USA > Kentucky > The political beginnings of Kentucky. A narrative of public events bearing on the history of that state up to the time of its admission into the American Union > Part 11
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
convinced that the proper and expedient method of pro- cedure was for the July Convention to frame a constitution for the new State and forward it at once to Congress, accom- panied by a formal application for admission into the Union. On the subject of the Gardoqui conversation he wrote thus :
"In private conferences which I have had with Mr. Gardoqui, the Spanish minister at this place, I have been assured by him in the most explicit terms, that if Kentucky will declare her independence, and em- power some proper person to negotiate with him, that he has authority and will engage to open the navigation of the Mississippi for the exportation of their produce on terms of mutual advantage; but that this privilege can never be extended to them while part of the United States, by reason of commercial treaties existing between that Court and other powers of Europe. As there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of this declaration, I have thought proper to communicate it to a few confidential friends in the dis- trict, with his permission, not doubting but they will make a prudent use of the information which is in part confirmed by despatches yesterday received by Congress from Mr. Carmichael, our minister at that court, the contents of which I am not at liberty to disclose.
"Congress is now engaged in framing an ordinance for putting the new government in motion; it is not yet completed, but as it now stands, the elections are to be made in December and the new congress to meet in Feb- ruary, but it may undergo alteration. Ten states have ratified-this State" is now in session-what the result of their deliberation will be is yet doubtful; two-thirds of the members are opposed to it, but 'tis probable they may be influenced by motives of expediency. N. Carolina will adopt- time alone can determine how the new government will answer the expect- ations of its friends ; my hopes are sanguine, the change was necessary." 2
I New York.
2 Brown to Muter, 10th July, 1788. This letter is given in full by Marshall, who had it from Muter. (History of Kentucky, edition of 1812, Vol. I, pp. 337, 340.
158
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
When, at a later period, the rivalry between Brown and James Marshall (candidates seeking to represent Kentucky in the second Congress under the Constitution) aroused an active canvass, the conversation with Gardoqui and the letter received by Muter was made the basis of a very persistent and angry attack upon Brown's public fidelity. The public debates must have satisfied the people, for Brown was re- turned to Congress by an overwhelming majority, and soon after was unanimously chosen Senator. The sentiments of the leading men of the time are to be gathered from their testimony given in after years before courts and legislative committees.
It was not till 1806 that Brown had opportunity before the legislature of Kentucky, when Sebastian was under im- peachment,' to testify under oath and repel the charge and explain his actions and his motives. From his MS. memo- randa of his testimony so delivered his version can be briefly
I The legislative investigations into the conduct of Sebastian, charged with having accepted (in 1795) a pension of two thousand dollars from Spain, are contained in the very scarce "Report of the Select Committee to whom was referred the information communi- cated to the House of Representatives charging Benjamin Sebastian, one of the Judges of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, with having received a pension from the Spanish Government. Frankfort, Ky, From the press of J. M. Street. 1806." In this report the committee embodied a statement of the substance of the testimony given by the several witnesses called before them. The witnesses examined under oath were Thomas Bullitt, Charles Wilkins, James T. Martin, Christopher Greenup, Richard Steele, Wingfield Bullock, Daniel Weisiger, Harry Innes, Joseph Hamilton Daviess, John Brown, Thomas Todd, Joseph Crockett, Achilles Sneed, and George Madison. The documents referred to by the witnesses are also printed. The writer of this paper has given an extended account of this report and the proceedings upon it in an address delivered at the centennial celebration of Frankfort, Ky., 1886.
