the confederacy of their countrymen. Vermont continued without the pale of the union during the whole Revolutionary war, and until March, 1791; yet no indictment was brought against her for treason. At this distance of time, the protracted delays and repeated public disappointments on this question, seem truly inexplicable. It is not known to what else to compare our long succession of fruitless conventions, than to the card edifices of children, which are no sooner erected, than at a breath they are demolished. The assertion may be safely ventured, that no sober political critic of the present day can believe, that any community in these States, would now be so trifled with and tantalized, as the people of this district were, for eight years, in obtaining a separate municiple existence. Some auxiliary resolutions for directing the election of the seventh convention, closed the labors of this addition to the numerous and ineffectual assemblies of Kentucky. So excited had public feeling in Kentucky become, in consequence of this provoking course of things, that disunion seems to have been at least proposed, as its *"idea was formerly combatted in the public prints of the time, while nothing more open or formal than the acts of the convention is recollected in its favor." A letter from Chief Justice Muter on the 15th of October, 1788, may represent the feelings of the more considerate and sober, respecting the state of public affairs. In this letter the Chief Justice combats the idea of forming a constitution without the previous consent of Virginia, as contrary to her statute, and involving the perpetrators in the guilt of high treason; and that the new State could only be admitted by consent of Virginia, under the federal constitution. But the most pregnant part of this letter is, where he represents, that the resolution of the late convention, if adopted by the people, might fairly be construed to give authority to the next to treat with Spain, to obtain the navigation of the Mississippi; if they should think such a measure conducive to their interest. Every thing proceeding from George Muter would be treated by the author, with the respect inspired by a lively recollection * Marshall 1, 294. P of his venerable, mild, and worthy character; and the concurrence of Colonel Thomas Marshall, the compatriot, fellow soldier and friend of Washington, must add still greater weight to this letter, which was, indeed, *his measure. Notwithstanding this most respectable authority, some political feeling not at all dishonorable, or some exaggerated apprehension of consequences, seems to have prompted this public address; if there were no foreign intrigues. As it has before been remarked, the separation of Kentucky from Virginia, was an agreed case between the high parties; the difficulty was one of form and accident only. In such a state of things, it would have been cruel mockery and iniquity in Virginia, to have so far misinterpreted a separation of Kentucky, which had been the subject of repeated and mutual agreements, as to have considered it treasonable. The jealousy of the country could not, however, have been too keenly excited against any attempt at foreign dependence; it is never admitted into the creed of an enlightened patriot, until the last extremity of domestic misfortune; and even then, to be most sleeplessly watched. CHAPTER XI. Don Gardoqui's propositions to Mr. John Brown-Apology for Kentucky StatesmenCourt and Country parties in Convention-Wilkinson's memorial to the Governor of Louisiana-New Government of the United States General Washington's letter to Colonel Thomas Marshall-Transylvania-Indian depredations. Why the patriotic Marshall and Muter had so much reason to apprehend a foreign connexion at this time, now becomes a painful duty to develope. That private feelings may still be lacerated in this recital, the author laments, and which he will studiously avoid, consistently with the faithfulness of history. Motives, whether of the dead, or the living, shall not be impeached; but upon strong and conclusive testimony; guilt shall never be tortured into existence, by misrepresentation or forced construction. Under the influence of these views, let the con Marshall 1,291. duct of the Honorable John Brown, then a member of the old Congress, be entitled to their full bearing, while it is faithfully related. On the 29th of February, 1788, Mr. John Brown presented to the old Congress the address of the Kentucky convention, praying for admission into the Union; but it was not until the 3d of July, that it was finally acted on, and then referred to the new government for ultimate decision. This distinguished public officer then wrote to the President of the Danville convention, giving an account of this additional failure of Kentucky expectations, notwithstanding his best exertions. In this letter was enclosed a detached scrip of paper headed confidential* in these words: "In a conversation which I had with Mr. Gardoqui, the Spanish minister, relative to the navigation of the Mississippi, he stated that, if the people of Kentucky would erect themselves into an independent State, and appoint a proper person to negotiate with him, he had authority for that