As the non-conformist preachers of Virginia were aggressive men, so were
the early preachers of Kentucky.
In Virginia they fought for religious freedom and social liberty; in
Kentucky William McKendrie, Father Rice and such men fought to preserve
Kentucky to the Union and to embody in her first constitution provisions
to abolish slavery. Some years after she was admitted to the Union, as
militant preachers they used their power of thought, speech and example
to curb a strong anti-federalist sentiment that would have torn her from
the Union upon the issues presented by the Genet Mission, in sympathy
for France against England and Spain; in opposition to Jay's policies
and the Federal alien and sedition laws. The state was strongly
anti-federal; and Jefferson its political idol.
The early citizens of Kentucky, limited in resource for entertainment,
organized in the large towns debating clubs or societies which held
weekly meetings. Debates upon religious and political subjects were
common and popular. It is said, where two or three Kentuckians are
gathered together, there will a speech be made.
Reference has heretofore been made to the political club at Danville,
one of this kind; but such clubs were succeeded by those of
anti-federalist tendencies. In August, 1793, a club of French
sympathizers, known as The Lexington Democratic Society, was organized
at Lexington and others of like character at Paris and Georgetown.
There were several cogent reasons why Kentuckians should sympathize with
France in the war she was then waging with England and Spain. The
American colonies in return for aid in the Revolution had bound
themselves to France in any defensive war she should be forced into with
Great Britain. In addition resentment against the British was at fever
heat, because they continued to hold the forts of the Northwest
Territory despite the treaty of 1783 and the officers in charge of the
forts aided and abetted the Indians to intermittently raid the
settlements of Ohio and Kentucky. Again, Kentuckians desired the United
States to become an ally of France; in which event it would give them
the opportunity to procure by force of arms the free navigation of the
Mississippi; which the Spaniards controlled and hedged about with such
commercial restrictions as to create a bitter hatred in Kentucky against
Spain.
When Washington by proclamation of April 22, 1793, declared this
country's neutrality in the then war in which France was engaged,
Citizen Edmund Charles Genet, the agent in the United States of the new
French Republic, did everything in his power to excite opposition
against the federal government, by organizing political clubs in
communities where French sympathy was strong, and his agents were most
successful in Kentucky.
Seeing the hopelessness of procuring direct aid from the United States
he concentrated his efforts in an attempt to excite Kentucky and the
western country into making a river attack upon New Orleans, thus hoping
to force war between Spain and the United States.
In November, 1793, five of his agents came to Kentucky. They conferred
with General George Rogers Clark and prevailed upon him to accept a
French commission as "Major General of the armies of France and
Commander in Chief of the Revolutionary Legions of the Mississippi."
General Clark issued a proclamation to the effect that each person
participating in the planned expedition against New Orleans should
receive a great boundary of land in payment for his services, or, if he
preferred it, be paid one dollar a day; and that all should share in the
plunder taken. His reputation was such and the scheme so enticing that
many volunteered.
The Kentucky Gazette, a Lexington paper, on October 12, 1793, declared
editorially:
"How long will America submit to the operation of paying a heavy
degrading tribute to a Spanish officer for a license (in his power even
to deny) to proceed to sea with their vessels and produce and under
restrictions of making such vessels Spanish bottoms * * *? If they wish
to export their produce they must not only make use of the most humble
solicitations but they are compelled besides to pay a very high duty for
the permission of sailing out of the Mississippi under the colors of a
foreign nation at war with our allies. How degrading such restrictions!
How humiliating to an American!"
In the same issue appeared certain resolutions of the Lexington
Democratic Society: "* * * Resolved that the free and undisturbed use
and navigation of the river, Mississippi, is the natural right of the
Citizens of this Commonwealth; and is inalienable except with the soil;
and that neither time, tyranny nor prescription on the one side nor
acquiescence, weakness or non-use on the other can ever sanctify the
abuse of this right."
Again this society on November 11, 1793, published in the Gazette an
address giving its plan for forcing this issue: "* * * It will be proper
to make an attempt in a peaceable manner to go with an American bottom
properly registered and cleared into the sea through the channel of the
Mississippi, that we may either procure an immediate acknowledgment of
our right from the Spaniards or if they obstruct us in the enjoyment of
that right, that we may be able to lay before the Federal Government
such unequivocal proofs of their having done so, that they will be
compelled to say whether they will abandon or protect the inhabitants of
the Western Country."
