in the Cumberland section outside of the Indian territory. The commissioners agreed to remove a few families who had gone within the Indian bounds but those who had settled between French Broad and Holston were too numerous for them to agree positively to their removal. This was a source of discontent to the Indians. They said there were 3,000 of these settlers and noted their disposition to encroach still further on their preserves. They maintained that they had never sold the land and that the settlers were there in defiance of their protest. On the other hand the whites were angry because any favors had been shown the Indians and because there were not further curtailment of their territory.*

But the boundaries thus fixed by the treaty of Hopewell "were the most favorable it was possible to obtain from the latter [Cherokees] without regard to previous purchases and pretended purchases made by private individuals and others. Although the Indians yielded an extensive territory to the United States, yet, on the other hand, the latter conceded to the Cherokees a considerable extent of territory that had already been purchased from them by private individuals or associations, though by methods of more than doubtful legality."

Reference is had here to the treaties made by the State of

*Some of the writers whom I have consulted represent the views of the whites only, and we find the treaty denounced and misinterpreted. Putnam, Middle Tennessee, 239, warps the seventh article, which, as the context clearly shows, was intended to put the power of punishing offenders against the Indians into the hands of the States, when he says it clothed the savages" with judicial and executive powers of a startling character." Gilmore, either too indifferent or too careless of the truth to go to the original record, copies Putnam instead and even forgets to mention that clause of the treaty which refers the case of the settlers on the French Broad tract to Congress. John Sevier, 61-63; See American State papers, Indian Affairs, 1, 38-52; Indian Treaties of United States to 1837. The three treaties were ratified by Congress April 17, 1786. It may be of interest for these gentlemen to know also that in the treaty signed by William Blount with the Cherokees in 1791 and in the treaty signed by Knox in 1794 the article in regard to felonies was not altered and the one in regard to trespassing still reads: "If any citizen of the United States, or other person not being an Indian, shall settle on any of the Cherokee's lands, such person shall forfeit the protection of the United States, and the Cherokee's may punish him or not as they please."-American State Papers, Indian Affairs, I, 124.

+Charles C. Royce: "The Cherokee Nation of Indians" in report of Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-'84, pp. 152, 153 et seq. See also Ramsey's Tenn., 463, 499.

S. Mis. 104- -29

Franklin in 1785 with a part of the young men of the Cherokees. The old Cherokees declined to come because they heard that the 13 States were to hold a treaty with them, the young men present admitted their inability to treat and declined to do so but agreed to refer the case of the intruders to their headmen (see p-). The intruders remained on the land and served as a basis for further aggressions. Many entries had been made of this land and settlement made on it. These parties even claimed that the State had actually purchased it of them. Gen. Martin writes Governor Henry that North Carolina had treated for no lands since 1777.*

There were many purchases by private parties, but neither North Carolina nor the Confederation recognized them as binding just as they had refused to recognize the treaties of the so-called Franklin State.

But trespasses continued and the Indians met the coming settlers by constant pilfering. In 1788 the trespassing had become so unbearable that on September 1 of that year Congress by proclamation forbade all such unwarrantable intrusions and warned those who had settled in the territory, except those between French Broad and Holston, to depart; at the same time the Secretary of War directed that a sufficient body of troops be in readiness to march from the Ohio for the protection of the Cherokees "whenever Congress shall direct the same. On the 7th of July, 1789, the Secretary remarked: "The disgraceful violation of the treaty of Hopewell, with the Cherokees, requires the serious consideration of Congress. If so direct and manifest contempt of the authority of the United States be suffered with impunity, it will be in vain to attempt to extend the arm of government to the frontiers. The Indian tribes can have no faith in such imbecile promises, and the lawless whites will ridicule a government which shall, on paper only, make Indian treaties and regulate Indian boundaries."+

Trouble was also caused by the anomalous position of North Carolina which was not then in the federal union. "The Commissioners for negotiating with the Southern Indians may be instructed to transmit a message to the Cherokees, stating to them, as far as may be proper, the difficulty arising from the local claims of North Carolina, and to assure them that the

*Life of Henry. There is certainly no evidence that North Carolina had purchased any land of the Cherokees.

† American State Papers, Indian Affairs, 1., 53; Royce, 160-161.

United States are not unmindful of the treaty of Hopewell; and as soon as the difficulties which are at present opposed to the measure shall be removed the Government will do full justice to the Cherokees."* North Carolina adopted the Federal Constitution in 1789, and this trouble was relieved. In August, 1790, Washington is still speaking of carrying into effect the terms of the treaty of Hopewell.

But treaties, remarks, and proclamations were alike in vain. It was an effort, with justice on its side, to stem that flood of Englishry which has since come to dominate the New World. Justice they did not have; power and the capacity for improvement they did have. The white intruder is ordered off Indian lands with as little effect to-day, and the inferior man, be he Indian or negro, will eventually go down in this struggle. The fittest survive.

XV-THE STATE OF FRANKLIN.

