louisville and did not build the fort at the mouth of the Licking. After Byrd's invasion the Kentuckians became more than ever convinced that such a fort at the Licking was necessary if Kentucky wished to prevent Indian attacks. But Clarke continued to work on the fortifications at Louisville and to neglect the building of the posts desired by the Kentuckians. The consequence was that Clarke soon became very un- popular with the Kentuckians and a feeling sprang up against Louisville in Kentucky that has not disappeared even today. The feeling arose that, in addition to the fort on the Licking, one ought to be erected at the mouth of the Kentucky and another at Limestone. On Sep- tember 5, 1781, Clarke, after the failure to make a campaign against Detroit, called the three county-lieu- tenants 1 together at Louisville and requested them to
1 Clarke MSS., Vol. LI, September 5, 1781, p. 84.
203
HISTORY OF PIONEER KENTUCKY
suggest a plan for action against the Indians. In reply, Logan advised that no expedition should be made, but that the forts should be built; if only one fort could be erected, it should be placed at the mouth of the Ken- tucky. Floyd wished to have a campaign made up the Miami, but also insisted on building the two forts on the Licking and Kentucky. The advice of Todd was of similar tenor. Finding that Clarke was yet inclined to fortify Louisville, the three men set forth their reasons for thinking the Falls an unsuitable place.2 First, it was not on the Indian road to central Kentucky as were the other two places. In the second place, the transpor- tation of provisions was much more difficult to Louis- ville than to the other places. Finally, Louisville was an unhealthful location for a fort. They further rec- ommended that the fort at the Kentucky, if built, should be garrisoned by regular troops. The entire matter, it was agreed, should be laid before the Virginia Assembly. In December Governor Harrison wrote to Clarke, in- structing him to build the three posts at the Licking, the Kentucky and at Limestone, and that sixty-eight militia should be assigned to each post.3 In February, 1782, Clarke wrote to Harrison in a very surly letter that he was intending to establish the fort at the Licking immediately.ª The announcement of his intention, how- ever, seemed to consume his entire energy and the fort remained unbuilt. The dissatisfaction with Clarke and with Virginia was increasing daily ; the people, of course, had no way of knowing that Virginia was sincerely try-
2 Cal. Va. St. Papers, Vol. II, p. 562.
3 Clarke MSS., Vol. LI, Harrison to Clarke, December 20, 1781, p. 101.
4 Cal. Va. St. Papers, Vol. III, p. 68.
204
HISTORY OF PIONEER KENTUCKY
ing to get the forts built. The feeling against Clarke was not allayed by the fact that he was persisting in his old plan of patrolling the Ohio by rowboats. By June, 1782, he had, as he stated in a letter to Har- rison, completed two gondolas and a galley.5 The latter craft was seventy-three feet long, possessed forty-six oars and carried one hundred and ten men. It possessed a respectable armament of six four-pounders and one two-pounder.6 However, the men objected as strenuously as ever to doing naval work and a mutiny broke out on the galley in July. The larger boat was commonly referred to as the Miami galley and strove to attract a crew by the liberal terms of ten dollars a month and a suit of clothes.7 Before fall came, Clarke had been com- pelled to give up the light armed gondolas because the men they carried were not sufficiently protected against the Indians,8 but the sides of the galley had been made four feet high and it continued to patrol the Ohio and terrify the Indians for several years.9 After the battle of the Lower Licks in August, Logan, Todd, Boone and others wrote vigorous letters to Governor Harrison, con- demning Clarke's policy in fortifying Louisville and demanding that the forts be built on the Licking and at Limestone. This drew from Harrison a letter to Clarke, sternly reprimanding him for his failure.10 Clarke, in reply, excused himself by saying that Indian troubles had prevented the erections of the forts before the battle and that he had tried to have them built as