The reply of Governor Shelby to a communication of Secretary of State
Jefferson as to the matter, indicates sympathy with the movement. In
part he says: "I have grave doubts even if they attempt to carry this
plan into execution (provided they manage the business with prudence)
whether there is any legal authority to restrain or to punish them, at
least before they have actually accomplished it. For if it is lawful for
any one citizen of this state to leave it, it is equally as lawful for
any number of them to do it. It is also lawful for them to carry with
them any quantity of ammunition, provisions and arms. And if the act is
lawful in itself there is nothing but the intention with which it is
done which can make it unlawful. But I know of no law which inflicts a
punishment upon intention only or any criterion by which to decide what
would be sufficient evidence of that intention * * much less would I
assume power to exercise it against men whom I consider as friends and
brothers, in favor of a man whom I view as an enemy and a tyrant. I
shall also feel but little inclined to take an active part in punishing
or restraining my fellow citizens for a supposed intention only to
gratify or remove the fears of the minister of a prince who openly
withholds from us an invaluable right and who secretly instigates
against us a most savage and cruel enemy."
On March 24, 1794, President Washington issued a proclamation: "Whereas
I have received information that certain persons in violation of the
laws have presumed, under color of a foreign authority, to enlist
citizens of the United States and others within the State of Kentucky;
and have there assembled an armed force for the purpose of invading and
plundering the territory of a nation at peace with the said United
States, * * * I have, therefore, thought proper to issue this
proclamation, hereby solemnly warning every person not authorized by the
laws, against enlisting any citizen or citizens of the United States for
the purpose aforesaid or proceeding in any manner to the execution
thereof as they will answer the same at their peril."
About this time the Girondists lost control of the French Government.
Citizen Genet was recalled and his acts repudiated. Believing that if he
returned he would be guillotined, he went to New York, where he
established his domicile, married the daughter of Governor Clinton and
remained until his death in 1836.
The failure of the Genet Mission did not close the old controversy so
vital to the Western Country--the control of the commerce of the
Mississippi.
In Kentucky, no man has ever been so unpopular as John Jay. This feeling
originated in 1785 because of his proposition to concede to Spain
absolute control of the Mississippi river for twenty-five years for
certain concessions which would only benefit the Atlantic coast states.
James Monroe, referring to this suggestion in a letter written to
Governor Henry of Virginia, said: "The object of this is to break up the
settlements on the western waters * * * so as to throw the weight of the
population eastward and keep it there, to appropriate the vacant lands
in New York and Massachusetts."
Jay in 1794 was appointed as an envoy to England for the purpose of
negotiating a treaty between that country and the United States.
Relations were strained because of British aggression against our
commerce in retaliation for very open sympathy for France and a belief
that a secret treaty existed between France and the United States.
While he was yet on the ocean, a great meeting was held at Lexington, on
May 24, 1794, protesting against his appointment and mission and the
following resolution was adopted and published:
"* * * That the inhabitants west of the Appalachian Mountains are
entitled by nature and by stipulation to the free and undisturbed
navigation of the river Mississippi.
"That we have a right to expect and demand that Spain should be
compelled immediately to acknowledge our right or that an end be put to
all negotiations on that subject.
"That the injuries and insults done and offered by Great Britain to
America call loudly for redress and that we will to the utmost of our
abilities support the General Government in any attempt to obtain
redress.
"That the recent appointment of the enemy of the Western Country to
negotiate with that nation and the tame submission of the General
Government, when we alone were injured by Great Britain, make it highly
necessary that we should at this time state our just demands to the
President and Congress. * * *"
Jay succeeded in his mission; a treaty was made, followed in May, 1796,
by the surrender of the British forts in the Northwest Territory; which
finally relieved Kentucky from British accessorial influence in the
Indian aggressions.
In 1795, Governor Carondelet, of Louisiana, renewed the efforts
instituted by Miro and Wilkinson to separate Kentucky from the Union. As
Wilkinson at the time was a general in the United States army and no
longer a resident of Kentucky, his chief agent in Kentucky was Judge
Sebastian. Carondelet's agents soon discovered that the people of
Kentucky no longer cared to surrender their interest in the Union in
exchange for Spanish commercial privileges.
On October 25, 1795, a treaty was entered into between Spain and the
United States by Article IV of which it was stipulated that: "His
Catholic Majesty has likewise agreed that the navigation of the said
river in its whole breadth from its source to the ocean shall be free
only to his subjects and the citizens of the United States unless he
should extend this privilege to the subjects of other powers by special
convention." On August 2, 1796, this treaty became operative by
presidential proclamation.
So far as known, after the adoption of the treaty, Spain made no effort
to procure the withdrawal of Kentucky from the Union until 1797. Then
Governor Carondelet's agent, Thomas Power, came to Kentucky with a
letter to Sebastian in which it was suggested that Kentucky was "* * *
to withdraw from the federal union and form an independent western
government."
