USA > Kentucky > Petitions of the early inhabitants of Kentucky to the General Assembly of Virginia, 1769-1792 > Part 2
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 | Part 19 | Part 20
In the second place the petitions are of value because of the light which their subject-matter throws on the early history of Kentucky and the West. It would be difficult to find a more graphic picture of the life of a pioneer popu- lation in all its lines of activity, in the expression of diffi- culties, hopes, and desires. We have too often been content to select some typical hero of frontier life and record his exploits. In these petitions we have set before us the associated life of the community. Allowance must be made, it is true, for extravagance of statement, but even
[ 4 ]
1
Introduction
such phrases are a vivid reminder of the strenuous life of those early state-builders whose sacrifices and efforts made possible the conditions that exist to-day.
The petitions are not all of equal importance. Some deal only with personal affairs or with matters of small account. Others throw light on matters that belong to the field of serious history and are significant. The greatest good can be derived by taking them as a whole, illustrative of the beginnings of a community.
The topics that make up the subject-matter of the petitions may be summed up as follows: The system of landholding, the establishment of courts, the organization of a militia for protection from Indians, the organization of the community into counties and towns, the establish- ment of communication by ferries and roads, the inspection of tobacco, the building of gristmills, the perfecting of a medium of exchange, the foundation of an educational system, the status of slavery in the western country, the effort to secure better social conditions in the care of orphans and in the performance of marriage rites, and finally the movement of the population toward separation from Virginia.
The question of land naturally occupies a large place in the petitions. The settlers came to the country west of the mountains with certain ideas regarding land which had been worked out through many years of controversy in the colonial period of Virginia. The Journals of the House of Burgesses reflect this struggle. In general it may be
[ 5 ]
Introduction
said that the representatives of the people stood for west- ward expansion, for small grants of land to bona fide settlers, for titles free from quit rents, and for legislative management of land conditions rather than executive.
A resolution of the House of Burgesses of December, 1766, urged upon the administration that settlers who had taken up lands on the waters of the West could not be deprived of their land or compelled to move without a violation of public faith and of law. It showed that the encouragement of settlement to the west would be conducive to the King's service and Colony's interest and the King was urged to rescind his restrictive proclamation and give orders to grant land to "all adventurers" in the accustomed manner. Many of the lands were shown to be unoccupied by Indians and others could be readily secured by purchase.
In 1768 the treaty of Fort Stanwix with the Indians was in line with the wishes of the settlers and seemed to prepare the way for settlement. Our first petition of 1769 is a request for land in the valley of the Cumberland River, to the west of the mountains, and in the same year the House of Burgesses discussed expansion again, urging that the country be opened as far as the confluence of the Ohio with the Mississippi, and a purchase be made from the Cherokees which would add to the King's revenue and the trade and navigation of the western country.
The desire for small holdings is seen in the memorial which asks that the King in his "royal wisdom" be graciously pleased to "discourage all monopolies of those lands" by
[ 6 ]
Introduction
granting them "in small or moderate quantities to such adventurers as might incline to seek and settle the same."
The feeling against quit rents may be seen in the opposition to the grants of Lord Dunmore in 1775, when the surveyor of Fincastle County refused to return a survey until it had received the approval of the House of Burgesses and that body inquired, whether "his majesty may of right advance the terms of granting lands in the colony."
The few settlers in Kentucky had not been able to secure from Virginia a title to their lands until the Revolutionary War came on. Petitions Numbers 2 and 3 are requests for such recognition. It was the War which brought the western settlers and the government of Virginia together, through mutual need of one another, the former for money and riflemen and the latter for settled titles to land. Thus the first land act in behalf of the trans-Alleghany settlers was passed by Virginia in response to those petitions, in the latter part of 1776, and curiously enough, is entitled "An act for raising a supply of money for public exigencies."
This law referred to the fact that "great numbers of people had settled in the waste and ungranted lands on the western waters to which they have not been able to secure titles." It resolved that all such settlers upon unappropriated lands, to which there was no just prior claim, should have the "preemption or preference to the grant of such lands" and it gave to all bona fide settlers, previous to June 24, 1776, a right to "four hundred acres for each family." The land thus located was to bear a tax to the colony of Virginia according to the "pound rate."
