_MIRO, ALIAS “MERO.”_
In November, 1784, the general assembly of North Carolina, at Newbern,
divided the district of Morgan, which had theretofore included all of
the state “west of the mountains,” and erected Washington, Sullivan,
Greene and Davidson counties into a “Superior Court of Law and Equity”
district, by the name of “Washington.” From 1784 to 1788 all of the
territory west of the Cumberland mountains was included in Davidson
and Sumner counties, then the only organized counties in what is now
Middle and West Tennessee. The population of Davidson county had so
increased and extended westward from Nashville by the fall of 1788 that
the general assembly of North Carolina, at Fayetteville, in November of
that year, divided Davidson county by a line “beginning on the Virginia
line now Kentucky, thence south along Sumner county to the dividing
ridge between Cumberland river and Red river, thence westwardly along
said ridge to the head of the main south branch of Sycamore creek,
thence down the said branch to the mouth thereof, thence due south
across Cumberland river to Davidson county line.” All that part of
Davidson county west of this line was erected into a new county, which
was named “Tennessee.” Tennessee county, therefore, included all of
the territory now within the limits of Montgomery, Robertson, Dickson,
Houston and Stewart, and parts of Hickman, Humphreys and Cheatham. The
county seat of Tennessee county was fixed at Clarksville.
By another act of the general assembly of North Carolina, at
Fayetteville, in November, 1788, the counties of Davidson, Sumner and
Tennessee were erected into a new district for the holding of “Superior
Courts of Law and Equity” therein. When this act forming the new
district west of the Cumberland mountains was on its third and final
reading, the Speaker called on the author of the bill for the name with
which the blank left for that purpose was to be filled. James Robertson
and Robert Hays were the members from Davidson, and one of them was the
author of the bill providing for the new district. It is a matter of
history that, in answer to the Speaker’s call for the name of the new
district, James Robertson arose and suggested “Mero.” He evidently gave
the name as it is pronounced, without spelling it for the benefit of
the clerk, and the latter evidently recorded it phonetically; and thus
the name of the new district went upon the official record as “Mero,”
which is the correct pronunciation, instead of “Miro,” which is the
correct orthography. The error, once committed, was perpetuated; and
“Mero” it continued to be, not only in contemporary records and legal
documents, but in subsequent histories.[J]
The name as suggested by Robertson was adopted without open objection.
It is probable that some of the leading spirits in the assembly had
been made acquainted with the motive which prompted the selection of
the name, while others, without any knowledge, opinion or preference,
simply followed the leaders in accepting it. There were, however, some
members who knew some things, but not everything, in connection with
this name; and, on reflection, after the name had been adopted, they
took offence at the selection, and it was discussed, not in the general
assembly, but at the taverns and boarding-houses, with spirit and much
feeling. They said that it was strange and unexampled that the name of
an officer of a foreign government, who was not and had never been in
our service, should be given to a political division of our country
and perpetuated on our public records. They wished to know what this
meant.[K] They knew, they said, that Don Estevan Miro was a colonel
in the Spanish army, that he was also “Governor of Orleans,” and
they had heard that he was a very kind-hearted, agreeable gentleman;
but so were scores of other foreigners, not to mention the names of
the many loyal and distinguished citizens of the United States who
had not been honored with any such mark of popular esteem. Why, said
they, select a Spaniard already very distinguished, and at the very
time when that nation unjustly withholds from us the free navigation
of the Mississippi river, and when this very Don Estevan Miro is the
instrument chosen by the Spanish king and court to guard the waters
and mouth of the Mississippi and exclude us from its use? And this is
not all; why, they continued, should a Spanish official be so honored
during the very same year when Spain was demanding of the Congress that
the United States should relinquish the navigation of the Mississippi
for a period of at least twenty-five years--a measure which, if acceded
to, would completely break up and ruin all of the settlements in
Kentucky and on the Cumberland? Still more, this mark of respect was
shown to a Spanish soldier and governor at a time when the boatmen from
the upper Mississippi, Ohio and Cumberland, if they dared to float
their flatboats down the Mississippi to Natchez or New Orleans with
their tobacco and other products, were subjected by the Spanish to the
most outrageous fines and extortions, in the shape of duties imposed
for the use of a great river, and also to seizure and sometimes to
imprisonment. Last but not least, said they, this very Don Estevan Miro
is at this very time negotiating and intriguing with certain persons
in Kentucky and Cumberland, with a view of coming to terms upon which
Kentucky and the Cumberland country will become part of and submit to
the government of Spain. Truly, it did appear rather cloudy.