After Power had conferred with Judge Sebastian he visited Wilkinson, at
the time a major general in the United States army and stationed at
Detroit. Wilkinson was much put out by the visit and told Power he had
been instructed to arrest him. He did not do this but sent him under
guard to Fort Massac, from which point he was permitted to go to New
Madrid and from there returned to New Orleans.
Power reported to Carondelet that Wilkinson received him ungraciously
and said: "We are both lost without deriving any benefit from your
journey. * * * The project is chimerical, as the western country has
obtained by the treaty of 1795 all she wants. Spain had best abide by
the treaty which has overturned all my plans and rendered ten years'
labor useless."
As is known, the Jay treaty came very near causing war between France
and the United States. Many Kentuckians felt that France had good reason
for declaring war. Her charge against this government was that by the
concessions made to Great Britain, America had disregarded her
commercial and defensive allegiance with France.
----
From the organization of the Union Virginia, and, after Kentucky was
carved from it, Kentucky were anti-federal states, championing state
rights and declaring in no uncertain terms that the Federal Government
was a creature of the states.
The Federal Government and the State of Kentucky kept close watch upon
each other; the State jealously guarding her rights and the Federal
Government ever suspicious of the separatist spirit of Kentucky; though
a reference by vote of the people would have disclosed that only a small
though influential minority advocated such a policy.
Just preceding the passage by Congress of the alien and sedition laws,
political conditions in Kentucky were such as to at last make the
Federal Government popular. Indian outrages had been suppressed; free
navigation of the Mississippi had been procured; the British forts of
the Northwest had been surrendered; but a storm of protest against the
centralizing tendencies of the government swept Kentucky upon the
enactment of these laws; though their purpose was to curb the
anti-federalist spirit.
They thought but little of the alien law, providing for the expulsion of
foreigners, but were greatly incensed at the sedition statute which made
it a high misdemeanor to abuse the president or congress. Their protest
was not evidence of sedition but a well developed sensitiveness against
the danger of over-government.
They contended, the object of the Revolution had been to secure local
government and in recognition of this purpose, the convention had
refrained from providing means whereby the states could be coerced into
submission.
As a counter attack the Kentucky legislature passed certain resolutions
in which there was an element of sedition; but the resolutions were
justified by the alien and sedition laws.
Mr. Jefferson is chargeable with the authorship of the Kentucky
resolutions. At a conference held at Monticello, he was asked to and
drafted the resolutions, which somewhat modified were presented by Mr.
Breckenridge to the Kentucky Legislature on November 8, and adopted
November 10, with but one dissenting vote, Mr. Murray, in the House, and
unanimously by the Senate.
The resolution charged Congress with usurpation of power in enacting the
Alien and Sedition laws and defined and declared for state rights: to
the effect that when a state deemed a federal law unconstitutional or
oppressive, if Congress refused to repeal it, the state had the right to
declare it inoperative within her boundaries and to protect her citizens
against penalty for its violation.
Virginia was the only other state siding with Kentucky in the
controversy, which it did by milder resolutions.
These resolutions gave birth to the new Democratic party and raised a
great political question, state rights, which for more than three score
years, continued a national issue.
The alien law fixed the period of residence before naturalization at
fourteen years and gave to the president power to expel all aliens whom
he judged dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.
The sedition act, in the face of constitutional provisions guaranteeing
freedom of speech and of the press, made it a crime "for any person
unlawfully to combine and conspire to oppose or impede any governmental
measure or to intimidate any person holding a public office or to incite
insurrection, riot or unlawful assembly or to print or publish any
false, scandalous and malicious writing against the Government or either
house of congress or the president with intent to defame them or bring
them into contempt or disrepute or to excite against them hatred of the
good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition or with intent
to excite any unlawful combination therein for opposing or resisting any
law--or to aid, abet or encourage any hostile design of any foreign
nation against the United States."
Mr. Jefferson, called the father of the new Democratic Party, wrote Mr.
S. T. Mason: "For my part I consider these laws as only an experiment on
the American mind, to see how far it will bear an avowed violation of
the constitution. If this goes down, we shall immediately see attempted
another Act of Congress, declaring that the President shall continue in
office during life, reserving to another occasion the transfer of the
succession to his heirs, and the establishment of the Senate for life *
* *"
Many speeches were made in the summer and fall of 1798 to arouse and
organize sentiment against these laws. As Kentucky was in sympathy with
France and anti-federalist in politics the sentiment against the laws
was almost unanimous.
