kee) Indians." The consideration paid for this great section of Kentucky between the river of that name and the Cumberland, was £10,000 sterling in merchandise. Another treaty in regard to Kentucky, is said by John Filson,* to have been negotiated with the Five Nations, for the country between the Kentucky river, and the great Kenhawa, by Colonel Donaldson of Virginia, in consideration of £500 sterling. All the research which the author has, through the courtesy of the Governor of Kentucky, been able to institute on the subject of these ancient Indian negotiations, remains without an answer. In both these instances, certainly in the first, the legislature invalidated the private purchase in favor of the public domain; and assigned compensation to the individuals, in large cessions of lands. This Indian title was, notwithstanding the subsequent acknowledgment of Virginia, contrary to her own sense of Indian rights, as well as that of the Cherokees; if there has been no mistake in an anecdote told us by judge Haywood in his History of Tennessee. At the treaty of Fort Stanwix, which has so often been unavoidably brought to the reader's attention, the judge says, in 1766, but the author thinks by mistake, some of the Cherokees are said to have attended. They had killed on their route some game for their support; and upon their arrival at the treaty ground, tendered the skins to the Six Nations, saying, "they are yours, we killed them after passing the big river," the name by which they had always designated the Tennessee. In 1769, Dr. Walker and Colonel Lewis were sent as commissioners by Lord Bottetourt, to correct the mistakes of Mr. Stewart, the southern superintendent of Indian affairs, in regard to the Cherokee claims. These gentlemen had long been conversant, says Dr. Franklin, in Indian affairs, and were well acquainted with the actual extent of the Cherokee country. Yet they most positively informed Mr. Stewart, that "the country southward of the Big Kenhawa was never claimed by the Cherokees, and now is the property of the crown,as Sir William Johnson purchased it of the Six Nations, at a very considerable expense; and took a deed of cession from them at Fort Stanwix." Filson's Kentucky, 1793. Such, however, as the title might be, it was purchased, and constituted into the colony of Transylvania, by Col. Henderson and his associates; though subsequently invalidated as respected the grantees, by the government of Virginia. The claims of Col. Henderson & Co. were compromised, by a grant of 200,000 acres of land at the mouth of Green river, by Virginia, and as much in Powel's valley by North Carolina. It was at this treaty, that Daniel Boone was told by an old Indian, who had signed the treaty, taking him by the hand, "brother," says he, "we have given you a fine land, but I believe you will have much trouble in settling it;" words, as events mourfully proved, of most ominous meaning. The troubles of Kentucky have been marked broad and deep in blood; and still deeper in the keen wounds of the heart, which often shew themselves by that consuming grief, which withers up the sources of joy, and at length wears away its victim to the grave. Thus by fair and repeated treaties; first of 1768, with the Six Nations, by which the Indian title to Kentucky, was extinguished as far south as the Tennessee river; secondly, by the treaty with the Shawanees with Lord Dunmore, in 1774; thirdly, by the treaty with the Cherokees in 1775, in consideration of £10,000 sterling, their title was extinguished to that portion of Kentucky, between the river of that name and the Cumberland Mountains and Cumberland river; also, by the treaty of Fort M'Intosh in 1785; confirmed and enlarged by the treaty of Greenville in 1795; and, lastly, by the treaty with the Chickasaws in 1818; all that part of Kentucky west of the Tennessee and south of the Ohio was acquired. Are not these documents, rights and title deeds, which the people of Kentucky may proudly point out to the cavillers against her title? No private proprietor, no freeholder in the land, can exhibit a better connected chain of title to his possessions, than the State of Kentucky can shew to her domain. In this investigation, the author has not thought it within his province, to engage in metaphysical discussions of natural right. He gladly prefers to such unsettled discussions, the authority and practical decisions of the govern * On the Ohio river, near Big Beaver Creek. ment and the high judicial tribunals of his country. Nor have the statesmen and jurists of the United States differed from those of the great European powers on these high questions of social rights and political obligations between them and the Indian tribes on this continent. This relation is forcibly stated in the following extract from the negotiations at Ghent, on the part of the American ministers.