| |
On July 5, 1784, Hugh Williamson, a delegate in
Congress, having returned to North Carolina on the adjournment of
that body, wrote to Governor Martin, saying that while he had not
seen the act of cession he was surprised to hear that it contained
no provision for passing the expenses of the State's Indian
expeditions to her credit in account with the Federal Government. He
presumed that the Assembly when it reconsidered this matter, would
suspend the cession; and he called attention to the fact that
certain of the New England States were advancing extraordinary
claims for credit; and he also suggested that North Carolina should
do likewise.1
In the political campaign of the summer of 1784, those who had
opposed cession at the spring meeting of the Assembly made it an
issue, and created much sentiment against the act. William Hooper
confided his troubles to James Iredell, in a letter of July 8th: "I
have absolutely refused to serve in the Assembly again. Butler
doubts. At the close of the session his and my conduct were severely
animadverted upon by a few fools in the county for having patronized
the cession bill—wretches stimulated to it by that prince of fops
and fools, A. M. [Alexander Mebane] whose conduct, Mr. Johnston will
inform you, was highly singular and unbecoming while the bill was in
agitation. . . . All clamor here is at an end. Butler and I may go
if we like. The people only want information to do right."2
Williamson, finding his own views supported, addressed another
letter to the governor on September 30th, in which he discussed at
length state and federal relations, and asked consideration of the
points developed in his earlier communication. He urged that the
State of Georgia, which had rendered comparatively little service in
the war, had obtained by the peace a very extensive territory, and
should cede a part of it. "If we should immediately c0mplete the
cession we shall give up the power of making advantageous terms, and
shall lose the argument which may bring others to adopt federal
measures. . . . The situation is critical. Perhaps it is most
consistent with prudence and sound policy to make a pause. What-ever
shall finally appear to be for the honor and true interest of the
State may be done twelve months hence as well as now."3
This letter was evidently intended to be used in influencing the
action of the Assembly which was soon to convene. How far, if at
all, Williamson was prompted to write so insistently by the fact
that he was interested in land grants within the rich Chickasaw
domain (the present West Tennessee) one may only surmise. The fact
is he held large surveys in that faraway region which could be more
advantageously perfected and preserved should North Carolina retain
jurisdiction over the West.4
Although Virginia and other States had ceded western lands, Georgia
had not. Georgia could of course retort on North Carolina in kind.
The possible loss of making more advantageous terms for North
Carolina was, at any rate, the major incentive for a repeal of the
cession act.
In August, an election was held for assemblymen, and in October, the
Assembly met at New Bern. The people did not approve the cession
act, and the new Assembly was in sympathy with Davie and his
followers. An act of repeal5 was passed by a vote of 37
to 22 in the House of Commons, and by a vote of 19 to II in the
Senate. There was, of course, not a full delegation in the Assembly
from the three western counties which had joined in the forming of
an independent governmental Association. At a comparatively late
date, Alexander Outlaw did appear as a representative from Greene
county.6
The action did not fail to call out vigorous dissent. In the Senate
Gen. Allen Jones entered a protest on the journal signed by himself
and seven others, stating:
(a) "The act of the former Assembly evidently vested an optional
right in Congress, and the repeal is attempted before that body
could accede."
(b) "Political and moral honesty are unvariable and immutable.
We cannot agree in a political capacity to do that which would
dishonor us in a private action."7
In the House of Commons, a protest, drafted by John Hay, presented
by A. Maclaine and signed by twenty members, recited:
(a) The grant by the act of cession is irrevocable on the part of
the State, and therefore the repeal is disgraceful.
(b) We prove ourselves unworthy to receive for North Carolina any
benefits resulting from the liberal cessions by other individual
States.
(c) "During the confusion which must naturally spring from such
situation, the numerous inhabitants resident in the country
contended for may from necessity erect themselves into a distinct
government" and the repeal "may produce confusion and distress to
our brethren westward of the Alleghany mountain."
The champions of repeal were in an unenviable plight on the first
ground, since Davie and his followers had themselves in the protest
filed at the previous cession, taken the position that the cession
as made, was an irrevocable step.8
Both factions were thus in agreement, and of record, on that
construction.
Maclaine further manifested the depth of his resentment by writing
to his friend, George Hooper: "The Assembly have very rapidly and
very disgracefully passed an act to repeal the cession of the
western territory to Congress, which they certainly had no power
do." 9
A member of the Senate, and Alexander Outlaw in the House of
Commons, pending the repeal, introduced a bill to authorize the
creation of a third Carolina by empowering "the inhabitants of the
Western Territory, by and with the consent of this State, to form
themselves into a separate State to be known by the name of West
Carolina, which is reserved to them by the cession of 1784, and to
open a land office to sink the North Carolina specie tickets
occasioned by the late war, and to explain how far that reservation
extends." The bill was rejected. Its introduction was an effort to
make the State the beneficiary of the proceeds of the back lands;
with a new sovereign State created by the State itself. This would
have conformed to Patrick Henry's original contention as to
Virginia's proper action in regard to her western lands—"instead of
ceding the parts lopped off, he is for laying them off into small
republics?"10
Documents of that time11 show that the distance between
the frontier settlements and the seat of government in Eastern
Carolina could be covered by a traveller in twelve or fifteen days;
so it is not improbable that news of the action taken in the August
Convention at Jonesborough had reached the General Assembly and may
accoun for the phraseology of the Maclaine protest. At any rate, it
was thought wise to enact laws that might tend to quiet discontent
and conciliate the over-mountain people. The judicial district of
Morgan was divided and the four western counties "declared to be a
distinct and separate district by the name of Washington."12
An assistant-judge, David Campbell, was appointed to preside over a
superior court in the District, and the militia was formed into a
brigade with John Sevier as brigadier-general.
___________
1 N. C. St. Rec., XVII, 81; also Sioussat, The North
Carolina Cession, 53.
2 McRee's lames Iredell, II,
3 N. C. St. Rec., XVII, 94•4
4 American Historical Magazine, I, 181.
5 Acts 1781, October Session, Chapter 16; N. C. St. Rec.,
XXIV , 678.
6 N. C. St. Rec., XIX, 761.
7 N. C. St. Rec., XIX, 460.
8 Ante, page 26. The soundness of this view has been
demonstrated by many later judicial decisions. If it be premised
that the offer of North Carolina to Congress was either under seal
or based upon a valuable consideration (and that there was a
concurrence of both seems certain) then it was not -within the power
of the offerer to withdraw within the period of one year allowed to
Congress for consideration and acceptance. The offer was irrevocable
within that period. Nor was the right of Congress lost by reason of
the fact that North Carolina repealed the cession act or refused to
perform before Congress could accept and demand performance. If
there had been in existence a court with jurisdiction to pass upon
the rights of the two sovereigns involved, a specific performance
would have been grantable on the prayer of the National Government.
O'Brien vs. Boland, i66 Mass. 481; Pomeroy, Specific Performance,
sec. 169; Waterman on Specific Performance, sec. 200. The courts of
the three jurisdictions concerned have since concurred in holding to
this doctrine.—Richardson vs. Hardwick, 106 U. S. 252; Bryant Timber
Co. vs. Wilson,151 N. C. 154, and Bradford vs. Foster, 87 Tenn. 9.
9 N. C. St. Rec., XVII, 185.
10 Jefferson to Madison, June 17, 1783, Jefferson,
Writings.
11 See letter Joseph Martin to Sevier, Dec. 31, 1784,
Draper Coll., Shelby MSS. XI, 76, later quoted.
12 Acts N. C. 1784, October Session, Chapter 28. |
| |
|
|
