the adoption of Kentucky into the Union.1 In answer, the Senate announced their disposition, "to concur in giving the requisite sanction to the admission of Kentucky as a distinct member of the Union;" and the House, a few days later, declared, "We shall bestow on this important subject the favorable consideration which it merits; and, with the national policy which ought to govern our decision, shall not fail to mingle the affectionate sentiments which are awakened by those expressed in behalf of our fellow citizens of Kentucky." 2

On February 4th, 1791, both branches of the National Legislature fulfilled this pledge,3 and, on June 1, 1792, Kentucky was admitted into the Union of States.4

1 Ibid., XII, p. 13.

2 Marshall, 1824 Ed., I, p. 367.

3 The act admitting Kentucky is printed in "Kentucky Gazette" of March 19, 1791. It was signed by President Washington, on February 4, 1791.

4 Text of Kentucky's first Constitution, Durrett MSS. Reprint, Marshall, 1824 Ed., I, pp. 396-413.

CHAPTER V

HARMAR, WILKINSON AND ST. CLAIR

WHILE Kentucky is adjusting herself to the duties of statehood, and preparing to put her new Constitution into operation, we may pause for a few moments to consider the growth of the District during the long years of conflict for separation from Virginia; for which purpose, and in lieu of official census,' we may conveniently make use of the diary of Major Erkuries Beatty, Paymaster of the Western Army, who saw fit to record his impressions of Kentucky during the year 1786. "In the latter end of the year 1779," he writes, “this whole extent of country only contained one hundred and seventy souls, and now they say there are thirty thousand in it," hastening, however, to add that, in his opinion, this estimate is some five thousand in excess of the truth.

If we may venture to assume that Major Beatty's apparently conservative estimate is approximately accurate, and that Captain John Cowan's conclusions3 of nine years earlier are equally trustworthy, we shall have a basis upon which to figure the rate of growth. Cowan fixed the total population, in 1777, at one hundred and

1 We have a detailed census of Kentucky from 1790 to the present day. See Collins, II, pp. 258-271, for table up to 1870.

2 Durrett MSS., unpublished.

3 When the first court ever held in the region now embraced within the State of Kentucky was convened at Harrodsburg, in September, 1777, Captain John Cowan estimated the total population at 198 souls. Table showing various elements of this population, Collins, II, 606.

ninety-eight; by 1786 it had increased to twenty-five thousand, and, when the first regular census of the District was taken in 1790, it showed a total population of seventythree thousand six hundred and seventy-seven.1 These figures imply that, during the nine years from 1777 to 1786, immigration to Kentucky averaged about two thousand seven hundred a year, and, from 1786 to 1790, twelve thousand a year.2

This vast army of immigrants had begun, long before .1786, to make use of the great Ohio river route into Kentucky, not only because it was safer and more convenient to travel by water, but also because it had become generally known that the richest lands lay in the northern districts, and were more easily reached by the river than by either the old Wilderness Road, or the new road which the Virginia surveyors had opened up over the Cumberland

mountains."

This change of route had not escaped the savages, who, alarmed by the ever increasing white man's invasion of their hunting ground, had so persistently haunted the wooded banks of the Ohio, that, during all those years, scarcely a boat had escaped unmolested.4

1 By the first of June, 1792, when Kentucky was admitted to the Union, her population numbered 100,000 souls.

2 Justin Winsor, in his "Westward Movement," p. 136, mentions these figures with a touch of skepticism. It may be argued that a considerable part of this increase may be accounted for by natural generation, but, to offset this, we have to consider the very large mortality of the District during these years of Indian warfare. In 1790 Judge Innis wrote to the Secretary of War, that the Indians alone had killed 1,500 persons during his seven years of residence in Kentucky. Durrett's "Kentucky Centenary," p. 45; Butler, 1834 Ed., p. 195.

3 Winsor's "Westward Movement,” p. 136. For detailed description of the roads to Kentucky at this early period see Durrett's "Kentucky Centenary, pp. 75-76.

4 Burnett's "Notes on the Northwestern Territory," p. 83.

It had been the evident duty of the State of Virginia to do all in her power to render safe the routes of migration into her western possessions, but she had never been in a position to devote much attention to the matter, and had rather resented the obligation. As soon, therefore, as the new Federal Constitution had been put into operation, Governor Randolph had taken action which was calculated to throw this responsibility upon the National Government. In June, 1789, he had issued, to the county lieutenants of the District of Kentucky, an order,' directing them to discharge all their scouts and rangers, and declaring, "in cases of any future incursions of Indians, you will give as early information of them as possible to the officer commanding the Continental post on the Ohio, nearest the point of attack. I have communicated to the President the instructions now sent you, and have no doubt but effective measures will be taken to protect all the inhabitants of the frontiers."

From the point of view of the Federal Government, it had been necessary for her to accept this duty, both because the new Constitution gave her sole charge of Indian affairs,2 and because the Indian depredations along the Ohio frontier were notoriously the result of the failure of England to remove her troops from the Northwest posts: but from the point of view of the Kentucky people, such a change was a disaster, as the Federal troops along the Ohio were too few to be of any real service in the defence of so large a frontier. The Eighth Assembly upon separation, then in session, had therefore, ventured to turn aside from the specific object for which it had been elected, to enter a

1 Copy of this order, Marshall, 1824 Ed., I, pp. 352-353

2 Section VIII, Clause 3.

spirited protest against this policy,' and to dispatch to the President a complaint of the defenceless condition of the frontiers.

This complaint had been reinforced by a letter from General Arthur St. Clair,2 which declared, "The constant hostilities between the Indians who live upon the river Wabash, and the people of Kentucky, must necessarily be attended with such embarrassing circumstances to the Government of the Western Territory, that I am induced to request you will be pleased to take the matter into consideration, and give me the orders you may think proper.

"It is not to be expected, Sir, that the Kentucky people will or can submit patiently to the cruelties and depredations of the savages-they are in the habit of retaliation, perhaps without attending precisely to the nations from which the injuries are received. They will continue to retaliate, or they will apply to the Governor of the Western Country (through which the Indians must pass to attack them) for redress; if he cannot redress them (and in the present circumstances he cannot), they also will march through that country to redress themselves, and the Government will be laid prostrate.

"The United States on the other hand are at peace with several of the nations; and should the resentment of these

1 Marshall, 1824 Ed., I, p. 353, quotes their resolution appointing a committee, "to draw up and transmit to the executive, a remonstrance on the subject," and "to state to his excellency, the President of Congress, the defenceless state of our frontiers."

2 St. Clair had recently been appointed the first Governor of the Northwest Territory, in payment, it is said, for the support which, as President of Congress, he had given to the Ordinance of 1787. See Winsor's "Critical and Narrative History," VII, p. 539. Full text of letter, "Kentucky Gazette,” January 2, 1790. The letter is dated September 14, 1789.

3 St. Clair had just completed treaties with several Indian tribes within the