HISTORY OF THE LOST STATE OF FRANKLIN

Front matter

ah eh

Bes

Sete reine yy aayheties = es ie is ef a i pat th Bt Le fe atest eh tao ee iz aa} ie 2 ity an

Preface

The author has had his home for more than a generation in Washington County, Tennessee, which was the midland and capital county of the State of Franklin. The romantic history of that Commonwealth, unique in American history, and the history of the decades that preceded its rise and fall, have always appealed to ‘Tennesseeans, and peculiarly so to one who lives in the immediate region where the early history of the Tennessee country was made.

The collection of Tennesseeana was deliberately chosen by the author as his hobby, and this in turn led to research in the leading archives and libraries of America, in intervals of leisure, and to the making of notes on the early history of his native State. On retiring from public service in 1918, an opportunity was presented to carry out an earlier conception and plan—to avail of these materials in writing three or more volumes on the early history of Tennessee; and, in so doing, to treat of that history by eras or periods.

The Franklin State epoch was chosen for development first, though the plan covers the discussion of an anterior era, under the title of The Dawn Period of Tennessee History. Another work presently purposed is, Early Travels in Tennessee.

It is conceived that this plan will the better permit of a detailed and definitive treatment of each period. ‘There can be no excuse for an historical work which merely revamps and repeats what Haywood and Ramsey wrote, though the histories of those writers are now out of print. Any one who attempts to write of the early history of Tennessee will find himself debtor to both. Ramsey borrowed heayily from Haywood; but he had access to materials that his predecessor had not — documents handed down by his father, Francis A. Ramsey, Sevier, and other Franklin leaders. However, Ramsey wrote long before valuable source materials had been made accessible, in the archives of Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia. Coming later into the field, Roosevelt in preparing his Winning of the West was enabled to draw in a measure upon such ampler stores of information which had then been assembled, and arranged for consultation by historical students.

Vili THE LOST STATE OF FRANKLIN

The purpose of the author has been to extend the research, to correct errors and supplement the work of these earlier writers, and to amplify even to the point of risking the lodgement of a valid criticism of over-elaboration. If explanation is necessary, it is to be found in the fact that source materials relating to Tennessee history, in the archives of that and other States, have never been collected and published. This seemed to warrant the bringing forward in text, notes or appendices of many documents which otherwise might have been summarized. The documents have been edited, in disregard of rules laid down for historical writing. This was almost compelled since Ramsey modernized the documents he set out in his text and notes; and these, having been destroyed by fire since he wrote, cannot be given in their original form. Many of these constituted essential parts of the story of The Lost State. To incorporate them as edited by Ramsey, leaving others unchanged as to spelling and syntax, would be unfair to some of the pioneers who wrote the documents and would detract from the symmetry of the volume.

It has been in purpose to treat of the State of Franklin not merely as a local movement, but to give it a broader setting: to discuss the effort to establish a new State, as the fourteenth in the Union, as a part of the movement for separation that was at that time rife on all frontiers, eastern as well as western. Franklin was without doubt the most pronounced and significant manifestation of the spirit of separation which gave deep concern to the national leaders. No other movement for separate statehood reached, even approximately, the stage attained by Franklin—that of a de facto government, waging war, negotiating treaties and functioning for a term of years in the three great departments that mark an American State, the legislative, executive, and judicial.

The author has endeavored to make the volume one of value to those interested in genealogical research. He has put on the printed page the names of minor participants in the struggle, for or against separate statehood. Of the leaders, a fuller account is given. For some of these, even, this is a rescue of their names and deeds from near-oblivion. Aid in this effort has been received from contributions made from time to time to local newspapers by such writers as Doctor George F. Mellen and Selden Nelson, of Knoxville, A. B. Wilson, of Greeneville, and the late John S. Mathes, of Jonesborough. The author’s thanks are due also to Dr. Edmund C. Burnett, of the department of historical research of the Carnegie Institution,

PREFACE ix ar ee ee ee SO ee ee and to Mr. W. W. DeRenne, of “Wormsloe,” Savannah, Georgia, owner of the invaluable DeRenne Collection, for kindnesses shown while the volume was in preparation.