A great Democratic meeting was held at Lexington and was addressed by
George Nicholas. More than a thousand men were assembled around the
wagon from which he spoke.
Reverend Calvin Campbell, who at the time was assisting Father Rice in a
protracted meeting at the Presbyterian Church, stood on the sidewalk
within convenient distance of the speaker and appeared greatly
interested in the speech, though he did not agree with what Mr. Nicholas
had to say. His experiences with Wilkinson and his dupes and accomplices
had made of him an ardent supporter of the Federal Union.
Nicholas, who was instructor in the law department of Transylvania
University, was a very able lawyer, a logical debater, a man of good
character and fine attainments. His speech impressed all his hearers. He
dwelt at length upon the great debt the United States owed to France;
assailed the Jay treaty as a most selfish policy and the desertion of
the truest ally a country ever had; and finally congress for having
usurped power and disregarded the constitution by the enactment of the
alien and sedition laws.
Yet Calvin Campbell felt that the speaker knew that it was the duty of
every Kentuckian to stand by his government even in her mistakes and as
a matter of policy it was all Kentucky could do. He felt sure that such
a lawyer as Nicholas knew that if each state reserved to itself power to
say what laws of congress it would or would not regard, that the Union
must of necessity fail and Kentucky end by surrendering her liberty to
decadent Spain for a mess of pottage.
He felt that he could answer every argument made by Nicholas, and in
such a way as to gain his hearers from him; and wondered if others were
affected as he had been: Though he acknowledged the strength of the
speaker's argument, instead of being persuaded, his sense of opposition
had been accentuated.
The crowd was beginning to disperse when several began calling for Henry
Clay. In answer to these calls, a tall, slender and delicate looking
young man, little more than twenty-one, climbed into the wagon and began
to speak.
For several minutes, the majority of the crowd hesitated whether to go
or remain. The speaker had an excellent voice, an earnest manner and,
they soon found out, something to say and knew how to say it. He spoke
upon the sole theme of federal usurpation and his speech was so
remarkably good, his manner so earnest and the impression he made so
unexpected that his hearers were captivated and convinced. Even Calvin
Campbell felt his opposition disintegrating. The arguments his mind had
framed against what Nicholas had said seemed losing their potency; not
so much by what the speaker said as by the magnetic way in which he said
it. He seemed to put into words the thoughts of your own mind. Yet
Calvin Campbell after he recovered from the influence, said to himself:
"That speech would not read well," and this impression was confirmed
when in later years he read many speeches of the Great Commoner.
When Clay finished there was a moment of absolute silence, then a great
burst of applause.
First Mr. Murray, then Mr. McLean, Federalists, attempted to respond but
the people would not hear them. Mr. McLean said something that incensed
the crowd. In a high state of excitement many rushed at him and he would
have suffered bodily harm had not Nicholas, Clay and Calvin Campbell
prevented it.
The two Democratic speakers were lifted first upon the shoulders of
several of the crowd, then into the wagon from which they had spoken and
drawn at the head of a very noisy procession through the streets of
Lexington.
The week that Nicholas and Clay spoke in Lexington, only one voice was
raised in support of the Union; and that was at the Presbyterian Church,
where Calvin Campbell, reading as the Scripture Lesson Matthew 22:15-22
and Romans 13:1-10, preached on citizenship: "Render therefore to all
their dues, custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom
honor."
The Kentucky Gazette published a notice of and summary of the sermon, in
which it was said:
"The editor never misses an opportunity to hear Rev. Calvin Campbell. On
Sunday he spoke on 'Citizenship' to a great crowd at the Presbyterian
Church.
"I know of no man who can as quickly transform a partisan Democrat into
a Federalist. At least, all of Sunday afternoon after his sermon, I felt
it my duty to support the present federal administration.
"The first thought when you hear him is: 'What a great statesman he
would make,' then your better judgment suggests, 'He is better placed
for service; he is doing greater work; he is the ambassador of Christ
and I believe, lives up to his credentials.'
"It is regrettable the whole city did not hear that sermon; it would
have created a fairer spirit towards the federal government, and each
who heard to question: 'Am I as a citizen responsible for the very
things I condemn in the government.'
"I quote the beginning of the sermon:
"'A. D. 30, Rome was master of Jerusalem; the city had a Roman governor,
but the Sanhedrin ruled the temple, which to the Jew was the seat of
government; and Rome was too wise to interfere with the religions of her
conquered people.
"'The priesthood discover that the glory of the temple is being
eclipsed; that their religious domination is being questioned; and by
whom? A Nazarene--the son of a carpenter--a mere upstart; who claims to
be and is beginning to be acclaimed the Messiah.