159
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
stated. "The fact is," said Brown, "that from 1785, when the first convention met at Danville, on the subject of a sep- aration from the State of Virginia, till 1792, when Kentucky was admitted into the Union as a separate State, no motion was at any time made, either in convention or to the people, to separate from the Union and form an alliance with Spain; nor was any measure to that effect discussed or advocated by any man. The proposition of Mr. Gardoqui originated with himself, and was suggested by him in conversation on the subject of his negotiation with Mr. Jay, and was commu- nicated by me to Col. Muter and Col. McDowell, Judges of the Supreme Court, in reply to letters from them requesting whatever information I might obtain relative to that nego- tiation. At the date of my letter to Muter I intended to write letters of the same import to other friends who cor- responded with me, but upon further reflection, and more especially after an interesting conversation with a highly dis- tinguished statesman of Virginia' relative to Gardoqui's project, I deemed it inexpedient to make any further com- munication on the subject, the public mind of Kentucky being in a high state of excitement in consequence of the rejection by Congress of the application to be admitted into the Union as an independent State."
He strongly protested that never had he, nor any one in Kentucky to his knowledge, entertained a thought of trans- ' Madison.
160
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
ferring the allegiance of his people, or of dismembering the Union, or forming any political connection other than with the States and by admission into the Confederation as it first was, or the Union as perfected under the Constitution.
The "History of Kentucky," by Humphrey Marshall, first put forth in 1812, is, so far as it treats of political mat- ters, unfortunately more of a controversial pamphlet than a dispassionate recital of events. The author possessed large abilities; he had resided in Kentucky for nearly thirty years, and he had been, as he continued, a political partisan of the most determined kind. That he was very sincere in his own political views can not be questioned, and he possessed many
qualities that commended him. But he was unfortunately blind to the existence of any thing like virtue or probity in those whose views differed from his own. His judgments were intemperate wherever controversy or difference of polit- ical faith aroused the spirit of aggressive antagonism that characterized him. He boldly charged upon Brown a wicked purpose to put Kentucky under Spanish domination. It may be conceded that he believed the charge true, but singu- larly enough he neither quotes nor refers to the testimony of contemporaries nor appealed to their intimate knowledge of men and facts."
" The quotations by Marshall in the eighth chapter of his first edition ( History of Kentucky, edition of 1812, Vol. I, p. 341, et seq.) disclose the unusual attempt by an author to use his own anonymous newspaper communications as historical proof of his own statements as a historian.
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky. 161
How completely the historic temperament was lacking in him may be illustrated by his estimate of Dr. Franklin, pen- ned more than twenty years after that great man's death, summing him up as "that singular composition of formal gaiety; of sprightly gravity ; of grave wit; of borrowed learn- ing ; of vicious morality ; of patriotic treachery; of political folly; of casuistical sagacity and republican voluptuousness- Doctor Franklin."1
In his relations toward public personages in Kentucky, Marshall was pronounced and courageous, but scarcely ever just. His praise of Muter's integrity was unbounded in 1788, but it degenerated into a profound distrust when he was placed upon the Appellate bench of the new State in 1792, and was followed by unmeasured denunciation of him and the court when the decision in the case of Kenton v. McConnell was rendered in 1795. From that day Nicholas, the successful lawyer in the case, was added to the list of men whom Marshall classed as the enemies of his country. The services of Nicholas in the Virginia Convention, where (by Bancroft's classification) he stood among the ablest advo- cates of the ratification of the Federal Constitution, and where he sustained debate against Patrick Henry, availed nothing in the judgment of so determined an adversary.
I Marshall's History of Kentucky, Vol. I, p. 180, edition of 1812. The passage is omitted in the edition of 1824.
21
1
162
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
The cloud of his denunciation came in turn upon John Breckinridge and then upon young Henry Clay. With Innes there was never ending war. Each detested the other. One was sincerely religious; the other objectionably profane.1 One was attached to Jefferson politically and personally ; the . other a Federalist of the ultra school. Each inaugurated proceedings in Congress seeking the destruction of the other. Innes procured a resolution of the Kentucky Legis- lature requesting an inquiry by the United States Senate into the moral fitness of Marshall for membership of that body. Marshall introduced into Congress a measure look- ing to an impeachment of Innes for malversation in his office of District Attorney of the United States.