[ 7 ]
Introduction
The Transylvania Company, under the lead of Richard Henderson and by the aid of Daniel Boone, had anticipated Virginia by the purchase of the land between the Cumber- land and Kentucky Rivers from the Cherokees and had started a colony of a proprietary type with quit rents to the land and features not in accordance with the ideas which had been shaping in Virginia during the period between the close of the French Wars in 1763 and the open- ing of the Revolution. The petitions are wonderful exhibitions of the tact and skill with which the settlers induced the Commonwealth of Virginia to extend juris- diction over Kentucky, and thus change the subsequent course of events.
The Land Act of 1776 was in accord with the popular views on the subject and had it remained the law there would not have been the grounds for complaint which many of the petitions so strongly voice. An act of the Assembly in 1779 confirmed the grants as given in the previous law and extended it to all settlers before January 1, 1778. It departed, however, from the first in granting the right to preempt one thousand acres on the condition of erecting a cabin. Another act of the same year established a land office and gave to any person the right "to acquire title to so much waste and unappropriated land as he or she shall desire on paying the consideration of forty pounds for every hundred acres."
These two acts were due to the emergencies of the War and the pressure to secure funds for it. They became,
[ 8 ]
Introduction
however, a source of great annoyance to the actual settlers of the West who were bearing the burdens of the day. Petition No. 8 is a pitiful wail by the "distressed inhabi- tants" of the county of Kentucky, who saw men surveying the thousand-acre tracts, when they had not so much as a hundred and in some cases none at all-"too rough a med- icine ever to be dejested by any set of people that have suffered as we have." Petition No. 15 protests against the second act by which every person is "at liberty to purchase without cultivating as much Land as He or She shall think proper." Petition No. 16, though pertaining to the same grievance, is more restrained, and recognizes the acts as emergency acts in the time of war.
To the settler west of the Alleghanies the period just following the War was one of great perplexity. He did not know to whom he should look for security in the title to his land. Petition No. 24 contains an expression of this feeling of uncertainty. Referring to a refusal of Congress to accept the cession of land offered by Virginia and a report of the committee to the effect that Virginia had no just claim to any of the land northwest of the Alleghanies, they assert their right "for it is through them and those they claim as citizens that the greatest part of the western waters is not now in the possession of our most inveterate enimies."
The changes made from time to time by the Virginia laws for perfecting a title to land gave rise to a great deal of trouble and discontent. Some of the settlers did not
[ 9 ]
Introduction
conform to the necessary steps by reason of ignorance, some were prevented by absence from the section in service of the country in the War or against the Indians. The death of a sheriff would prevent the perfecting of a title; fraud is sometimes charged, through concealment of the law by "knavish" men who expected to profit thereby; legal processes were forced on settlers who could not stand the expense and would thus lose their land, and finally the separation of Kentucky from Virginia left titles incom- plete. These and other complaints are found in Petitions Nos. 22, 23, 88, 93, 102, 106, 109, and IIO. With the com- plaints there is to be found a very graphic and complete revelation of the land question of the early period.
Closely connected with the land question and second, perhaps, in importance in the petitions, was the establish- ment of courts for the securing of order and for the regula- tion of the various relations of community life. The county courts were the first to be created and they began with the act by which the Kentucky County was separated from Fincastle in 1776. By this act justices were to meet at Harrodsburg on the first Tuesday of April to establish a court. They were instructed to appoint a clerk and arrange for a permanent place of meeting. The Assembly mani- fested its appreciation of the difficulties of getting things started in the remote region beyond the mountains by providing that the meetings might be postponed where a majority may have been detained "by bad weather or accidental rise of the water courses."
[ 10 ]
Introduction
County courts were established in each of the counties as they came into existence, previous to separation from Virginia. In fact the desire for more courts to facilitate the matters of record, land titles, and secure order in the community was the main motive in creating new counties. For example, in Petition No. 12, which is the basis of the first division, we read: "the settled parts of the county of Kentucky is of late growing so extensive that in a Time of peace it would be extremely inconvenient for your peti- tioners to attend at Court House much more so at present when an inveterate war rages with unremitted violence.''