"'At a most inopportune time, when the city is filled with Jews from
every corner of the civilized world, he enters as a king and multitudes
going before cry: 'Hosanna to the Son of David.' When business is best
he cleanses the temple and curtails revenues; and even now stands before
the multitude and by forceful parables which all understand, condemn
their organization and question their authority; they, the fathers of
the church, the real head of the nation.
"'Something must be done and speedily. The Sanhedrin is hastily called
in executive session to sit in judgment--to pass sentence of death.
"'Annas, feeble, old, hard, proud, resentful of Roman power and secret
head of and real ruler of the Theocracy, says: "But we have not the
power to put him to death."
"'His son-in-law, Caiaphas, he who plays the part of sycophant to
Pilate, and is supposed by the Governor to be the High Priest, answers:
"We will make Rome our instrument; we will expose him as a revolutionist
and as guilty of sedition and Pilate will crucify him." And so Christ of
a truth in that day was a revolutionist, but of character not of
government.
"'As they sat discussing means towards this end, the doorkeeper reported
that certain Herodians were without and desired to speak with Caiaphas.
"'"What can these Romanized Jews, these members of the Court Party,
these worshippers of expediency, who say that it is lawful to pay
tribute to Caesar, wish with me? or of us? We are patriots and devotees
of our Theocracy. We despise Rome and Roman power and in loathing and
with curses and in resentment, pay a head tax to Caesar. * * * Ah! I
have the plan! We will send certain of our lesser priests with the
Herodians to this teacher of false doctrine and have them say: 'Master,
we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth;
neither carest thou for any man, for thou regarded not the person of
men. Tell us therefore what thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute
unto Caesar or not?' And this Jesus swallowing our bait of flattery, let
as hope shall answer: 'It is not lawful;' then these limbs of Satan, the
Herodians, will report him to Pilate. If he answers: 'It is lawful,' it
will not be so bad for our cause; since we will spread his answer among
our people, who will no longer listen to his teachings, knowing he is
not in truth a Jew. He perforce must answer the one or the other way."
"'The plan of Caiaphas is adopted. Pharisees and Herodians, implacable
enemies, as incongruent a group of conspirators, as a combination of
orange and shamrock in a St. Patrick day procession, uniting for this
purpose, come to Jesus on Tuesday of Passion Week as he stands on a
porch of the temple; and propound to the Lord their question: "Is it
lawful to pay tribute to Caesar?"
"'"Hand me a penny;" (doubtless not possessing one) and holding it up
asked: "Whose this image and superscription?"
"'"Caesar's."
"'"Render therefore to Caesar the things which are Caesar's and to God
the things that are God's."
"'Knowing that all knew the right to coin and to tax are attributes of
sovereignty; or as Paul puts it: "The powers that be are ordained of
God--render therefore to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is
due."
"'Towards God and the State, maintain separate relations and render a
separated allegiance; and to each obedience, and reverence; and to the
latter a conscientious citizenship. These are guiding principles; true
in all times, for all governments--and when disregarded cost misery and
bloodshed.
"'Church as well as state has tried to do away with this separated
allegiance. The medieval church, assuming the province of temporal
sovereign, trampled underfoot the laws and the people and made of itself
the most tyrannous and grasping government of history. They taxed the
people to starvation for the crusades, to maintain the church fathers in
affluence, to build great cathedrals, not for the glory of God; but as
palaces to advertise the power of the church. The Pilgrim Fathers, who
in their narrowness and bigotry persecuted Baptists and Quakers, were no
better citizens than the churchmen of Colonial Virginia who denied to
non-conformists the right to worship God as conscience dictated.
Possibly they were no better Christians, since neither understood in
full measure the commandment: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
"'Are you a follower of Christ and not a supporter of the Union?
Impossible! A good Christian must be a good citizen; he must render unto
Caesar, unto the Union, his allegiance.
"'While all Christians are good citizens not all good citizens are
Christians. Are you a politician devoted to Caesar? A better citizen
than Christian? Then balance conscience with citizenship and render unto
God yourself; if for no other reason, because you bear his image; as a
coin from his mint.
"'The parties of today come to the voter with a great question and
attempt to make it a quibble, as the Pharisees and Herodians came to
Christ * * *'
"At this point the writer became so interested at the argument Calvin
Campbell was making in support of the infant Union and as yet untried
constitution; asking that we give to the Federal Government an honest,
patient opportunity to make good, that he neglected to take notes.
"In any event further space is impossible in this issue. Perhaps some
day papers may grow in size from a single sheet giving in the main local
news, to great journals offering a medium of education towards better
citizenship."