purpose, and would enter into an arrangement with them for the exportation of their produce to New Orleans, on terms of mutual advantage." In addition to this ominous enclosure to Judge McDowell, a fletter was written by the same gentleman to Judge Muter, dated New York, July 10th, 1788; from which the following extracts are taken, referring the reader to the appendix for the entire document. After mentioning the delay of Congress in acting on the application of Kentucky, owing to the absence of the members during a "great part of the winter and spring," and when finally committed to a "grand committee, they could not be prevailed upon to report-a majority of them being opposed to the measure. The eastern States would not, nor do I think they ever will, assent to the admission of the district into the union as an independent State; unless Vermont or the province of Maine, is brought forward at the same time." Again: "The jealousy of the growing importance of the western country, and an unwillingness to add a vote to the southern interest, are the real causes of opposition; and I am inclined to believe, they will exist to a certain degree, even under the new government, to *Marshall 1, 301. *Judge McDowell's deposition, Innes vs. Marshall. which the application is referred by Congress." Again: "Tis generally expected, that the district will declare its independence, and proceed to frame a constitution of government." "This step will, in my opinion, tend to preserve unanimity, and will enable you to adopt with effect such measures as may be necessary to promote the interest of the district. In private conversation 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 empower 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 doubt of the sincerity of this declaration, I have thought proper to communicate it to a few confidential friends in the district, with his permission, not doubting but that they will make a prudent use of the information." Upon this confidential letter, (written in the discharge of a critical and important trust) comment is unavoidable; it is an essential and important part of Kentucky history; and it has been the subject of most angry and exasperating controversy. This commentary is now undertaken when these passions have died away; although the author has been a witness to their fiercest storms: yet he claims to be governed by a sense of duty only, when he declares, that he continues to feel, as he always did, perfectly uninfluenced by their rage. On any other occasion than one, which has arrayed this community in such acrimonious parties, such a declaration might be unnecessary. The first idea that strikes the mind in considering this letter in connexion with the enclosure to Judge McDowell, is, that Mr. Brown, and in all probability, many other of the ancient statesmen of Kentucky did incline to discuss, if not adopt a connexion with Spain independent of the feeble and disgraced union, which then existed; one more in name than in fact, disobeyed at home, and despised abroad. Under these circum stances, the author believes such a measure so far from furnishing matter of reprobation, may have been deemed consistent with Kentucky patriotism; and even demanded by its most sacred duties. The denial of any meaning in the letters to Judges Muter and McDowell, beyond that of having been "forwarded for information," as supposed by the latter gentleman in his certificate of the 7th of August, 1806,* strikes the author as unworthy of the grave subject of communication, and the dignity of the correspondents. But what is more important, it is inconsistent. with the only manly and triumphant justification of which he thinks the measure may have been susceptible. To try the conduct of Kentucky statesmen in 1788, under a confederation in ruins and in factions, by the same principles, which should now direct the mind, under an efficient and beneficent government; would be absurd and unjust. The peculiar circumstances of the times must be adverted to, in order to arrive at any just estimate of the measure, or of its authors. What then, were these circumstances? They are eloquently and no less truly narrated by General Wilkinson. "Open to savage depredations; exposed to the jealousies of the Spanish government; unprotected by that of the old confederation; and denied the navigation of the Mississippi, the only practicable channel by which the productions of their labor could find a market.” In addition to this, Mr. Daniel Clarke in his memoir of 1798, to Secretary Pickering, mentions that, "all who ventured on the Mississippi, had their property seized, by the first commanding officer whom they met, and little or no communication was kept up between the two countries." Was this a condition for any community, much less for one of high spirited freemen with their arms in their hands, just fresh from hunting down the British lion, to tolerate any longer, than it was unavoidable? Couple these grievances, which must have blasted the industry and the dearest hopes of the country, which must have driven the emigrants back over the mountains, and condemned the rich lands of Kentucky to waste Political Transactions, page 39. Wilkinson's Memoirs, vol. 2, 119. |