5 Ibid., p. 121.
6 Ibid., p. 150.
7 Clarke MSS., Vol. LII, p. 29.
8 Ibid., p. 25.
9 Cal. Va. St. Papers, Vol. III, p. 275.
10 Clarke MSS., Vol. LII, Harrison to Clarke, October 17, 1782, p. 50.
205
HISTORY OF PIONEER KENTUCKY
he returned from the Miami campaign in the autumn, but the militia would not enlist.11 In the last days of the year outcast Cherokees 12 began to molest the travel- ers along the Wilderness Road, and a demand arose for a fort to be built at Cumberland Gap.13 In February Harrison instructed Clarke to build the fort at the mouth of the Kentucky and give up the other two,14 and Clarke, a little later, called on the three counties of Kentucky to deliver their taxes into his hands in order to pay the cost of construction ; Lincoln was ordered to contribute sixty-five militia, Jefferson, twenty-five, and Fayette, ten.15 All these things the counties promptly neglected to do and the forts remained unbuilt. In the summer of 1783 Clarke was relieved of his commission, and with the cession of the Ohio country to the Confed- eration the same year, Virginia definitely abandoned the long and vain attempt to fortify northern Kentucky.16 But the discontent of the Kentuckians was a permanent thing. Mutterings were heard and men began to say that if Virginia were unwilling to protect them they were entitled to a government that would. The idea of separate Statehood became more current, and although the fear of the Indians gradually died away, the move- ment for autonomy, once begun, did not decrease. The beginnings of Kentucky's struggle for autonomy lay in Clarke's failure to build the forts for defending the exposed frontier.
11 Cal. Va. St. Papers, Vol. III, p. 345.
12 Ibid., p. 384.
13 Ibid., p. 406.
14 Clarke MSS., Vol. LII, Harrison to Clarke, February 27, 1783,
p. 76. 15 Cal. Va. St. Papers, Vol. III, p. 476.
16 Clarke MSS., Vol. LII, Harrison to Clarke, July 2, 1783, p. 88.
206
HISTORY OF PIONEER KENTUCKY
Meanwhile, in March, 1783, the name Kentucky had been revived in the creation of the Judicial District of Kentucky. This district comprised the three counties of Jefferson, Fayette and Lincoln, and was called into existence by the need of a Court of Appellate Jurisdic- tion nearer than Richmond. By the provision of the act the District of Kentucky was to have a Supreme Court with one chief justice and two associate justices. There was to be, also, a clerk and an attorney-general. To the last-named position Walker Daniel was appointed. John May became clerk, John Floyd, Samuel McDowell and George Muter, judges. Near Crow's Station a new town was established for the place of holding court, and became, in effect, the capital of the District. It was christened Danville in honor of the attorney general.
The inhabitants of Kentucky at this time numbered 30,000 and increasing immigration was fast filling the land. With such a population, a fertile soil and a well- ordered government, Kentucky, it would seem, might well feel secure of its future. There were, however, two ills that were none the less potent that they were largely imaginary. One was the dread of the Indian invasion, the other, the lack of a market for the Kentucky prod- ucts. The fear of another Indian invasion was kept alive by constantly occurring depredations. The In- dians, in small bands, numbering oftentimes not more than a half dozen, stole in and out of the land, stealing the horses, carrying off provisions and occasionally murder- ing the settlers. One such marauding band killed John Floyd in March, 1783, and the pioneers were kept con- stantly alarmed by minor outrages. The evil was in- creased by the action of the land speculators who, in
9
1
EXPLANATION
A Me thu Work fhall lice
I Sel janage & Like
Alos Inforoption remain i Venument of
the Gratitude of the. dustan do (a) " Don 'Bon
B Dwelling droghe &. VNG
I.men"Todd Y Jo' Harrod. Copt" things "livet,
In' leman & H\ " Brandy byy of Kimdate for
the daythe prophet, der mine with a hard they hear
KENTUCKE,
that it has covered the - tprotation of theye
when he juilly Eproms the best qualified to
wowwanted noch the wall profort rofon
tothe Momentto the,"Congress ofthe
Voustid Rates of Aseries, and
Ished well? George Washington
39
lite l'innonumber in chief of thecar
39
betong. Byly their
Mutille ferments
John Filson
Scale of 10 Miles to an Inch
E
LT
Land
a
The frame of the Chiens on many paŇ Unterale esogut the Rapide
H
Hlen Pork
Cane
C
N
The
1
Kırkındır.V.Il
R
F
E
R -
Jine Cane
Hayd . Towa
2
C
0
MncFark
Her sopor selenfar, Faret calle un one lares) Plaing-hood podlas no Tomber and boot [
excellent, Grupofond lleringe.
R.