These various phases of the subject, and the situation of affairs
at that particular time, gave to the tavern-talkers a wide field
for speculation and conjecture, as well as alarm. The truth is, the
correspondence and communications alleged to have passed between
Governor Miro and certain citizens of Kentucky and the Cumberland
country, about this time, would read rather curiously if offered in
court to vindicate the Kentucky and Cumberland citizens from a charge
of disloyalty to the United States. Col. Robertson, however, said
nothing but “Miro”; and he subsequently demonstrated that he knew what
he was saying.
It is suggested--and this is probably the correct view--that the
main purpose of these persons in Kentucky and Cumberland who were in
correspondence with Governor Miro was, in view of their unanswered
appeals to Congress for help and protection, “if the federal Union
can not give aid and protection to us in life, liberty and property,
and also secure to us the free and peaceable exercise of the right
to navigate the Mississippi river with our products, why then, Spain
having promised all this, we will unite our fortunes with the Spanish.”
They knew that whoever could keep the Indians at peace with them,
and at the same time control New Orleans and the navigation of the
Mississippi, was the absolute arbiter of their destiny, inasmuch as,
without the right to use the Mississippi, there was no market they
could reach with their products.
August 26, 1779, Galvez, then governor civil and military and intendant
of Louisiana, appointed, as third in command in the campaign which he
was about to undertake against the British, Don Estevan Miro, with the
rank of lieutenant-colonel. Congress observed with satisfaction the
rupture between Great Britain and Spain; and, in the fall of 1779,
sent a minister to the Spanish court, with instructions to negotiate a
treaty of alliance, and particularly to insist on the free navigation
of the Mississippi river. To this the court of Spain responded: “We
are disposed to acknowledge the independence of the United States, and
to enter into a treaty of alliance and commerce with you; but if you
wish us to consent to your admission into the great family of nations,
you must subscribe to the right of Spain to the exclusive navigation
of the Mississippi, and consent to our taking possession of both the
Floridas and of all the territory extending from the left bank of
that river to the back settlements of the former British provinces,
according to the proclamation of 1763.” In this proposition, strange as
it may seem, Spain was supported by France; and up to 1788, and indeed
on up to October 27, 1795, Spain did control the Mississippi. On this
latter date, and about six months before Tennessee was admitted into
the Union, after long and tedious negotiations, a treaty was concluded
between the United States and Spain, a part of the fourth article of
which reads as follows: “And his Catholic Majesty has likewise agreed
that the navigation of the said river Mississippi, in its whole breadth
from the source to the ocean, shall be free to only his subjects
and the citizens of the United States, unless he shall extend this
privilege to the subjects of other powers by special convention.” At
the time this treaty was entered into, Governor Miro was in Spain, in
attendance, it has been said, on the court at Madrid. He was then a
lieutenant-general in the Spanish army, and held in great esteem in
Spain, and nothing is more probable than that his counsel and advice on
the subject of the proposed treaty were sought. It was entirely natural
that, when asked for his views, he should remember James Robertson,
Daniel Smith and Robert Hays, the courtesy shown him and the friendly
and respectful treatment which he had received from the inhabitants of
the district named in his honor, and that he should therefore favor the
concession of this right. In the very nature of things, the district of
“Mero,” misspelled though it was, and the circumstances connected with
and surrounding its baptism and the man who was its sponsor, ought to
and must have a place, not only in Tennessee history, but in the true
history of the United States.
The Spaniards, constantly haunted by fear of their restless neighbors
in Kentucky and the Cumberland country, spared no means by which
they might conciliate the Indians. The chief military officer of the
Spanish, writing to the home government, in 1786, concerning Alexander
McGillivray, said: “So long as we shall hold this chief on our side,
we will have a barrier between the Floridas and Georgia. The Indians
are convinced of the ambition of the Americans; past injuries still
dwell in their minds, with the fear that these greedy neighbors may one
day seize upon their lands. It ought to be one of the chief policies
of this government to keep this sentiment alive in the breasts of the
Indians.” Alexander McGillivray was a noted tory during the Revolution,
and had taken refuge after its close among the Creek nation. He was
a man of great courage and intelligence, entertained inveterate
hostility to the whites, and had an insatiable ambition for personal
promotion. He was in the Spanish pay, as agent of that government
among the Indians, had usurped regal authority, and was also chief
of the Talapouches. It is said that he cherished the hope of having
his nation admitted into the federal compact, although he was in the
service of Spain, with the rank of colonel, and was afterward promoted
to be commissary general. This dangerous man was under the absolute
control of Governor Miro in 1788, when the name of the latter was
bestowed by Robertson on the new district. The fact that Miro had
control of the Mississippi river, and at the same time almost absolute
command over the Indians in the south, furnishes, it is believed, the
logical explanation of the motive which prompted Robertson and Hays to
compliment him by giving his name to the newly established judicial
district.