In 1784 the division between North Carolina and that part of her territory west of the mountains became more and more marked. The East delayed to discharge debts incurred in carrying on Indian wars, was slow in providing for their defense, and the organization of the courts was not sufficient to meet the requirements of justice. The West complained of these inadequate provisions and the East retorted with the extravagance of the West. In April, 1784, this territory was ceded to the Confederation. The settlers, no longer under the government of the State and not yet under the Confederation, determined to set up for themselves. This they did, beginning with a convention in Jonesboro in August, 1784. They formally declared their independence of North Carolina, organized a government of their own, and called themselves Franklin. Martin was a member of the August convention. He was on the committee to take into consideration the state of public affairs, including the question of the cession by North Carolina. He opposed the scheme of a separate government from the first. He does not appear to have voted on the question of independence of North Carolina, nor was he a member of the second convention of the State of Franklin.t

American State Papers, Indian Affairs, 1, 53; Royce, 55.

+ See Ramsey's Tenn., 282-288, for the account of the organization, with names, etc.; also Haywood, Chap. vi.

When this secession became known to North Carolina her assembly repealed the act of cession, established a superior court for the four Tennessee counties,* appointed an assistant judge and an attorney-general, formed them into a military district, and made Sevier a brigadier-general. This prompt redressing of wrongs satisfied many, including Sevier, who advised the people to proceed no further in their separation. But in spite of this the more radical held a convention, organized a government, and elected John Sevier governor. He accepted this office and became the only governor of the State of Franklin. ‡ The organization of the State of Franklin was not directed

The Tennessee counties were erected as follows: Washington in 1777, Sulivan, 1779, Greene and Davidson, 1783.

Ramsey: Tennessee, 220.

Ibid., 282, et seq., Mr. James R. Gilmore, in his hero-worshipping book, "John Sevier as a Commonwealth Builder," does great injustice to Martin. He says (p. 56) that Martin "had been one of the earliest and most active promoters of the new State; but somehow, when it came to be organized, he had, much to his chagrin, found himself, like Tipton, without any official position whatever." This statement is entirely wrong. Ramsey says, 342, that Martin was an officer of the State of Franklin. He probably alludes to his membership in the convention of August, 1784. Col. Campbell says he was "at his own solicitation" chosen a member of the Privy Council (Cal. Va. State Papers, IV, 31). Martin says he was elected without his consent, and we know that he refused to serve. "Col. Campbell made use of many arguments to draw me over to that party, by saying he wondered I would not Join them, as it would be much to my Interest, as I had a body of Valuable Lands in powell's Valley; that as soon as the new State would take place I might have a county Laid off there and the court-house on my Land, and convenient to the Seat of Government. My reply to him was, that as long as I appeared in public character, I did not look altogether at private Interest" (Ibid., IV, 54). He also writes to Governor Caswell under date of September 19, 1785: “I find myself under some concern, in reading that part wherein I am considered a member of the new State. I beg leave to assure your Excellency that I have no part with them, but consider myself under your immediate direction, as agent of the State of North Carolina until the Assembly shall direct otherwise." (Ramsey's Tenn., 318.) In Henry's Life of Patrick Henry we find a letter to Martin, written October 4, 1786, giving an extensive exposition of the reasons why Franklin should be abandoned. The two men were great friends, and this letter doubtless did much to strengthen his view, but Martin's mind was made up before this, as we have seen. In a letter to Governor Randolph in 1788 Gen. Martin announces the dissolution of the State and intimates that it had been done largely through his influence (Cal. Va. State Papers, IV, 452). Governor Henry was of the opinion that the State of Franklin was due to Spanish intrigues.

against North Carolina alone, but Virginia as well. Col. Arthur Campbell was anxious to secure the secession of Washington and Montgomery counties, Virginia, and their union with Franklin; but Sevier, the soul of the Franklin movement, was not so inclined. He writes to Henry, July 19, 1785: "Although we have been forced into measures for separating from Carolina, I think it necessary to inform you that we will on no account encourage any part of the people of your State to join us, nor will we receive any of them unless by consent of your State. We reverence the Virginians, and I am confident the legislature here will at all times do everything to merit their esteem."*

But, although the government of Franklin was established, there was not union among the people, nor did the State of North Carolina yield her claims of jurisdiction over the territory. There were rival courts and rival sets of officers, who browbeat each other and took possession of the public records by turns, while others, noting the steady intrusion of the whites, foreboded a new Indian war. †

Col. Martin writes from Chota, September 19, 1785, to Governor Henry; "The people in the new State are much divided: several of their members refused at their last assembly to take seats. They have attempted to get representatives from these towns [Cherokee], I suppose, to augment their numbers, as they might have a representative in Congress; but that attempt was baffled."‡

The influence of Martin is indicated by the position of Sullivan County in which he resided. Sullivan and Hawkins were for the old State, Washington for the new. The history of Franklin is the history of the Southern Confederacy in miniature-a house divided against itself can not stand. Finally, the conciliatory attitude of North Carolina and her promise to make a new State as soon as the people were ready for it gave the State of Franklin a fatal blow.§ In 1787 we find Col. Martin a representative from Sullivan County in the assembly of North Carolina. This assembly appointed him brigadiergeneral of the North Carolina militia in the western or Washington district. His commission dates from December 15, 1787. This put him at the head of the military in Tennessee. In this

*

Calendar Virginia State Papers, IV, 43. + Ramsey: Tennessee, 359.

Calendar Virginia State Papers, IV, 53.

Ramsey: Tennessee, 369. || Ibid, 389.