Both failed, and a calmer view after so many years makes it reasonably certain that it was wise in Congress to drop both sets of charges. Even then it was apparent that neither could fairly judge the other. The tranquil mind of Wash- ington, who knew both men, judged rightly that Thomas Marshall was wrong in suspecting Innes of Spanish intrigue, and that Innes was equally in error in the intimation thrown out that the visit of Connolly, the British emissary, to Col. Thomas Marshall had an ominous purpose. Until 1816, when Innes died, this unrelenting personal hostility contin-
' His kinsman says of him : " Humphrey Marshall was violent, profane, and irre- ligious." (Paxton, Genealogy, &c., Marshall Family, p. 81.)
163
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
ued, varied with all the phases of threat, charge, denuncia- tion, and suit for libel.' No sooner was the printing press available for the uses of controversy in the West, than " Ob- server," " Vindex," " Publico," and " Coriolanus " waged a war of mutual recrimination, in a style and with a use of epithet plainly modeled upon the writings which Cobbett was launch- ing from his press at Philadelphia.2
He who would candidly survey the history of that early time will be cautious lest the charges which political antago- nism suggested or exaggerated be mistaken for pure history. It will be safer to appeal to other and more dispassionate evidence than Marshall offers in-his book. A careful investi- gation of this subject is indeed eminently proper, because of the fact that great injustice was done in the fiercely partisan presentation of the subject by the historian Marshall. He succeeded in giving an erroneous coloring which has never been wholly done away with, and it is only by a rigid scru- tiny of the facts that the injustice can be removed and the honorable reputation of good and earnest patriots vindicated.
I In 1815, after thirty years of war, Innes and Marshall agreed to cease their strife, and in future to speak respectfully each of the other. It was an ill-kept agreement on Marshall's part. Inness died in 1816. Marshall republished and amplified his History in 1824. The correspondence leading to this agreement is in the possession of Harry I. Todd, Esq., Frankfort, Ky. It will be borne in mind that Col. Thomas Marshall was father of John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States, and uncle to Humphrey Marshall, the historian. Humphrey Marshall married his cousin, a daughter of Thomas Marshall. Another daughter was the wife of Joseph Hamilton Daviess.
2 The style of political writing that then obtained had its most influential example in Cobbett's scurrilous " Writings of Porcupine."
164
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
It has been seen what was Gardoqui's account to his own government of his conversation with Brown, and it is to be noted that he does not claim Brown as an adherent nor as converted to Spanish interests. How Madison regarded the matter, how immediate was his knowledge of it, and what was his advice to Brown appears in his letter of 1834, al- ready referred to. And the explanation of Brown and his asseverations of the correctness of his motive and his action were given under the sanction of his oath.
It is worth while to inquire what was the judgment of the men of the time, and what were the facts as they knew them.
There was a body of able and truthful public men in Kentucky who were never accused of complicity in any intrigues, and of course were not. They gave their testi- mony in the suits for libel which Harry Innes brought against the historian Marshall, as author, and Street, the newspaper proprietor, as publisher, and their statements un- der oath are worthy of credence, and should settle forever the dispute. The papers in these old cases were recently found. The testimony was taken early in the century, and ever since that has slumbered in unopened bundles of ancient court papers. It is now for the first time that this conclusive exposition of the question is brought to light. The state- ments of these men of early time may solve the dispute.
1
165
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky. .
Isaac Shelby testified in the suit for libel brought by Innes against Marshall thus:
" Ever since the plaintiff's (Innes') removal to Kentucky in 1784 or 1785, I have been in the habits of intimacy with him, have frequently and freely conversed with him on political subjects both as related to Kentucky and also to the United States. In none of these conversations did I ever hear him express one sentiment disrespectful to the Government of the United States, and I say positively that he never uttered an expression to me or in my hearing, of which I have the least recollection, that could induce a belief that he wished a dismemberment of the Union by erecting Kentucky into a separate State independent therefrom. I am confident he never expressed in my hearing the smallest insinuation of his desire to form a connection with the Spanish Government in no respect." (2d Answer.)
