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 14
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
" Resolved, As the opinion of this Committee, that the petitions from the Counties of Madison and Mercer, praying the Convention to prepare an address to Congress for procuring the navigation of the river Mississippi, are reasonable, and that a decent and respectful address be prepared re- questing Congress to take immediate and effective measures for procuring the navigation of the said river, agreeable to the prayer of the said petitions."
The duty of preparing this paper was committed to Innes, Wilkinson, Marshall, Muter, Brown, Sebastian, and Morrison.
At this point, and before the committees were ready with their reports, the MS. journal notes the following resolution, which it is certainly strange that Marshall should not allude to while rehearsing the conduct of his enemy :
"A motion was made by Mr. Brown for the convention to come to the following resolution, viz :
" Resolved, That it is the wish and interest of the good people of this District to separate from the State of Virginia, and that the same be erected into an independent member of the Federal Union." '
Its purpose was obvious. It was the prelude, should the convention agree, to the formation of a grand committee for
1 MS. Journa!, Convention of November, 1788-6th November, 1788. The reprint in Littell is accurate. (Littell, Political Transactions, Appendix XIX.) In the appendix to this paper will be found a copy taken directly from the original MS.
1
200
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
considering the draft of a Constitution which Brown was ready to introduce, backed by the approbation of Jefferson and Madison. It was the most significant movement made in the convention.
Marshall does not copy or mention this resolution, nor does Butler. All subsequent writers have perpetuated their neglect. Its suppression deprives Brown of his real avowal of political principle and plan made on the floor of the con- vention1 and at the time. To leave it out was to dispense with the most interesting feature of the convention, and to lose the key to the political purpose of the author and his friends.
On the 10th November, Wilkinson, chairman of com- mittee, reported "An address to the United States in Con- gress assembled."
It appealed for consideration and protection "as freemen, as citizens, and as part of the American Republic." It set out with somewhat florid yet effective rhetoric the difficulties that environed the Western people, the wealth of their soil, the teeming abundance of their crops, and the total paralysis of every thing like commerce. It argued the right natural and by treaty of river navigation, demonstrated its absolute necessity, and implored Congress to take measures to secure
I Marshall, History of Kentucky, Vol. I, p. 356, etc., edition of 1812, gives an account of this convention, but does not allude to this resolution.
201
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
it to the people of the whole country. The address was received with general favor and immediately adopted.
The address to the legislature of Virginia was next re- ported by Mr. Innes, and "agreed to nemini contradicente." Its tone was loyal, and its expressions respectful and judi- cious. The sentiment of the convention which unanimously adopted it may be gathered from its opening paragraph, in which
" The representatives of the good people inhabiting the several counties composing the District of Kentucky, in Convention met, beg leave again to address you on the great and important subject of their separation from the parent state, and being made a member of the Federal Union." I .
1 The address proceeded to set forth that
" Being fully impressed with these ideas and justified by frequent exam- ples, we conceive it our duty as freemen, from the regard we owe to our constituents, and being encouraged by the Resolutions of Congress, again to appeal to your honorable body praying that an act may pass at the pres-
" This "Address to the Legislature of Virginia " is given by Marshall (Vol. I. p. 379, edition of 1812), but he uncandidly omits to mention that his enemy, Innes, was its mover. The MS. journal of the convention explicitly recites that Innes, as chair- man of the committee, reported the address, " which he read in his place and deliv- ered in to the clerk's table, where it was again twice read and amended and agreed to nemini contradicente." Butler scarcely notices the paper, and apparently made little or no exploration of original sources. Littell (Political Transactions, &ºc.) published, in 1806, the entire journal of this convention. His work was an answer to newspaper attacks, emanating from Humphrey Marshall and Street, directed against Innes and Brown. The book was avowedly based on documentary evidence furnished by Innes and Brown. Marshall knew of it, and its preparation and authorship, as appears from his questions to witnesses in the suit of Innes against Marshall. As already observed, Littell's book is very rare. It is doubtful if more than half a dozen copies exist.