SAMUEL C. WILLIAMS Emory University Atlanta, Georgia

January 15, 1924

Contents

Ae eee ee re ee ee vii CHAPTER TD VU AEACONTROL OF THE WEST... 2-2. ee eae I II. GENESIS OF THE FRANKLIN MovVEMENT_------- 5 III. THE Great BEND OF THE TENNESSEE___-----_- 13 IV. He bins Cression Acr— 19784... a s2ca 18 V. Movement FoR A SEPARATE GOVERNMENT IN THE UMTS AST ra 25 le acl Ca A 26 Vi DREPEAL OF THE \ESSION ACT... 2-5... _= 34 VII. THe First ConstTITuTIONAL CONVENTION — 1784 38 VIII. THE FRANKLIN MovEMENT IN VIRGINIA__--~--- 44 IX. Tue First Generat ASSEMBLY — 1785_----_--- 54 X. MANIFESTO AND COUNTER MANIFESTO —1785___ 65 XI. FRANKLIN’s Cause BEForE Concress — 1785_--_ 79 XII. Stconp Session oF THE ASSEMBLY — 1785______- 87 XIII. THe Seconp ConstTITUTIONAL CONVENTION — Oe a ee go POL VeenC UE AR SO AITING — 17005 sso 208 ae eee 95 XV. Storm Croups GaTHeEr — 1786 --.-_..-----.... 102 XVI. FRANKLIN SENDS A CoMMISSION TO CAROLINA — EPS OY, dG sae He SIP es kc na a Se a ce IIO

XVII. Spain AND CLOSURE OF THE Mississippi — 1786_-119 XVIII. Factors THAT WorKED FOR CONTINUED SEPARA-

TION ee ee ee 122

Chapter I The Control Of The West

Years before the Declaration of Independence was proclaimed, spontaneous migrations of restless pioneers of the western parts of Virginia and North Carolina had formed a nucleus of civilization in the secluded valley interposed between the Great Smoky mountains on the east and the Cumberland mountains on the west, through which flowed the Watauga and the Nolachucky rivers. This community was destined to play a most important part in the successful termination of the Revolutionary War, and in the winning of the West. It was the germ-cell of the colonization and civilization of the Upper Southwest.

The earliest settlers supposed themselves to be within the jurisdiction of Virginia, but too far removed to have the benefit of the protection of her government. The Watauga pioneers were equal to the emergency. ‘They saw that in their isolation they must depend upon themselves. Accordingly, in the spring of 1772, they formed an Association and promulgated articles for the government of the settlement. “This agreement is known as the “Articles of the Watauga Association,” and notable in that it was the first written constitution adopted by a community of American-born freemen.‘ Lord Dunmore, in reporting to Lord Dartmouth (May 16, 1774) said that they had ‘“‘to all intents and purposes erected themselves into, though an inconsiderable, yet a separate State.”

From this infant settlement, Captain Evan Shelby led a company of fifty volunteers to participate in the battle of Point Pleasant in Lord Dunmore’s War of 1774. The following year, by the aid of the settlers on the Watauga, the Cherokee Indians’ claim to large portions of the Kentucky and Cumberland regions was purchased by ~~ 1Qne can find no more striking fact in American history, nor one more typical, than the simple ease with which these frontiersmen on the banks of the western waters, on the threshold of the central valley of the continent, finding themselves beyond the reach of eastern law, formed an association and exercised the rights and privileges of self-government.” — McLaughlin, The Confederation and the Constitution, 132.

Richard Henderson and his associates. "The treaty was held in the heart of the settlement, and Wataugans aided Henderson in opening the trail through Cumberland Gap and in the founding of the Transylvania Colony on Kentucky soil.

In the spring of 1776, a platoon of Wataugans crossed the mountains and gave support to the Carolinians in saving the city of Charleston from the besieging British.”