N
Beck
RIVER KLO
GREEN
BER
AND
Par
Longlade
Philadelphia
l'huiled" Engined by Honey D Pagal'SPrinted by T. Kook for the Author ITSt.
Van
Con Marta Great 130.000 Arms
AL.4. Nowy
Part 1.4
11
12
R
207
HISTORY OF PIONEER KENTUCKY
order to force down the price of land, did their utmost to keep the country in a turmoil.
That Kentucky in 1783 had no products to send to market did not at all deter the Kentuckians from clam- oring loudly for a place in which to market them. To anyone acquainted with the inherent western character- istic of imagining greatly and talking at length, this condition will not appear anomalous. Kentucky was not producing enough even for home consumption, and if she had possessed a market could not have utilized it without supernatural assistance. Yet the speeches of her orators and politicians, numerous then as now, were weighted with reference to her enormous exports and marvelous commerce. But the only markets to which their produce could have gone was New Orleans, and New Orleans was a Spanish post closed as completely against western trade as were the ears of His Most Christian Majesty to all the allurements of the Evil One. To the Kentuckians the closing of the New Orleans as a market showed conclusively that their commerce was im- portant and a market necessary. To the Spanish the desire of Kentuckians for a market showed conclusively the duty of the elect to make New Orleans a closed port. The entire absence of commerce neither prevented the regulations of Spain nor tempered the wrath of the Kentuckians. Pressure was brought to bear on Virginia that she demand through the central government that Spain should open up both New Orleans and the Mis- sissippi to western trade. The failure of Virginia to secure this and the refusal of Spain to grant it inflamed the wrath of the Kentuckians against both. This took the shape against Spain in an open threat of violence
208
HISTORY OF PIONEER KENTUCKY
and against Virginia in an increased desire for separation.
How long it would have taken the separation move- ment to mature under normal conditions there are no means of conjecturing; Indian troubles brought it swiftly to a crisis. Since 1776 over eight hundred and fifty men had been killed by the Indians in Kentucky, and as far as the settlers could see, things were in danger of getting worse instead of better.17 The pay of the militia was withheld for indefinite periods according to the financial condition of Virginia; 18 the men were dis- trustful of their leaders and the leaders of their men ; since the retirement of George Rogers Clarke there was no officer in Kentucky with authority to call out the troops from the entire District ; finally, the Cherokees on the south began to be troublesome.19 Shawnese and Cherokees were accustomed to steal in and out of the country, stealing the horses and murdering the settlers. Warfare of this kind was more irritating, if not more deadly, than wholesale invasions. Formerly the Kentuck- ians had been able to relieve their feeling and punish their tormentors by invading the Indian towns, but now the Shawnese territory was the property of the Confed- eration and the Cherokees were dwellers in the domain of North Carolina. There was nothing the Kentuckians could in legality do, and they chafed under the inac- tivity. As was natural, they ascribed all their evils to the policy of the Virginia government and the desire for separation that had been originated by Clarke's fail- ure to construct the forts in northern Kentucky was
17 Cal. Va. St. Papers, Vol. III, Steele to Harrison, September 12, 1782, p. 303.
18 Ibid., Vol II, Montgomery to Nelson, August 10, 1781, p. 315. 19 Ibid., Vol. III, Logan to Harrison, August 11, 1783, p. 522.
209
HISTORY OF PIONEER KENTUCKY
increased by Virginia's inability to protect them from Indian marauders. In 1784 the feeling came to a head and resulted in one of the ringleaders in the separation movement being summoned before the District Court and punished.20 There was no Virginia statute that fitted such a crime, but the judges applied an obsolete law against a bearer of false news and fined the delinquent, Pomeroy, two thousand pounds of tobacco. James Wil- kinson exerted himself vigorously at this time to stem the Statehood movement and was very active against Pomeroy. The Court expected that by this example the agitation might be suppressed, but it had no such effect, and it was not long before Wilkinson himself was utter- ing words more seditious than he had condemned in Pomeroy. A great part of the inhabitants of Kentucky, in fact, were not native Virginians, but had come in from Carolina or Pennsylvania and were by nature inclined to opposition to the parent State.21
In the autumn of 1784 a report reached Colonel Logan, the senior officer in Kentucky, that the Cherokees were meditating an invasion of Kentucky. The report was a canard and in all probability the work of the land speculators ; it is not to Logan's credit that he believed it. That officer, however, straightway called a meeting of the militia officers in November to formulate plans for protection. The officers once assembled were strongly in favor of making an expedition southward before the Cherokees could invade Kentucky. Upon reflection it occurred to them that the law of Virginia made no pro- vision for the invasion of a sister State by a colonel of