"I was a member of nearly all the early conventions held at Danville, but can not certify the particular years. I have a recollection of most of the important subjects that were discussed. In no convention of which I was a member did I ever hear a motion or proposition made by any mem- ber to separate Kentucky from the United States and form a connection with Spain. Such a proposition, in my opinion, and the author of it, would have been treated with scorn and contempt in every convention of which I was a member." (7th Answer.)
" I have said I can not identify years. I know I was present when Wil- kinson's memorial was read by himself. I recollect the impressions it made on the minds of those I conversed with, but can't state the year. There was but few of the early conventions of which I was not a member; and when I was not a member I often attended the debates and mixed amongst the members, and do say confidently that I never did hear, nor was I ever informed, that any member of any convention had made or advocated a proposition to separate Kentucky from the Union, to establish it into a sep- arate Government and form a connection with any foreign power. I well recollect the people of Kentucky, previous to our separation from Virginia,
166
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
was warmly and firmly attached to the union of the United States, and in my opinion any proposition to sever them from that Union would have met their universal disapprobation and contempt, come from whom it might." (8th Answer.)
"I have heard Mr. John Brown speak of his conversation with Gardo- qui, the Spanish Minister, but he never expressed a sentence to me that I understood as having any design to attach this country to Spain-on the contrary, I have had more conversations with Mr. Brown on the subject of a separation of Kentucky from Virginia than with any other person, from the year 1784 to the year 1792, and declare that he never did in my hear- ing express a desire to separate upon unconstitutional principles." (Ans. 6th cross-interrogatory.)'
Samuel McDowell also testified:
"I was the president of the convention in July, 1788, and did receive a letter from Mr. Brown on the subject of the separation, which had been postponed by congress." (Answer Ist.)
" About the time alluded to (i. e., the Convention of July, 1788), upon showing to the plaintiff Innes the paper enclosed in Mr. Brown's letter, he said, 'It will do,' ' it will do,' and an allusion was made to Vermont which, it was said, was invited into the Union, which would be the case with respect to Kentucky if erected into an independent State." (Ans. 2d.)
"I was well acquainted with the plaintiff (Innes) while he resided in Danville, and both before and since, but never knew or heard that he was concerned in the Orleans or Mississippi trade." (Ans. 4.)
"I have known the plaintiff (Innes) since about the year 1773 or 1774, and ever since, and I always considered him a man of good character and of good understanding, and never heard otherwise until the publications in the Western World about the Spanish conspiracy." (Answer to Ist Q. by plff.)
1 Deposition of Isaac Shelby, 25th August, 1813, in the suit of Innes against Marshall, Mercer Circuit Court.
-
167
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
" Question : Were you generally a member of the conventions which were held in Kentucky prior to the separation of the District of Kentucky from Virginia ?
"Answer : I was generally a member of those Conventions.
"Question : Have you any knowledge of a proposition being made at any time by any member of convention to separate the said District abso- lutely and unconditionally from the United States and to form a connection with any other government ?
"Answer: I have no knowledge or recollection of such a proposition ever having been made by any one.
" Question : Have you known John Brown, of Frankfort, from his in- fancy, and what is his general character ?
"Answer: I have known him from his infancy, and I never heard any thing prejudicial to his character until those publications in the Western World touching the Spanish Conspiracy.
" Question: Were you directed by the Convention of Kentucky, as the president, to present the thanks of that body to John Brown for his faithful attention to the interest of the said District, on an appli- cation to the old Congress to be admitted into the Union as an inde- pendent State ?
"Answer : I remember that Mr. Brown received the thanks of the Con- vention for his said services, but whether it was by a vote of the conven- tion or by their direction to me, I do not recollect.
"Question : Have you been in habits of intimacy with the said Brown and the plaintiff (Innes), and did you ever hear either of them express a sentiment which induced you to suspect they had a wish to sever the Union and form a connection between Kentucky and the Spanish Gov- ernment ?
"Answer: I was in habits of intimacy with both, and I never heard either of them express a wish to sever the Union, or to have any connec- tion with Spain, except to trade to Orleans." I
I Deposition of Samuel Mc Dowell in the suit of Innes against Marshall, Mercer Circuit Court.