When the true latitude of the region had been ascertained and showed that the settlements lay within the bounds of North Carolina, the settlers petitioned the North Carolina Assembly to be allowed to come under its protection. ‘The petition, in the handwriting of a brilliant young Englishman then on the Watauga, William Tatham, bore date of July 5, 1776—one day after the proclamation of the Declaration of Independence in far-away Philadelphia.®

In this petition the inhabitants pledged ‘‘that nothing will be lacking or anything neglected that may add weight to the glorious cause in which we are now struggling.” This pledge was redeemed by the over-mountain men in many battles of the Revolution, among them that of King’s Mountain where a blow was struck that proved to be the turning point in the progress of the war in the South. Hardly less heroic and contributory to the success of the Revolution were the services of the men of this frontier in holding in check the Cherokee Indians who time and again, on British incitement, attacked or threatened to invade North Carolina and Virginia.

Colonel John lie of the upper — of 1 the ony recruited men in the Ho Cou ro 20 t Geo: Rogers Clark in his ¢ to- ‘] for the .

In 1779-80, James Robertson led an aaa a6 Wate to French Lick (Nashville) and began a settlement of the Cumberland river region which had been included in the bounds of the Transylvania purchase. He was influenced to do so by Richard Henderson, the leading spirit in the enterprise.

To the hardy frontiersmen, who were thus driving an entering wedge and by occupation making surer the claim of the Americans

2 Williams, “The First Volunteers of the ‘Volunteer State’,” in Tennessee Historical Magazine, VIII, No. x.

3 Williams, William Tatham Wataugan, 3, also in Tennessee Historical Magazine, VII, 154. Winsor in error says that the instrument is in Sevier’s handwriting. Westward Movement, 79.

* Calendar Virginia State Papers, 111, 441-2.

THE CONTROL OF THE WEST 3 to the West when a treaty of peace with Great Britain should be formulated. It was a matter of grave concern what power should have jurisdiction over and ultimate power to dispose of the trans- Alleghany region — the States or the Union.

The ancient colonial charters of Virginia and North Carolina alike defined jurisdiction as extending as far westward as “to the South sea.” The British government, however, had successfully resisted the contention of these Colonies to sovereign power over the territory west of the great mountain barrier and had governed the broad domain as crown lands. A few days before the Declaration of Independence (June 29, 1776) Virginia in adopting her first constitution seized the opportunity formally to restate her contention to jurisdiction over Kentucky and the Northwest. It was declared that no separate government was to be established west of the Alleghany mountains but by act of her Assembly. Within a fortnight (July 12, 1776) an issue was joined in the Continental Congress when John Dickinson, of Pennsylvania, presented a draft of Articles of Confederation which contained a provision that the Congress should have the power to limit the bounds of Colonies ‘‘which by charter, or proclamation, or under any pretense, are said to extend to the South seas . . . and to assign territories for new Colonies and ascertain their boundaries.” Article 14, as reported by the committee, was more equivocal: ‘‘No purchases of lands hereafter to be made of the Indians, by Congress or private persons, before the limits of the colonies are ascertained, to be valid.”

Jefferson, in behalf of Virginia, promptly objected on the ground that the italicized words carried an implication that the ascertainment of the limits of the claimant Colonies was within the power of Congress, whereas the western limits of the Southern Colonies were already fixed at the South seas.®

The insistence of the smaller States and those which had no such western claims — “landless States,” they were called —was best expressed in the debate by James Wilson of Pennsylvania:

“Every gentleman has heard much of claims to the south sea. They are extravagant. The grants were made upon mistakes. They were ignorant of the geography. ‘They thought the south sea within one hundred miles of the Atlantic ocean. It was not conceived that they extended three thousand miles. Lord Camden con-

5 John Adams’s Works, II, 492-502.

siders the claims to the south sea as what can never be reduced to practice. Pennsylvania has no right to interfere in those claims, but she has a right to say that she will not confederate unless those claims are cut off. I wish the colonies themselves would cut off those claims.”

Harrison, of Virginia, boldly asserted: “By its charter Virginia owns to the south sea. Gentlemen shall not pare away the Colony of Virginia.” °

Congress hesitated to bring the issue to a decision. Maryland formally instructed her delegates that “policy and justice require that a country unsettled at the commencement of this war, claimed by the British crown and ceded to it by the Treaty of Paris, if wrested from the common enemy by the blood and treasure of the thirteen States, should be considered as common property, subject to be parceled out with free governments.”