The increase in land troubles was responsible, largely, for a request for a superior court, as shown in Petition No. 16. This was established in 1782, and in Petition No. 17 the settlers of Lincoln County thank the Assembly for the establishment of this court, "the good effects of which we begin already to feel by the discouragement of vice and fraud which was too prevalent among us." That there was opposition may be inferred from the statement of the petition which alludes to a set of inhabitants "who were never friendly to the government of Virginia nor would be pleased with any laws its Legislature can pass."
The act which established the superior court created the District of Kentucky, after August 1, 1782, and it was generally referred to henceforth as a District rather than a County. This court was a supreme court of judicature, separate and independent of all other courts except the Court of Appeals. It had jurisdiction in cases of treason,
[ 11 ]
Introduction
murder, felony, crimes, and misdemeanors, except those reserved for the General Court in Virginia. It also had jurisdiction of matters at common law and cases in chancery arising therefrom. There was to be one judge and three assistants, and four sessions of eighteen days duration were provided for each year. It was also to be a court of record, to take cognizance of matters such as probating of wills, deeds, and the granting of letters of administration and cases of escheat and forfeiture. The rates for suits at law were set somewhat lower than in the courts of Virginia and did not always provide sufficient funds to make the court efficient. Several subsequent acts of the Assembly sought to strengthen the court by raising the rates, by using the receipts of custom on the Ohio, and by appoint- ment of "naval officers" for that purpose. Petition No. 59 requests that taxes from which the salaries of court officials were to be met must be paid in specie, and Petition No. 39 requests that the money collected from taxes, so far as it is to be used for officials' salaries, may be kept out from the funds sent to Virginia. This request led to the appoint- ment of a receiver in Kentucky and measures which con- stantly strengthened his hands.
Requests soon came for the establishment of assize or circuit courts and for the establishment of different places for the sitting of the Supreme Court. These are found in Petitions Nos. 23, 24, and 60. The objections are stated in Petition No. 69, which asserts the principle that "those governments are best who employ fewer officers." Accom-
[ 12 ]
Introduction
panying Petition No. 60 is an interesting statement of the business of the Supreme Court with number of cases pending.
The establishment of the local units of government occupies a large place in the petitions. Each county and town required a separate act of the Assembly for its creation. Petitions Nos. 2 and 3 are the basis for the establishment of the county of Kentucky, independent from Fincastle. In the organization of this western county they profess to be following the example of West Augusta County in Virginia, which thus becomes a model in county develop- ment. There is a great deal of shrewdness wrapped up in the insinuation of these westerners that "it would be impolitical to suffer such a Respectable body of prime Riflemen to remain even in a state of Neutrality." The act was passed by the Convention granting their request and the boundary is thus described: "all that part therof which lies to the south and westward of a line beginning on the Ohio at the mouth of Sandy Creek and running up the same and the main or northeasterly branch thereof to the Great Laurel Ridge or Cumberland Mountains thence southwesterly along the said mountain to the line of North Carolina."*
The county, thus created, was entitled to representation in the legislative body of Virginia by two delegates elected by free white men, possessing "twenty five acres of land with house and plantation thereon." The first election was delayed and had to be validated by a special act which
* This written description does not correspond exactly with its physical fea- tures, as later surveyed.
[ 13 ]
Introduction
referred to the election as "fair and open" with "most of the landholders in the county present and voting." Peti- tion No. 12 is a request for a division of Kentucky County in 1780. The details of county administration as provided by the act were essentially similar to those of the first county. By 1785 the three counties thus created were again subdivided. Petitions Nos. 27, 28, 32, 33, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 55, 65, 66, and 74 are requests for and against such division. The opponents of division thought such act would weaken the military force, increase expense, and derange public business. They do not seem disposed to make an attempt to "bring the Courthouse and church to every man's door," and they think that "some individuals in such cases ought to give up their private case for the good of the people at large." Division was held to be unnecessary since "their numbers are too inconsiderable to enable them to accumulate expense, without adding either to their convenience or general welfare."