26
202
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
ent session for enabling the good people of the Kentucky District to obtain an independent government, and be admitted into the confederation as a member of the Federal Union, upon such terms and conditions as may appear just and equitable. ... We again solicit the friendly interposition of the parent state with the Congress of the United States for a speedy admission of the District into the Federal Union, and also to urge that hon- orable body in the mnost express terms to take effective measures for procur- ing to the Inhabitants of this District the free navigation of the River Mississippi." I
After a vote of thanks to Wilkinson for his paper on the navigation of the Mississippi, the convention closed its ses- sion by an adjournment till the first Monday in the ensuing August.
The parting of its members was not the kindly one of the preceding July. Angry taunts of inconsistency had been made against Judge Muter and Col. Marshall. In turn they branded those who differed from them as traitors. The visit of Connolly to Marshall was suggested to be a British intrigue, and with equal heat the conversation of Brown with Gardoqui was declared to be a Spanish conspiracy. Col. Marshall went so far as to write to Washington (12th Feb- ruary, 1789), detailing what had occurred in the convention, and giving his version of what Brown had there said. Innes, in like manner, warned Washington (10th December, 1788)
1 MS. Journal of Convention, Monday, 10th November, 1788, also by Littell, Political Transactions, &ºc., Appendix XIX, and an appendix to this paper.
-
203
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
· of the British intrigue. It was not until 1835 that Sparks gave both letters and the judicious replies of Washington.
When the journal of the convention is thus scanned, and the sworn testimony of its prominent actors examined; tes- timony taken in causes that involved the bitterest contro- versy as to the proceedings of that convention and the sen- timents of its prominent members, it is astonishing to note how much the history of the time has been distorted and the sentiments, acts, and speeches of men misrepresented. The story of the convention of November, 1788, as told by Mar- shall' has been followed by Butler? with but a mild protest against the vigorous personal feeling of the man who wrote in his anger what was published as history. Since Butler, whose original research was not minute, no compiler or writer has cared to look into the original sources of informa- tion or test the accuracy of Marshall's account of this assembly, so important in the annals of Kentucky. It is time that his historical faults of omission and commission be scrutinized in the light of testimony more persuasive than mere denunciation. The purpose of Marshall in writ- ing his History of Kentucky was to fix upon Brown and Innes, whom he profoundly disliked, a guilty purpose to bring the West under Spanish dominion.
1 Marshall, History of Kentucky, Vol. I, p. 356, edition of 1812.
2 Butler, History of Kentucky, p. 170, &c., edition of 1836,
204
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
He was not a member of either of the conventions of 1788, nor did he profess to have personal knowledge of what took place at the sessions. He does not appeal to contemporary notes, nor vouch the statement of any delegate. When his account is closely examined it will be apparent to such as are patient to endure the labor of the comparison, that for documentary facts he went no further than such extracts from the journals as were published in the Kentucky Gazette at the time. He cites no authority beyond this, pursues no investigation more searching, refers to no orig- inal records, and invokes the evidence of no participant in the debates, though many were accessible, and not a few sworn as witnesses in hotly contested suits. A strife of more than twenty-five years had so irritated him that he wrote his book, mistaking anger for proof and controversy for history. But a calmer consideration will correct the error.
Whatever mark Brown made in the convention is to be found in the entry on the journals of the resolution offered by him, to wit :
" Resolved, That it is the wish and interest of the good people of this District to separate from the State of Virginia, and that the same be erected into an independent member of the Federal union." I
1 MS. Journal of Proceedings, 6th November, 1788. Same in Littell, Appendix XIX, and appendix hereto,
-
ملح
205
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
It was the first movement declaratory of policy that was taken in the convention. It was evidently made with due purpose, and because of that line of policy and conduct upon which he and Madison had agreed. It served to commit the body to a clear and succinctly defined loyal pur- pose. It was the basis for introducing the draft of Constitu- tion which Jefferson and Madison had revised. The omis- sion of this fact by Marshall is unjust, disingenuous, and misleading. If any weight is to attach to what actually occurred, Brown is absolved by the secretary's record of the charge that Marshall preferred, and is proved to be the advo- cate of separation from Virginia coupled with admission into the Union. Candor would have drawn the same con- clusion from Brown's letter to Muter, and would have at- tached importance to its expression that "time alone can determine how far the new government will answer the expectations of its friends. My hopes are sanguine; the change was necessary."1
No less unfair is Marshall's total failure to mention Innes as the reporter of the address to the legislature of Virginia. That address is replete with sentences that declare the ar- dent desire of the people of the District to be received into the Union as an independent State upon the consent and
' Brown to Muter, as given by Marshall, History of Kentucky, Vol. I, P. 340, edition of 1812.