North Carolina stood firmly by the side of Virginia in the struggle which well nigh imperiled the formation of the Union of the Confederation. The weight of these and other claimant States was so great that when the Articles of Confederation were adopted the ownership and control of the West was left unsolved. That instrument incorporated the following provision in relation to the admission into the Union of new States: ‘‘No other Colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.’ The crucial question of sovereign power and jurisdiction was left open to vex and distract Congress and people alike in after years.

6 John Adams’s Works, II, 492-502.

CHAPTER IT

GENESIS OF THE FRANKLIN MovEMENT

In the uncertainty as to whether the Union had succeeded to the rights exercised by the British crown, the endeavors of the national legislature took the direction of bringing pressure to bear on the claimant States to cede their back lands to the general government.

Congress, on September 6, 1780, on motion of Joseph Jonés, of Virginia, seconded by James’ Madison, resolved “that in case the recommendations to the States of Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia to cede to the United States a portion of their unappropriated western territory shall be complied with, the territory so ceded shall be laid out in separate States at such times and in such manner as Congress shall hereafter direct.’ +

By a resolution of October 10, 1780, it was more explicitly set forth by Congress, that such new States should be republican in form, and “members of the federal union and have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and independence as the other States.”

This is the first action of Congress in reference to new States on the western waters, and the first hint that a State in the hinterland, such as the State cf Franklin, might come into existence in the near future.

The assertion of a purpose on the part of Congress to create new States was construed, it seems, in some quarters, to have been a declaration of sovereignty in the United States over the western country.” Information of these resolutions, in time, reached the settlements on the Holston and Watauga rivers.

A leading spirit on the upper reaches of the Holston, in Virginia, was Colonel Arthur Campbell. His progenitors emigrated from Northern Ireland to Pennsylvania, and thence to Augusta county in

1 Journal Cont. Congress, XVII, 808.

2 Journal of Congress, Ill, 235. A report of a committee of Congress to examine the claims of Virginia, (filed November 3, 1781) proceeded on the theory that the western lands had, as crown lands, passed in devolution to the United States as an entity; but Congress itself did not so resolve.

the Valley of Virginia, where Arthur Campbell was born in 1742. A few years before the Revolutionary War, he removed to the Holston river section, then a wilderness; and there along with his cousin, General William Campbell, he was active in the leadership of his people, serving as county lieutenant, legislator and Indian campaigner.

In the brain of this virile and strong-willed man, possessed of Scotch-Irish initiative, courage and tenacity, was formed the first conception of a separate State for the sturdy population which was then flowing into the valleys of the Holston and its tributaries, in South-western Virginia and the close-lying settlements to the south in North Carolina.

What may be called the genesis of the State of Franklin was this document circulated (evidently early in January, 1782) by Colonel Campbell among the settlers on the border:

‘““A Scheme for obtaining the sense of the inhabitants of the Western Country on the subject of the late Resolves of Congress declaring the sovereignty over the same to be in the United States.

“Ist. That Selectmen or Deputies be chosen for the five southwestern counties of Virginia and the counties of Washington and Sullivan in North Carolina to meet at Abingdon the third Wednesday in April, 1782.

“and. ‘That in order that the representation be adequate, let the Deputies be in number proportionate to the number of farmers above eighteen years of age, allowing one Deputy for every hundred such farmers.

“3rd. That the election be held at the respective Court Houses on the third Tuesday in the month of March next, by the same ofhcers and under the same regulations as elections for delegates are held.

“4th. The business and power of Deputies when convened to be the consideration of the late Resolves of Congress respecting the Western Country, and to adopt such measures as may be adjudged proper by a majority for the interest and safety of their constituents as members of the American Union.

“sth. The representation to continue one year, in which time the Deputies may adjourn from time to time and to such places within the Western Counties as may be found most convenient.”

A search has not disclosed whether an election was held in March, 1782. If so, it was not one of such official character as to lead to certification and preservation.

On May 1, 1782, Congress, which in the preceding year had de-

GENESIS OF THE FRANKLIN MOVEMENT il clined to accept a cession from Virginia of her western lands because of conditions attached, earnestly recommended to the State of Virginia that, by a proper act of cession, her claims be surrendered to all lands “beyond a reasonable western boundary” and free of all conditions and restrictions.