The first request for a town came from Boonesborough. Petition No. 9 gives an interesting summary of the troubles and suspicions of the settlers under the proprietors who first began this settlement, as the capital of the Transyl- vania colony. They complain of the distribution of lots and selection of trustees. They desire that every settler be allowed to draw a free lot, and that the town be laid out on the south side of the river, as the land at this township "lies much incommoded by hills." The act establishing this town became the model for all that followed. A
[ 14 ]
Introduction
board of trustees was provided and lots were to be granted to settlers on condition that they built "a dwelling house, sixteen feet square at least, with a brick, stone, or dirt chimney to be finished fit for habitation within three years from the date of their respective deeds."
Petitions Nos. 11, 14, 19, 26, 34, 36, 41, 46, 57, 62, 76, So, and 87 bear upon this subject, and provide for towns at Louisville in 1780, Lexington in 1781, Harrodsburg, in 1785, Washington, Charlestown, Hopewell, Maysville, Stan- ford and Milford. The petitioners for a town at Louisville think it will render them secure from any "hostile intention of the Indians and will induce merchants to bring articles of commerce that the merchants of this western part of the state stands much in need of." When this town was estab- lished it was supposed to be on forfeited land but it was later found that part of this land was held by John Campbell, as security for a debt, and this situation gave rise to consider- able petitioning before it was straightened out.
The settlers asking for a town at Lexington had at "considerable risque and expence" located there, laid off a town, and selected trustees, depending on an act of the Assembly allowing settlers six hundred and forty acres for such a purpose. They desired to be assured of their right to do this. This place is elsewhere referred to as "most flourishing and best peopled place of any at this time in the District of Kentucky." They wish to encourage "well disposed persons, artisans and mechanicks" to come, "who from motives of convenience do prefer a Town life."
[ 15 ]
Introduction
The settlers of Lincoln County had "taken into serious consideration of a Proper place for Trade and Domestic Business and for the more ready procuring of those articles in our precincts that are much wanted in the new coun- try." Their site for a town is described as "sufficiently level, very fertile, and well watered by never failing springs and a large Stream running quite through the same." The town of Hopewell, in Bourbon County, was later changed to Paris by request of the settlers. Maysville was established on a site "intirely exposed to the depreda- tions of hostile Indians." Several petitions ask an exten- sion of time for fulfilling the conditions of building to secure their lots because of their constant struggles with Indians.
The statutes of Virginia show towns established also at Campbellstown, in Jefferson County, New Market in Mercer County, Danville in Mercer County, Warwick in Lincoln County, Bcallsborough in Nelson County, Bards- town in Nelson County, Milford in Madison County, and Georgetown in Woodford County, although no petitions for the same were found.
Many of the petitions pertain to the industrial develop- ment of Kentucky. More space is given to the provisions for inspection of tobacco than anything else. The statutes of Virginia regarding this product are many and long, thus showing the important place it held in the industrial life. Previous to 1775 the provisions concerning inspection seem to have lapsed and in that year an act was passed reviving several warehouses for the reception of tobacco. This bill
[ 16 ]
Introduction
is interesting as illustrative of the legislation on the subject. Subsequent bills provided more detail but along essentially the same lines. Inspection was to be had "at and near the heads of creeks and rivers." The inspectors, after examin- ing and recording the quality of the tobacco, were to issue warehouse receipts and these could be used as currency in certain cases. By an act of 1786 the value of tobacco was fixed at twenty shillings per hundred pounds for Ken- tucky. The first act for inspection "on the western waters" was passed in 1783. Petitions Nos. 40, 43, 45, 63, 64, 67, 72, 84, and 99 pertain to this subject. Because of the important part that James Wilkinson occupies in the devel- opment of the tobacco industry in Kentucky, his petition, No. 99, asking for inspection at Frankfort is significant.