206
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
recommendation of Virginia. Mention of Innes as its mover and advocate would have vindicated his patriotism, his loy- alty, and his moderation, and would have disproved all the suspicions that Marshall cherished.
And the further fact, apparent from the journal,' that the address prepared and reported by Innes was "agreed to nemini contradicente," would have suggested to a more can- did historian that he who introduced and advocated that paper did not deserve the denunciation leveled against him as a disloyal conspirator, especially as his views were sup- ported by the unanimous vote of the convention.
It might, perhaps, be suggested in excuse for such omis- sions that Marshall, while preparing his history, had not access to the original journals of the convention, nor accu- rate information of what was said and done. But he pub- lished his book in 1812, and certainly knew, after 1806, the exact text of the journals through Littell's publication made that year, and avowed to be an appeal to documentary evidence.2
A more serious wrong than any omission, casual or pur- posed, is, that without any warrant that can be found in the journals of the convention or in the evidence of any of the
I MS. Journal, Proceedings of November, 1788. Same in Littell, Appendix XIX, and in appendix hereto.
2 " Po'itical Transactions in and Concerning Kentucky, from the first settlement thereof until it became an independent State, in June, 1792. By William Littell, Esq., Frankfort (Ky). From the press of William Hunter, Printer to the Commonwealth. 1806."
207
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
delegates who testified, Marshall assumed to give, in the form of a quotation, the ipsissima verba of an alleged utterance made by Brown in the convention of November, 1788, and upon it to found the argument of treasonable intent.
In putting forth the first volume of his History in 1812, Marshall, in detailing the proceedings of the convention of November, 1788, asserts that Brown used the following lan- guage, which he carefully puts in quotation marks and marks with the emphasis of italics:
" That he did not think himself at liberty to disclose what had passed in private conferences between the Spanish minister, Mr. Gardoqui, and him- self; but this much, in general, he would venture to inform the convention, that, provided we are unanimous, everything we could wish for is within our reach." I
The original journal has been scrupulously examined, and nothing suggestive of such an utterance is there to be found.
The files of the Kentucky Gazette, which as public printer published the proceedings of the convention, contain nothing of the kind, nor any allusion that can by stretch of ingenuity be supposed to point to such a speech.
During the lifetime of Col. Thomas Marshall (father of
1 Marshall, History of Kentucky, Vol. I, p. 359, edition of 1812.
2 The only complete file of the Kentucky Gazette is in the Public Library at Lex- ington.
208
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
the great Chief Justice), who died in 1803, nothing warrant- ing the alleged "quotation " was ever published by him or upon his authority. In 1806, after his death, his private letter of 12th February, 1789, addressed to Washington, was printed. It was too late then to test the accuracy of the words used or try his judgment of the facts by cross-exam- ination. But delegates, members of the convention of No- vember, 1788, not a few of whom survived, were called to the witness-stand, and, under the sanction of their oaths, repelled the charge which the "quotation " insinuated.
One just inference was drawn by Marshall and commu- nicated to Washington from the declarations of Gardoqui, the Spaniard, to John Brown, and those of Connolly, the Englishman, to Thomas Marshall and George Muter, for he said:
"It appears plain to me that the offers of Lord Dorchester, as well as those of Spain, are founded on a supposition that it is a fact that we are about to separate from the Union, else why are those offers not made to Congress ? We shall, I fear, never be safe from the machinations of our enemies, as well internal as external, until we have a separate State and are admitted into the Union as a federal member." I
An observation based upon commonest justice to two very different and unfriendly men is suggested by this letter of Col. Marshall.
I Thomas Marshall to Washington, 12th February, 1789.