That Arthur,Campbell continued in earnest efforts to establish a new State at that time appears from a letter which he wrote to Arthur Lee, of Virginia, June 9, 1782:

“Resolving in my mind the substance of the papers lately transmitted from Congress, I shall now take this opportunity of troubling you with a few sentiments.

“TI suppose it will be the policy of the Assembly to instruct their delegates to claim to the Ohio as the western bounds of the State. I could wish that Congress would admit that as our boundary for the present ; because when a new State is laid off, I trust we will be more competent to fix its limits and prescribe conditions than men perhaps under an improper bias and very little acquainted with our municipal regulations.

“Should not this claim succeed, I would call it a reasonable western boundary, and an ample cession, to give up the lands on the Ohio, below the mouth of the Great Kanawha and west of the Auscioto Mountains; because the Auscioto is an Indian descriptive. A line run S. W. from the mouth of Green Briar to the Carolina line would be near the thing. It should be the last retreat, the ridge and the mountains that divide the Eastern and Western Waters. Because in that case the people in the two southwestern counties, Montgomery and Washington (which contains an extent of 150 miles by 40 or 50) would necessarily be obliged to associate with the inhabitants of North Carolina situated on the heads of the Cherokee [Tennessee ] river, and have in contemplation a new State in that beautiful valley of which the Cherokees are yet the principal possessors. It will be more inconvenient for that valley to be connected with Kentucky, than remain an appendage to the eastern parts.

“Tt to me appears a very unwise temper to talk of force, spilling of blood, or persecution, to retain more dominion under the fallacious idea it will give us weight in the continental scale, and in the eye of Europe. I would rather conjecture that abolishing slavery, or sending away the blacks, introducing artists and other emigrants from Europe, wise laws, pure manners, and a predominance of virtue, would make us truly respectable and powerful. Truly weighty is the consideration that when a separation takes place, it may be like good friends, promoting reciprocal interests, and happy in seeing each other so well. I think such an event might be brought about by the same temper as the division of a county. The Chesapeake may long be the mart of the Western Country, except for exports. This will be a channel for intercourse; and might not wise men or rather wise legislators improve it to be a very beneficial one?

“Tt was some entertainment to me to be frequently told of the sentiments of individuals respecting my conduct lately in the Western Country; some considered that I was aiming at public good, others private aggrandizement. To an enlightened and unbiased mind, I will always take pleasure to give an explication. I have hitherto endeavoured by my political conduct to be guided by two principal landmarks: the Constitution and the voice of the people. Whilst I persevere under this description, I shall hope to be approved. of by wise republicans and good men.” [Marked “confidential’’ ].°

This letter discloses that Colonel Campbell’s efforts in behalf of the new State had caused no inconsiderable stir in Virginia. His conduct was criticized and resented by a faction in Southwest Virginia which was in opposition to Campbell and his friends, on this and other questions of the day. For years the Campbells had been in practically undisputed leadership in that section. General William Campbell, one of the heroes of the King’s Mountain campaign, had but recently died (August 22, 1781) while in military service against Lord Cornwallis near Williamsburg and Yorktown; and his coéperation was lost to his kinsman.

About the same year, 1781, a forceful character, General William Russell, moved into the Campbell neighborhood. He had been educated at William and Mary College, and, serving as a captain in the French and Indian. War, had risen to the rank of colonel and brigadier-general in the Revolutionary War. He had long been engaged as a soldier in the exploration and protection of this part of the frontier. Of se presence and culeureds General Russell paid court to

8 Calendar Virginia State Papers, III, 414.

GENESIS OF THE FRANKLIN MOVEMENT 9 gendered by resentment, jealousy and rivalry. “Beneath Russell’s polished exterior there was a proud and stern nature, and imperious temper.” * He was by no means disposed to act as a subordinate of Colonel Campbell, and a breach between the two was the outcome.

The two men had served, in 1776, as commissioners to take evidence in behalf of Virginia in respect to the claims of Richard Henderson and his associates to the Transylvania Country ° and they had also served together as delegates in the House of Burgesses, but they were not suited to be yoke-fellows in the changed conditions. At least budding hostility is manifested in a letter written by Russell to Governor Harrison from Aspenville, on September 25, 1783, complaining of Campbell’s official conduct, and concluding: “I fear Colonel Campbell’s present close attention to effect a new State in this part of the country will engage his time to the neglect of any individual among us.”