1
168
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
The deposition of Caleb Wallace in the same suit, after stating that he had for more than thirty years been intimate with Innes, and that he had conversed frequently and fully with him on political subjects as they related to Kentucky and the United States, declared that he was "confident that he never heard him (Innes) express a sentiment disrespectful to the Government of the United States of America, or that he wished the Kentucky country to be separated from them, or that it should form connexion with the Spanish Govern- ment independent of said United States."
Judge Wallace, alluding to the convention of July, 1788, and the purpose of its meeting, which was to frame a Con- stitution, added, that Congress having referred the admission of Kentucky to the new government, "it was conceived by the members of the convention to be unnecessary and im- proper to proceed to accomplish the business for which they had been elected;" but that "the members organized them- selves for the purpose of recommending to their constituents the election of a convention to take such further measures in the case as might be deemed expedient." He testified that no motion or proposition was made by any one "to sep- arate the District of Kentucky from the said United States, or to establish an independent government in said District, and to engage the District of Kentucky in a connection with the Government of Spain or any other power."
1 1
1
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky. 169
The "general sentiment" of prominent men in that con- vention was, as Wallace deposed, that uttered by Col. Thomas Marshall, who "expressed great dissatisfaction with Congress for having declined to decide on the application of the people of Kentucky to be erected into a separate State, and declared that he was clear for proceeding to form a con- stitution of government and establishing the District of Kentucky an independent State, and then apply for its admission into the Union, not doubting but it would be received without further delay." He did not "recollect or believe" that Innes, Brown, or any one "made or advocated any motion to separate the District of Kentucky from the United States." "But he then thought and now (1813) believes that they concurred in the prevailing wish that Ken- tucky should be erected by Congress into an independent State and received into the Union." And, while all parties were dissatisfied with the delay of the Continental Congress, he neither "knew or heard" of any opinion on the part of Brown "that Kentucky should declare herself independent of of Virginia and the Union."!
Christopher Greenup, afterward a member of Congress and Governor of the State, was also a witness of the occur- rences and intimately acquainted with the principal actors. His testimony has also been preserved.
I Deposition of Judge Caleb Wallace in the suit of Innes against Marshall, Mercer Circuit Court.
22
170
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
He denied that any movement or suggestion was made by any one in the conventions to separate Kentucky from the State of Virginia and the United States and form a connec- tion with Spain. (Answer No. 6.) He remembered that Wallace did submit in convention a resolution for proceed- ing to the framing of a constitution and its submission to Congress without applying again to the State of Virginia, "observing that she had already given her consent to the ineasure, and it would save time." (Answer to question No. 7.) No proposition contemplating a severance from the Union could, he said, have escaped his observation and opposition. (Answer No. 8.) And though the intimacy between him and Innes was close, and their conversations on political subjects, especially the separation from Virginia, very frequent, never did Greenup hear him "express any dis- respectful sentiments of the General Government; on the contrary, he seemed to think the General Government could do more for us as an independent State than perhaps she could do while a part of Virginia."1
The men whose declarations have been quoted stand among the justly revered founders of the Commonwealth; their sturdy integrity and rigid truth has never been doubted.
I Deposition of Gov. Christopher Greenup in the suit of Innes against Marshall, Mercer Circuit Court.
171
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
1
It has been thought worth the trouble to search out from its forgotten depository the record of their sworn declara- tions and give them to a generation to whom the true history of that early time is chiefly known through distort- ed media. For they serve to prove what Madison said, what Brown and Innes each asserted upon his corporal oath, what those who knew them best solemnly deposed to be the fact, and what the people at the time said and believed, that the idea of any intent, purpose, or desire to sever Kentucky from the American Union of States never had a place in the mind of either. The so-called "Spanish Conspiracy," gloomily imagined as concocted with Gardoqui, was but a figment of an incensed political adversary's brain; a sus- picion unsupported by a particle of testimony, unvouched by document, unestablished by deposition, and refuted by every proof.
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.