In 1788 Miro was made civil and military governor and intendant of
Louisiana and West Florida. In this year McGillivray wrote him that
two delegates from the district of Cumberland had just visited him
with proposals of peace; that they were in extremities on account of
the incursions of his (McGillivray’s) warriors, and would submit to
whatever conditions he might impose; and, “presuming that it would
please me, they added that they would throw themselves in the arms
of His Majesty as subjects, and that Kentucky and Cumberland are
determined to free themselves from Congress; that they no longer owe
obedience to a power which is incapable of protecting them. They
desired to know my sentiments on the propositions, but as it embraces
important political questions, I thought proper not to divulge my
views.” Miro, commenting on this letter, says:
I consider as extremely interesting the intelligence conveyed to
McGillivray by the deputies on the fermentation existing in Kentucky,
with regard to a separation from the Union. Concerning the proposition
made to McGillivray by the inhabitants of Cumberland to become the
vassals of His Majesty, I have refrained from returning any precise
answer.
McGillivray was no doubt, at the very time he was writing to Miro,
also in the service and pay of the British; for, in April, 1788, in a
letter dated at “Little Tellisee, Upper Creek Nation,” and addressed
to Colonels Anthony Bledsoe and James Robertson, he says, among other
things:
Mr. Hackett arrived here a few Days ago and Delivered me your letter,
together with one from Col. Hawkins. Agreeably to your request I will
be Explicit and Candid in my answer to yours, and will not deny that
my Nation had waged war against your Country for several years past,
but that we had no motives of revenge, nor did it proceed from any
Sense of Injurys Sustained from your people, but being warmly attached
to the British, and being under their Influence, our operations were
directed by them against you in common with other Americans.
The letter from which the foregoing is quoted is of considerable
length. I have seen the original, with two others, and have “true and
perfect copies” of all three.[L] That from which I have quoted above
bears entirely upon the subject of a peace proposed between the Creek
nation and Cumberland in the letter of Colonels Bledsoe and Robertson
to which it is an answer; and there is not one word in McGillivray’s
letter which indicates, even remotely, that Robertson and Bledsoe had
made any such proposition to him as he had communicated to Miro. Col.
Robertson had written him, telling him, among other things, that a
number of the settlers on Cumberland had been killed recently by his
warriors--“among those unfortunate persons,” says Robertson, “were my
third son.”
Further along in McGillivray’s letter to Bledsoe and Robertson,
he says: “I had received his Excel. Governor Caswell’s letter and
Duplicate only a short time before the unlucky affair--so that I
Differred writing an answer until I could be satisfyed in my own mind
that he might Depend on what I should say to him, as I abhor every
Species of Duplicity, I wish not to deceive.” He concludes as follows:
“I have endeavored to make everything as agreeable as my Situation
permits to Messrs. Hackett & Ewing”--which shows that the men named
are the “two delegates from the district of Cumberland” referred to in
his letter to Miro; and these two letters, taken together, show what a
treacherous villain and liar he was, notwithstanding his abhorrence of
“every Species of Duplicity.”
In April, 1789, writing to General Wilkinson of Kentucky, who was his
confederate in the undertaking to separate Kentucky, Miro says:
I have just received two letters, one from Brig. Gen. Daniel Smith,
dated on the 4th of March, and the other from Col. James Robertson,
with date of the 11th of January, both written from the district of
Miro. The bearer, Fagot [Hackett?], a confidential agent of Gen.
Smith, informed me that the inhabitants of Cumberland, or Miro, would
ask North Carolina for an act of separation the following fall, and
that as soon as this should be obtained other delegates would be
sent from Cumberland to New Orleans, with the object of placing that
territory under the domination of His Majesty. I replied to both in
general terms.