Campbell was yet pertinacious in his advocacy of separate statehood. ‘To what extent he had enlisted in the movement the men of the settlement on the Watauga and the Nolachucky irmise. He had but recently (December, ar led eee

- these men of the lower settlemer ign against

ie Cherokees. John Sevier served as a Pe eeaanh: colonel under fim e aaa it is not improbable that Sevier and his friends were not ‘lacking in sympathy with Campbell’s scheme. It is plain that Campbell felt assured that this was true. But little of actual negotiations in these early days went to written record (much that did has not escaped loss) to speak of motives, purposes and plans to the historian today.

There trickled to Congress, however, enough to arouse the fears of the North Carolina delegates.

In August, 1782, there was presented to Congress a petition from the inhabitants of a “tract of country called Kentucky,” setting forth that the petitioners deemed themselves subjects of the United States,

4Preston, S Mrs» Elizabeth Russell, 21. It seems that General call spade geet led to eoumesing like a seat feud. “Thet Pipline bell, applied to the Conroe as ington county to have her taken Siiles his guardianship. This was done in 1789.” -Jb.

5 Calendar Virginia State Papers, I, 272.

6 Calendar Virginia State Papers, I, 434.

and not of Virginia; and that by virtue of the Revolution the right of the British crown to that country had devolved on the United States. They, therefore, prayed the Congress to erect them into a new State. Arthur Lee boldly asserted that to countenance the petition would be to insult Virginia, and that the document should be referred to Virginia as the only authority competent to act. Madison denounced the claim of the Petitioners as extravagant.

5 Car , expressed the opinion that the question was of such serious import that the sword alone could decide it, and the wish that it might be put off and not be renewed in the time of their children or grandchildren. He about the same time wrote from Congress to Governor Martin, of his State, expressing the hope that the Assembly of that State would turn its ‘attention to the Western Country; those lands are certainly in a critical situation. The spirit of migration prevails to a high degree in these Middle States, and the spirit of making new States is becoming epidemic. It is certain that many of the small States, or at least many of the inhabitants of those States, encourage that spirit. They look with envious eyes on the large States and wish to make us all of pygmy breed. The Assembly of this State [Pennsylvania] have just received accounts that the inhabitants in general over the Alleghany Mountains are disposed to declare themselves independent. ‘There is the utmost reason to believe that the people of Vermont and their abettors in the minor States are endeavoring to persuade the people in general on the western waters to revolt.”

Respecting the petition sent to Congress by Arthur Campbell and his associates early in 1782, or to the Kentucky petition, Williamson was particularly concerned :

“A petition was some time ago handed to Congress, said to be from some people back of Virginia, praying to be erected into a State. . . Utmost attention is required by our State to prevent, if possible, any bad impressions from being made on the citizens of the State on the western waters. The spirit of our government is so moderate and the general disposition of the western inhabitants is so good that our subjects will be among the last to run riot.” 7

The passage of six months did not leave Williamson so confident. He now (June 19, 1783) sought to further clinch the hold of the claimant States on the West by moving to recommend to the States

™ North Carolina State Records, XVI, 459.

GENESIS OF THE FRANKLIN MOVEMENT II to amend the Articles of Confederation so that the affirmative vote of ten (instead of nine) States should be requisite to the admission of a fourteenth State into the Confederation. Bland, of Virginia, seconded the motion. Madison in his notes of the proceedings, made at the time, explains: ‘“The motion had reference to the foreseen creation of the western part of North Carolina into a separate State.’ North Carolina leaders were alert to the situation and desired to forestall consummation.

lontgomery and Washington be so so earmorated: It may have been t Ss rae wise to a off counties in which Colonel Campbell’s influence was not so dominant.

Turner says: ‘There is evidence that Arthur Campbell continued in correspondence with congressional leaders. In the summer of 1783, Jefferson reported that Patrick Henry was ready to restrict Virginia to reasonable boundaries, but that instead of ceding the parts lopped off, he was for laying them off into small republics.” ®