20 Ibid., Vol. III, Daniel to Harrison, May 21, 1784, p. 584.
21 Ibid., Vol. III, Speed to Harrison, May 22, 1784, p. 588.
1
210
HISTORY OF PIONEER KENTUCKY
militia, and the expedition perforce had to be abandoned. Moved by this irritating defect in the Virginia statutes, the officers decided to request Virginia to agree to a separation and give the Kentuckians an opportunity to deal with the Indians as the exigencies and their own fine sense of justice should determine. They called on each militia company to send one delegate to Danville in December and formulate plans for action.22 This sec- ond meeting took place December 27th, with Charles Fleming, chairman, and Thomas Todd, clerk. The dele- gates to this meeting deliberated at length for ten days, and, in addition to asserting the necessity for a separa- tion from Virginia, they issued an address to the people of Kentucky, suggesting that at the time of the regular election for the Assembly next April they should, also, select delegates to meet in May at Danville and take further steps toward separation. Twenty-five delegates were to be chosen by the three counties in proportion to their population.23
One or two things need to be noted in regard to this meeting of the militia officers. In the first place their action in deciding for a separation from Virginia was evidently not necessitated by any exigency then existing. The militia officers were all men who had seen active service against the Indians and who were well acquainted with Indian conditions north and south. They could hardly have escaped knowing that the reported Cherokee invasion was a myth; even if the invasion occurred, Logan had full authority to direct a defensive campaign within the limits of the District. With proper vigilance such
22 Littell, Political Transactions In and Concerning Kentucky, p. 15.
23 Lettres d'un Cultivateur Americain, Vol. III, p. 438.
211
HISTORY OF PIONEER KENTUCKY
a campaign would have effected quite as much as the contemplated invasion. The fear of the Cherokees was evidently not a reason but an excuse for their action; the military officers had made up their minds that they were going to have autonomy. The people were not by any means so decided. The second fact to be noticed is the action of the meeting in calling for delegates to be elected in proportion to the population instead of by the legal Virginia method of giving each county equal representation. By this ingenious plan Lincoln County, where the feeling against Virginia was the strongest, secured more representatives than she otherwise would have done. Much capital has been made of this action by Kentucky historians; it has been cited as a remark- able example of the inherent desire that animates all Kentuckians for social justice. It is, however, rather an indication that the art of politics rose early and flour- ished greatly in Kentucky.
The "Second" Convention, as it is usually termed, met in Danville May 23, 1785,24 and organized by electing Samuel McDowell, president. After a week of delibera- tion they prepared a petition to Virginia, asking for Statehood and issued a call for another convention to be held, to which the delegates were to be chosen in pro- portion to the population. The petition to Virginia, after being prepared, was prudently left for the next convention to deliver. It never saw the light of day. The address, however, was made to the people and is even today not without interest in composition and subject-matter.25 After summing up in terms of faultless rhetoric the principles of philosophy as enunciated by
24 Littell, Political Transactions, Appendix I.
25 Ibid., p. 18.
212
HISTORY OF PIONEER KENTUCKY
Thomas Jefferson, the author proceeded to give seven reasons why Kentucky should separate from Virginia. The inability to call out the militia, the lack of executive power in the District, the disadvantage of government from Richmond and the absence of proper protection from the Indians were the chief complaints. As an after- thought allusion was made to the increase of taxes now at hand. James Wilkinson was the supposed author of both the petitions and the address to the people.
Meanwhile Nelson County had been formed out of Jefferson and was given representation in the "Third" Convention.26 This convention met August 8th and was composed of thirty members. It is significant of the new era that Benjamin Logan was the only one of the old pioneers elected as a member. The name of James Wilkinson appears now for the first time prominently in Kentucky affairs, destined in the next few years to loom large in the life of the District. The two men are typi- cal; Logan of the old regime now rapidly passing, and Wilkinson of the new just now being ushered in.