On the next day after writing this letter, Governor Miro wrote to Gen.
Daniel Smith and Col. James Robertson, saying, among other things:
The giving of my name to your district has caused me much
satisfaction, and I feel myself highly honored by the compliment. It
increases my desire to contribute to the development of the resources
of that province and the prosperity of its inhabitants. I am extremely
flattered at your proposition to enter into correspondence with me,
and I hope that it will afford me the opportunity to be agreeable to
you.
These letters, messages and communications between Governor Miro and
leading citizens of Miro District are more simple and straightforward
than diplomatic. The reader of this part of our history, however, must
keep in mind the precarious condition of the citizens of the Miro
District at this period: a vast wilderness of more than two hundred
and fifty miles behind them, savage Indians on both sides and the
Spanish in front of them; with their state government and Congress
both so weak that neither was able to extend them the slightest aid or
protection--thus situated, they very naturally turned in the direction
that not only had the power but gave the promise of protection and
assistance. Miro, in acknowledging the compliment conveyed by bestowing
his name on the new court district, said: “It increases my desire to
contribute to the development of the resources of that province and the
prosperity of its inhabitants.” In the year 1790, the Spanish court,
contrary to the advice of Governor Miro, made a formal order levying a
tax or duty of fifteen per cent. on all produce or freight carried down
the Mississippi river. This order so inflamed the people of Kentucky
and Miro District that it had the effect feared by Miro, of practically
breaking off and forever ending further negotiations between him and
the people of Miro District on the subject of the Cumberland country
becoming a Spanish province.
Judge Martin, in his history of Louisiana, says that, at about the
period of time when these letters were passing, there were five
parties in the western country--one in favor of the formation of a
new republic unconnected with the United States, and a close alliance
with Spain; another that wished the western part of the United States
to become a portion of the province of Louisiana and to submit to the
laws of Spain; a third, desirous of war with Spain, an open invasion
of Louisiana and the seizure of the Mississippi and New Orleans; a
fourth, proposing by a show of war to prevail on Congress to extort
from Spain the right to the free navigation of the Mississippi; the
fifth, as unnatural as the second, was to solicit France to procure a
retrocession of Louisiana and to extend her protection to Kentucky and
Cumberland.
The administration of Miro in Louisiana terminated with the year 1791.
In a letter to the Spanish court, written in the previous year, asking
permission to return to Spain, he says: “I have now had the honor of
serving the King, always with distinguished zeal, for thirty years and
three months, of which twenty-one years and eight months in America,
until the state of my health requires my return to Europe.” He returned
to Spain, where he continued his military career, being promoted from
the rank of brigadier to that of lieutenant-general. “He carried with
him,” says Judge Martin, “the good wishes and regrets of the colonies.”
The character of Miro was that of a kind-hearted, benevolent, upright
gentleman. Leprosy prevailed in Louisiana, and one of Miro’s first
acts, on being appointed Governor, was to erect a hospital for the
unfortunate victims of that disease, on a ridge lying between the
Mississippi river and Bayou St. John, which was called “Leper’s Land.”
Instances were related in which Miro would intercede with a creditor to
give further time to an unfortunate debtor, and on failing to obtain
such indulgence, he would satisfy the debt out of his private funds.
In April, 1786, the king of Spain issued a royal order, approving the
course and conduct of Miro, who, in the preceding year, had granted
the former British subjects in Baton Rouge and Natchez, which had been
conquered by the Spanish, ample time to sell their property, collect
their debts and remove their persons and effects.
Don Estevan Miro left his name on the judicial records and reports
of Tennessee, where it remained until November 4, 1809, when, by act
of the general assembly, the state was divided into five judicial
circuits, to which the act affixed numbers instead of names. Miro
District, in addition to Davidson, Sumner and Tennessee counties,
included at one time the counties of Smith, Wilson and Williamson.
When “the territory of the United States of America south of the river
Ohio” was admitted into the Union as the state of Tennessee, the county
of Tennessee, at the first session of the general assembly, by an
act passed April 9, 1796, was divided into Montgomery and Robertson
counties. Thus the “District of Mero” and “Tennessee county” appeared
on and then disappeared from the face of the map and the public records
of the state of Tennessee.