* "The Indians residing within the United States, are so far independent, that they live under their own customs, and not under the laws of the United States; that their rights upon the lands where they inhabit, or hunt, are secured to them by boundaries defined in amicable treaties between the United States and themselves; and that wherever these boundaries are varied, it is also by amicable and voluntary treaties, by which they receive from the United States ample compensation for every right they have to the lands ceded to them. They are so far dependent as not to have the right to dispose of their lands to any private persons, nor to any power other than the United States, and to be under their protection alone, and not under that of any other power." This subject is further enlarged as follows: "the United States while intending never to acquire lands from the Indians otherwise than peaceably, and with their free consent, are fully determined in that manner, progressively, and in proportion as their growing population may require, to reclaim from a state of nature, and to bring into cultivation, every portion of the territory contained within their acknowledged boundaries. In thus providing for the support of millions of civilized beings, they will not violate any dictate of justice or humanity, for they will not only give to the few thousand savages scattered over that territory, an ample equivalent for any right they may surrender, but will always leave them the possession of lands more than they can cultivate, and more than adequate to their subsistence, comfort, and enjoyment by cultivation." But the author is not disposed in this deduction of title founded on solemn treaties, such as have from time immemorial governed the relations of political societies, to overlook the valor and * State Papers, vol. ix. 396, 406 . enduring hardihood, by which the rights of Kentucky have been confirmed and sealed in the blood and by the arms of her sons. The right of arms and of conquest are parts of the law of nations; and the people of Kentucky are entitled to their operation, as much as every other body politic. Such indeed, is the uncertain condition of even civilized society, that helpless are the plainest rights of men, which are not supported and vindicated when necessary, by the courage and the manly firmness of their possessors. To the fruits of this courage and endurance of suffering in every appalling form, no portion of the western country. has superior claim to that of Kentucky. She has been the nursing mother of the west, the blood of her children has flowed freely on every battle field; and now, let them and their posterity enjoy the honors so manfully won. CHAPTER II. Policy of the British Government-Proclamation of 1763-Violations of it-Visit of Dr. Walker in 1747-Names the Shawanee river, Cumberland-Visit of John Finley-of Daniel Boone-Long hunters-Visit of Capt. Thomas Bullitt and McAfees--Surveys of Louisville-Simon Kenton-Burning of Hendricks-Adventures of the McAfeesJames Harrod settles Harrodsburg-Battle of Point Pleasant-Treaty of 1774--Treaty of 1775-Settlement of Boonesborough and St. Asaphs-Indian method of siege. The British government seems to have suspected the policy of extending her colonies freely, on this side the Alleganies; though several large grants of land had been made to different land companies.* The proclamation of the king, however, in 1763, expressly prohibited the granting warrants of survey, or passing "patents for any lands beyond the heads or sources of any of the rivers, which fall into the Atlantic Ocean from the west of north-west." But so irresistible is the love of adventure in the early state of society, so irrepressible is its fondness for new and unexplored scenes of enterprise, that as was once said in the senate of the United States, "you might as well inhibit the fish from swimming down the western rivers to the sea, as to prohibit the people from settling on the new lands." * 4th vol. Franklin's Works; Ohio Settlement; Marshall's Colonial History, p. 281. B* The whole history of our country, and particularly of its western section, is an exemplification of this enterprising spirit: nor could tenfold the energies of the British government have repressed this darling passion of society. Accordingly it was found seeking its gratification, by numerous pioneers, who sometimes singly, and at other times in parties, little stronger, considering the fearful odds of enemies and distance, opposed to them, engaged in exploring this new region of the West. No doubt the military conflicts of our countrymen with the French and Indians, in the war of '55, and the distinguished success with which it closed, must have brought many gallant spirits acquainted imperfectly with the country on the lower Ohio; and as far as it was imperfect, so much more would their ardent imaginations enhance its interest, and would their curiosity be stimulated. Indeed, the actual occupation of the country acquired by the peace of 1763, obliged the British officers to pass through the western country to St. Vincents, as Vincennes was then called, to Kaskaskias and Cahokia. Previous to this time, as early as* 1747, Dr. Walker, of Virginia led an exploring party through the north-eastern portion of the State and gave the name of Cumberland, after the "Bloody Duke," of that name, to the present river, formerly called Shawanee river, and likewise Louisa, to the Big Sandy river on the east, a name now confined to one of its upper forks; but which was at first applied to the Kentucky. This party, having unfortunately fallen upon the most mountainous portion of the State, did not effect much, in favor of Kentucky by their report. John Finley, of North Carolina, and his companions, are said by Daniel Boone, to have visited the country, in 1767, without however leaving, it is believed, a trace of their expedition beyond their names; now so briefly, but unavoidably recorded. Two years after the return of Finley, Daniel Boone tells us in his meagre narrative, that "on the first of May,1769, he left his peaceable habitation on the Yadkin River, in North-Carolina," in quest of the country of Kentucky, * Dr Walker so informed John Brown, Esq., of Frankfort. † McAfee and Ray. Composed by John Filson, from the dictation of Boone, in 1784. |