Logan had come to Kentucky in 1775 and had enjoyed undisputed leadership from the first. Physically he was a giant and possessed enormous strength. His courage was on a par with his strength, and in pioneer times there were current innumerable stories of his daring deeds. He was a Presbyterian in faith, and no man throughout a long life more sturdily lived up to his religion than he. Simple-hearted, fearless and straight- forward, he deserves his place as the first among the Kentucky pioneers. His name inspired confidence among his contemporaries. If an Indian expedition was under
26 Hening, Statutes, Vol. II, p. 469.
218
HISTORY OF PIONEER KENTUCKY
consideration, it was Logan who gathered the men and led the charge; if there was need of counsel or advice, everyone waited for Logan to speak. Loved and es- teemed by the Kentuckians from the time he entered the land until his death, he deserves the tribute given him by a Kentucky historian: "Mentally and physically Logan was great."
Wilkinson had but one trait in common with Logan- fearlessness. Whereas Logan towered over six feet, Wilkinson was below medium height. Logan was simple and homely in speech, Wilkinson was suave and adroit. Of pleasing manners and acute intellect, he was in his time the most popular man in Kentucky. He was above all things else a politician. He had been born in Mary- land and had seen much service in the Revolution and was suspected of complicity in the Gates embroglio.27 He had displayed considerable military capacity and had been raised to the rank of brigadier-general. After the Revolution he had entered the service of Pennsylvania and had come to Louisville as a merchant in the autumn of 1784. His peculiar talents soon brought him into prominence in the District and he played a great part in Kentucky's struggle for Statehood. As was to be expected, he made many and powerful enemies, one of whom in his character of historian has done much to blacken his name. The character of Wilkinson is a most fascinating study. He has for the most part been de- picted as base and unscrupulous. He has been branded as a traitor prepared to serve Spain while pretending to labor zealously for his own country.28 That he received money from the Spanish treasury is not to be
27 Wilkinson, Memoirs, Chap. I.
28 McCaleb, Aaron Burr.
214
HISTORY OF PIONEER KENTUCKY
doubted. To one unacquainted with frontier life in the west the actions of Wilkinson will appear inexplainable or hopelessly base. But Wilkinson was but one of many ; Kentucky contained hundreds of men of the type. Nor was the type considered then either extraordinary or bad. The rule of action for such men was to look keenly after the interests of their individual selves. They con- sidered it none the less meritorious that this fascinating occupation sometimes led them to the brink of treason. According to their ethical standards it was no wrong to treat with an enemy, if the promises were not meant to be kept. It was not base to accept bribes, if the bribe- labor was not performed. It was no disgrace to be a pensioner of Spain, if the pensioner continued to serve his country. This dallying with Spain was common and was considered good conduct, inasmuch as it "fooled" Spain and resulted in the accumulating of many shekels by the individual Kentuckians. In such light must Wil- kinson be considered. That he sold himself to Spain is. indisputable; that he never did the work for which he received the pay is equally indisputable; that he ever. purposed or intended to do such work, no one that un- derstands the Kentucky of 1785 will for a moment believe. His entire life was a continued and exclusive looking after himself, and if in the course of it he received money from the enemy, neither the enemy was benefited nor Kentucky hurt.
The "Third" Convention met in August with twenty- six of the thirty delegates in attendance.29 After
29 The proceedings of the numerous conventions in the 80's are- given and discussed at large in John Mason Brown's Political Be- ginnings of Kentucky, in Littell's Political Transactions in and Concerning Kentucky and in Green's Spanish Conspiracy.
215
HISTORY OF PIONEER KENTUCKY
making McDowell president of the convention, they took up the petition to Virginia left over to them from the preced- ing convention. In a committee headed by Mr. Muter the petition received some amendments and alterations, after which it was reported to the convention and unanimously adopted. It is noticeable that Virginia was petitioned to acknowledge the independence and sovereignty of Kentucky; admission to the Union was not suggested. Admission to the Union, in fact, could not be considered as an advantage by any people in the year of grace, 1785. An address was also made to the Kentucky people by the customary frontier method of mailing it in manuscript to the doors of the courthouses. Chief Justice George Muter and the District Attorney, Harry Innes, were delegated to bear the petition to the Virginia Assembly.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.