209
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
Brown had heard from Gardoqui in July the Spanish offer based on separation from the Union. Marshall heard from Connolly in October the British offer, meaning the same thing as he construed it.
Brown recognized the public danger that might come from divulging Gardoqui's plan. Marshall seems to have taken the same view concerning Connolly's plan.
Brown took into his confidence only two men in Ken- tucky, George Muter and Samuel McDowell. Marshall took into his confidence only two men in Kentucky, George Muter and Charles Scott.
Brown lost no time in counseling with Madison, to whom he detailed Gardoqui's conversation. Marshall, not so promptly, but not very greatly delaying, wrote to Washing- ton the outlines of Connolly's offer.
Brown judged it highly inexpedient to narrate even to the sovereignty convention of November what Gardoqui had said, for he feared lest rash men might make trouble by advocating what Gardoqui proposed. Marshall prudently said nothing in that convention, nor publicly, concerning Connolly and his plan, for he feared that the captivating suggestion of a raid southward, and of arms, money, equip- ment, and military rank, might embroil the whole country in foreign complications.
The parallel is a singularly exact one, and neither of the
27
-
210
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
men harbored a disloyal thought. They were both zealous for their country and honest in their service of it.
It is to be regretted that they were not equally just one toward the other.
Brown never allowed himself to question the patriotism of Thomas Marshall. As lines of public policy were laid down under the new government they drifted into the diver- gencies that marked the school of Adams from that of Jef- ferson. Personal estrangement continued during their lives. But nothing in print or speech or correspondence escaped Brown asserting or insinuating that Thomas Marshall was a conspirator in his conference with Connolly or a traitor in thought or in act.
Thomas Marshall did hint suspicions of Brown which he never directly charged; perhaps never fully formulated. But strangely enough, upon the identical letter which establishes the secret conferences of Marshall and Muter with Connolly, the nephew and son-in-law of Marshall, twenty-three years later, based the charge against Brown of conspiracy against his country.
The calm mind of Washington discerned the irritation that caused Marshall to write on the 12th February, 1789, in a mood suspicious of Spanish conspiracies, and Innes to write in December, 1788, his fears that intrigues with Great Britain were hatching in Kentucky.
211
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
He clearly perceived that each in his zeal misjudged the other, and permitted personal enmity to disturb his estimate of the other's motive. .
To each he returned judicious reply, full of the confi- dence he really felt, and marked by the calm justice of his own grand composure.'
It was but a short time before Thomas Marshall very clearly saw how unjust were his suspicions, and he very hon- orably repaired whatever injury his letter of 12th February might have done.
He soon became convinced that he had wronged both Brown and Innes, and on . IIth September, 1790, wrote to Washington assuring him of the entire absence of sedition or appearance of it, and of the "good disposition of the people of Kentucky toward the Government of the United States."
The reply of Washington ? was characteristic :
"I never doubted that the operations of this government, if not per- verted by prejudice or evil designs, would inspire the citizens of America with such confidence in it as effectually to do away with those apprehen-
I The letter from Washington to Innes, of 2d March, 1789, is given in Sparks' Writ- ings of Washington, Vol. IX, p. 473, where also (in a note) may be found Innes' letter to Washington of date 18th December, 1788. Washington's letter to Thomas Marshall, 27 th March, 1789, is given in Sparks' Writing's of Washington, Vol. IX, p. 485. Butler prints the letter from Thomas Marshall to Washington, 12th February, 1789. (Butler, History of Kentucky, Appendix, p. 520, edition of 1836.)
2 Washington to Thomas Marshall, 6th February, 1791; Sparks' Writings of Wash- ington, Vol. X, p. 137.
212
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
sions which, under the former confederation, our best men entertained of divisions among themselves, or allurements from other nations. I am there- fore happy to find that such a disposition prevails in your part of the coun- try as to remove any idea of that evil which a few years ago you so much dreaded."
The correspondence of Brown soon showed Innes that there was no dread of British alliance, nor reason to fear that the Federal Government would neglect the important interests of the West.'