The rise of gristmills suggests the increase in wheat and corn. Petition No. 77 in 1790 is the first request that refers to that subject. The inhabitants of Bourbon County complain that they are obliged "to go from eighteen to twenty five miles to mill," that they are subjected "to grate loss of time," and they wish a mill established on Stoner and Hinkson's Forks of the Licking River. They think that if "either locks or slopes sufficient for boats to pass by the dams with safety" were constructed, "the Stoner and Hinkson would be above ten times the value to Bourbon than what it is at present with only them nava- gations alone."
In the petitions regarding the mills there is a sharp controversy between the construction of mills and the pres-
[ 17 ]
Introduction
ervation of the stream open for navigation. In opposition to the view expressed above is that of Petition No. 78 which strenuously objects to dams and mills. The stream is said to flow "through a fertile soil thickly Inhabited, abounding with a variety of Fish" and "it is the only stream by which the greater part of the county can be relieved from a Difficult Land carriage of many miles." The petitioner in No. 81 has "nearly spent his little fortune" on a mill and its removal would bring himself and family ruin. At any rate the navigation is not so all important a matter as "only one boat has had a safe passage in two years" and several boats "have been obliged to unlode and waggon their loades to other landings more safe and cer- tain"; "some have been overset and their loads lost, some have been drowned and many more have been exposed to the Greatest hardship." Petitioners in No. 82 think their opponents "puffed up with the most romantic expecta- tions of the utility acruing from the free and open naviga- tion of the Stoner and Hinkson."
Intercommunication by land and water was a matter of much importance to the early settlers. In 1779 an act of the Assembly was passed to mark and open a road over the Cumberland Mountains. In the preamble the purpose is thus set forth: "To afford mutual aid and support to one another and cement in one common interest all the citizens of the state a good wagon road through the great mountains into the settlements will greatly contribute." A commis- sion was appointed to examine a route and a guard of fifty
[ 18 ]
Introduction
men was provided to protect them from Indians, if neces- sary. In 1786 another commission was appointed to receive subscriptions for a road from the falls of the Great Kanawha to Lexington. In 1792 an act for better communication expresses the sentiment that "This Assembly are at all times willing to contribute every encouragement to such designs as are represented to be of general utility so far as is consistent with prudence and good economy."
There are many references throughout the petitions to the difficulties of communication by land and requests are made for the improvement of waterways. In Petition No. 78 the inhabitants of Bourbon County request that the navigation of the Licking River be established, "begin- ning at its junction with the Ohio thence up the south fork to the Junction of Hinkston and Stoner, thence up Stoners Fork to Bramblets Lick."
Ferries were established at an early date. Petition No. 10 is the first request, and was made by Richard Calloway in 1779, for a ferry across the Kentucky at Boonesborough. It states that from the "first seating of This Town both the inhabitants and travilers has Found it very inconvenient to get across the Kentucky River only in dry seasons in the summer time." Because "this Town and country is become very popular and much Resorted to by travilers," he asks the privilege of keeping a public ferry. The right was granted by the Assembly. Calloway later lost his life while working on the ferry which is still in existence and in use. Petitions Nos. 29, 31, 44, 97, and
[ 19 ]
Introduction
104 are requests to establish ferries at different points. One across the Cumberland River was especially desired where the "Kentuckey road crosses the same."
In many cases individuals had been carrying people across the water ways and a private service was turned into a public one. One man says that "by request of his neighbors" he had provided a boat and had at "his own Expence set over passengers in the time of high water."
The petitions give occasional hints at other matters of an industrial nature. Petition No. 6 is a request regard- ing salt. The petitioners had not for some time been able to make salt because of the incursions of Indians and they were feeling the lack of that article of importance to frontier life. Salt springs abounded in the country and could be worked at small expense. They had not been worked by their owners, however, and the request is made that unless works are erected at once the springs be made "publick Property and [salt] be manufactured by Government" to the profit of Virginia as well as the settlers. The request is not so peculiar as it appears at first sight, for the statutes of Virginia show that the Commonwealth had at various times taken an active part in the production of salt. An act of 1775 provided for the erection of salt works in the colony; a later act allowed a bounty for the manufacture of salt, and still another act placed an embargo on the export of salt.
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.