The “Superior Courts of Law and Equity” for the Miro District were held
in Nashville. An act of the first session of the first general assembly
of Tennessee, passed April 22, 1796, recites that the court house, or
the “office of the clerk and master of the District of Mero was lately
destroyed by fire, and the books, records and papers thereof lost,”
etc., and then provides for setting up the records.
While the capital and the state treasury were located at Knoxville,
there was a branch treasury kept in the Miro District at Nashville.
The present chief justice of the United States, Hon. Melville W.
Fuller, in an opinion on the constitutionality of a recent law of the
state of Michigan, providing for the selection of presidential electors
by a vote of each congressional district separately taken, refers to an
act of the general assembly of the state of Tennessee, which appointed
a committee of citizens in the District of Miro and empowered it to
elect presidential electors--the chief justice, as I understand him,
approving both these methods as a compliance with the constitution.
The act referred to is worthy of acquaintance, and I therefore embody
the substance of it in this chapter, as I presume that there are very
few persons familiar with its provisions. The act was passed August 8,
1796, and is as follows:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, that
three electors shall be elected, one in the district of Washington,
one in the district of Hamilton and one in the district of Mero, as
directed by this Act, to elect a president and vice president of the
United States, and that the said electors may be elected with as
little trouble as possible to the citizens.
Sec. 2nd. Be it enacted that John Carter, John Adams, and John
McCollester of the County of Washington; John Rhea, John Spurgeon and
Robert Allison of Sullivan County; Daniel Kennedy, Joseph Hardin and
James Stinson of the county of Greene; and Richard Mitchell, John
Young and Bartlet Marshall of the county of Hawkins, are appointed
electors to elect an elector for that purpose for the district of
Washington; John Adair, Charles McClung and Samuel Flonnagan of the
County of Knox; Andrew Henderson, Josiah Jackson and Christopher Hains
of the County of Jefferson; Samuel McGahey, Josiah Gist, Alexander
Montgomery of the County of Sevier; and Robert Boid, William Lowry
and David Caldwell of Wells Station of the County of Blount, are
appointed electors to elect an elector for the purpose aforesaid for
the district of Hamilton; Thomas Molloy, William Donelson and George
Ridley of the County of Davidson; Kasper Mansco, Edward Douglass and
John Hogan of the County of Sumner; George Nevill senior, Josiah Fort
and Thomas Johnson of the late county of Tennessee, are appointed
electors to elect an elector in the District of Mero, for the purpose
aforesaid.
Sec. 4. The electors in this Act before named shall convene, those for
the District of Washington at Jonesborough, those for the District
of Hamilton at Knoxville, and those for the District of Mero at
Nashville, on the Second Monday of November in the year 1796, and
being so convened, they, or so many of them as shall attend on said
day, proceed to elect by ballot an elector qualified as by this Act
directed, for the purpose aforesaid.
The act further provides that, “if two or more persons shall have the
same number of votes, it shall be decided in the same manner as Grand
Jurors are drawn for, in the Superior Courts”--that is, the names of
such persons as received the same number of votes were to be written on
slips of paper and put into a box or hat; a boy under twelve years of
age then drew out one of the slips, and the person whose name appeared
thereon received the certificate of election.
The electors chosen received certificates of election signed by the
committee, and the three electors thus chosen were directed by the act
to “convene at Knoxville on the first Wednesday in December, 1796, and
proceed to elect a president and vice-president of the United States.”
This act, or method of selecting presidential electors, was re-enacted
by the general assembly of Tennessee, October 26, 1799, for the
presidential election to occur in 1800. I am not aware that this method
of selecting presidential electors was ever adopted by any other state.
This seeming digression from the main subject will be pardoned, in view
of the fact that Chief Justice Fuller, as I understand him, refers to
the act under consideration as applicable only to the Miro District.
The method of choosing presidential electors prescribed in this
act shows how implicitly the people at that time trusted their
representatives, and also the confidence the representatives reposed in
the judgment and patriotism of the citizen, as well as the confidence
which the people then had in the honor and patriotism of each other.
FOOTNOTES:
[J] Haywood, Ramsey, Putnam and Phelan unanimously and
invariably so spell it.
[K] Haywood’s History of Tennessee.
[L] This “big Injun” seems to have written his name as the
fancy struck him. The signature to one of the letters is “McGillivray,”
while the other two are signed “McGilveray.” All are in the same
handwriting, and all are evidently autographic.