Of those who were present at the convention of Novem- ber, 1788, as members or influential observers, it is to be noted that not one confirms the charge made in Marshall's History of a movement in the interest of a Spanish alliance or allegiance. Those who afterward testified repelled the charge. Those whose personal feeling was one of enmity had no charge to utter.
Muter never said, wrote, or printed that Brown spoke at all in the convention, much less that he spoke treason- ably. No memoranda of his have ever been discovered or mentioned corroborative of any insinuation against Brown's acts or opinions in the convention. Garrard, who became Governor after Shelby, and survived till 1822, was a member of the convention of November, 1788, yet no word or
I Brown to Innes, New York, 28th September, 1789, MS. ; Brown to Innes, Philadel- phia, 7th October, 1789, MS.
213
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
writing from him has ever been referred to as in the remotest degree sustaining such a supposition. He was not called to substantiate the charge.
John Edwards became a Senator in Congress, and sur- vived until 1837, never having given in speech or writing intimation of such an occurrence, though he, too, sat in the convention and was an ultra Federalist.
John Logan, a delegate in convention from Lincoln County, was Treasurer of the State during the period of most violent enmity between Marshall and Innes and Brown. He never countenanced the assertion.
John Jouett lived longer than Innes (1816), and was never referred to in justification of the alleged quotation or any thing that resembled or could suggest it. It is quite beyond belief that a charge esteemed by Marshall so dam- aging to his long-time foe, should not have been, if true, verified by such of these men as were alive in 1812, when Marshall wrote, and that a truth deemed so important should not have been established by their testimony. The fact remains that Marshall gave no authority for that which he put forth as an accurate quotation.
As has been already mentioned, bitter litigation arose in 1806 out of newspaper publications that charged upon Innes a corrupt intelligence with the Spanish authorities. Suit for libel was instituted against Street, the publisher, followed,
214
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
after some time, by a similar action against Marshall, the anonymous author of the articles. The doors were thrown widely open to testimony. So eager were the parties to vent all their spleen, that agreements were entered in the record that all evidence that in strictness would be confined to the support of special pleas might be given under the general issue.1
In these suits much proof was taken orally and by depo- sition. In the litigation between Innes and Marshall no less than twenty-eight depositions of men well known in the early times were taken and are yet extant.2 Not one of these depositions sustains the alleged quotation, or warrants any inference like it. Nor is the rumor, tradition, or hear- say of such mentioned in any part of them.
Nor is any thing discoverable in the record of the suit between Innes and Street that gives color to the charge con-
"The suit of Innes against Street was tried in Jessamine County, where the writer of this discovered the record of the case a few years since. The case of Innes against Marshall was in the Mercer Circuit Court, where the papers were found in 1886. The records of the two suits contain many depositions.
2 The names of these witnesses are worth preserving, for the most of them filled posts of consequence. They were Isaac Shelby (twice Governor), Samuel McDowell (Judge of the Supreme Court of the District), Caleb Wallace (Judge of the Court of Appeals), Christopher Greenup (Governor), Benjamin Sebastian (a Judge of the Court of Appeals), Robert Trimble (an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States), Buckner Thruston (a Senator in Congress from Kentucky, and a Federal Judge in the District of Columbia), John Bradford (the pioneer printer of the West), besides James Morrison, Joshua Barbee, Willis Morgan, Samuel Major. Henry Davidge, S. McKee. Jeptha Dudley, Thompson Mason, John Allen, Cuthbert Bullitt, John Mason, William Hunter, John T. Mason, John Twyman, William McMillan, George Walker, William Littell, Samuel Brents, George M. Bibb, Joseph Street, James French, etc. A cloud of witnesses testified orally.
.
215
The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.
tained in the alleged quotation. The papers of that case are yet to be seen at Nicholasville. A multitude of wit- nesses was there examined, among them Isaac Shelby, Sam- uel McDowell, Christopher Greenup, Robert Johnson, Joseph Crockett, Caleb Wallace, Thomas Todd (the clerk of all Kentucky conventions, afterward Justice' of the Supreme Court of the United States), John Jouett and John Brad- ford of the earlier pioneers, with Robert Trimble, Charles Wilkins, William Blackburn, John Pope, and others, younger men.
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.