Indiana Magazine of History

INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY

VOLUMEXXV DECEMBER, 1929 NUMBER4

The Burr Conspiracy In Indiana* By ISAACJ. Cox Indiana in the days of the Burr Conspiracy embraced a much larger area than today-at least technically. It extended westward from the boundary of the recently-created state of Ohio to the Mississippi. The white settlements within this area were, it is true, few and scattering. The occasional clearings within the forests were almost wholly occupied by Indians slowly receding before the advance of a civilization that was too powerful for them. But sparse as was the popu- lation of the frontier territory when first created, its infini- tesimal average per square mile had been greatly lowered in 1804, for Congress had bestowed upon its governor the administration of that part of Louisiana that lay above the thirty-third parallel. As thus constituted, it was a region of boundless aspira- tions-a fitting stage for two distinguished travelers who journeyed through it the following year. Within its extended confines near the mouth of the Ohio lay Fort Massac, where in June, '1805, Burr held his mysterious interview with Wilkinson,' and also the cluster of French settlements from which William Morrison, the year before, had attempted to open trading relations with Santa Fe2-a project in which Wilkinson was to follow him. It was here that Willrinson, the second of this sinister pair, received from his predecessor a letter warning him against political factions in his new jurisdiction.a By this act Governor Harrison emphasized not only his own personal experiences, but also the essential connection of the area with Hoosierdom.

* This paper was read before the Vincennea meeting of the MissisRippi Valley Histod- aal Association on April 26, 1929. Walter F. McCaleb The Aarm Burr Conepitmu (New York, 1008) 26 27. I. J. cox, The Early Ezploration of LouieioM (Cincinnati, 1906). '117; 118. Amencan State Papers, Mrsc&meoue, I. 258 Indiana Magazine of Histmy

But we are not concerned here with what happened in St. Louis and nearby settlements, tumultuous as the local situation proved to be for its new governor-general; nor yet with Fort Massac, occasional center in more than one suggestive event of early westward movement. They represent other phases of the conspiracy of less immediate local interest. Our main purpose is to consider some phases of the canal project, that, in 1805, popular surmise associated with Burr’s mysterious western journey, and to determine, if possible, just how close this association really was. Then we may take up in some detail the fortunes of Davis Floyd, Burr’s chief agent in Indiana. These topics, it will be noted, are restricted pretty definitely to the confines of the present state. Traffic on the Ohio was broken, at a low stage of water, by the rapids or “Falls” that mark its half-way point. From the very first these proved an obstruction that in economic importance ranked second only to the Spaniards at the mouth of the Mississippi. The latter were to be removed by the acquisition of Louisiana. The Falls still remained; but the agitation that had been instrumental in forcing the opening of the Mississippi might, as some Westerners believed, be equally potent against this natural barrier. James Findlay, mer- chant and perennial office holder of Cincinnati, was of this belief. Writing in January, 1804, to Senator Thomas Worth- ington, of Ohio, he thus expresses himself: I expect before this time we have peaceful possession of Orleans. Now one thing more and we may be as wealthy as we are free, that is making the falls of Ohio navigable at low water.4

We have no indication how Worthington reacted to this suggestion, but measures were already in train to realize its purpose. Two methods were under discussion-to remove the obstruction or to get around it. The engineering diffi- culties of the former seemed insuperable and even if the rapids should be opened, the local effects might prove dis- appointing if not disastrous. The construction of a canal around the barrier appeared more feasible. Those interests that profited from the break in navigation would of course, oppose the enterprise and such opponents included conceiv- ably a largz part of the people of Louisville. Indeed it was

‘“Selections from the Torrence Papers”. V, in Quarterly Publiwtion of the Historid md Philosophical Son‘ety of Ohio, IV, 106. Cox: The Burr Conspiracy in Indiana 25C this opposition that helped delay the project and gave rise to a rival one on the northern side of the river. The initial impulse for forming the Indiana Canal Com- pany seems to have come from General Benjamin Hovey, already distinguished as a land speculator in the state of New York. Like many other easterners of the period he had not neglected the offerings of the western wilderness. The Falls afforded a definite spot where private gain might coincide with public good. This double service, however, should be based on a substantial land grant and presupposed action by the national government. Accordingly in the fall of 1804, General Hovey appeared in the Federal City armed with letters in favor of his scheme. One of them bore the signatures of Davis Floyd and of Samuel Gwathmey, of Jeff6rsonville ; another that of Jared Mans- field, surveyor of Ohio. His most enthusiastic testimonial, however, came from General James Wilkinson. The last named wrote, indeed, out of a long experience. For twenty years he had resided in the region and speculated in its mani- fold offerings; but he had not learned thereby to avoid further risky ventures. His letter of January 15, 1805, enlarged upon the prospective revenue from tolls, provided these were kept at a reasonable figure, and claimed that the commercial possibilities opened up by the canal might in some measure neutralize the “destructive waste of timber” then going on. Thus he became a surprisingly early but ineffectual apostle of conservation. He rightly predicted that the building of ocean going vessels on the banks of the Ohio would soon cease but the proposed canal might in turn build up a considerable traffic along the mid-course of the river. Fortified by these letters Hovey and his associates on January, 17, 1805, petitioned Congress for a grant of 25,000 acres of land in Indiana or a preemption on 100,000 acres, or other suitable “encouragement”. They based their plea for this donation on the benefits which the construction of the canal would bring upon all western undertakings, including the sale of public lands. In a separate letter Hovey asked for favorable terms, if given the preemption instead of a grant, and for the privilege of disposing of the lands in small parcels. In the Senate the petition was referred to a committee made up of Dayton of New Jersey, Brown of Kentucky, and The petition. letters, etc.. are printed in the Laerty Hall and Cincinwti Mercuru, Tuesday, March 12, 180.5. Cf. also Pplladium (Frankfort, Ky.), March 25, 1806, and Dur- rett Papers (MSS.. University of Chicago). 260 Indiana Magazine of History

Smith of Ohio.5 The personnel suggests hand picking. Day- ton was a well known land speculator whose name still lives on the scene of his activities. More than a year before Smith of Ohio had mentioned in a personal letter a plan for re- moving the obstruction at the falls and had pointed out the possibility that Congress might make an appropriation for that purpose.6 Brown came from Kentucky, where naturally one would anticipate opposition, but in a matter of such public (and private) utility, state lines might well disappear. So far Aaron Burr has not been mentioned in connection with the enterprise. He was, it is true, the presiding officer of the Senate; but the vice-president did not appoint its com- mittees. This one, like all the others, was elected by the Senate as a whole. We may well believe that in its selection Burr was not without his influence. * Its members were friends of long standing, who shared in the project. Its chief promoter came from the state of New York, likewise the scene of Burr’s political, professional, and speculative activities. Further than this we can only say that in the keeping of this committee Hovey’s petition was not likely to suffer hardship. Such, indeed, was the tenor of its report on January 25, 1805. The document mentioned the utility of the project for the entire country as well as its value for the West. To emphasize this utility, Dayton added further assurances based on his personal observations. The associates, however, were not yet incorporated, so the committee forbore further expression of opinion until that step should be taken.? Possibly we are justified in regarding this delay as a check to the enterprise. But if so, its promoters were unde- terred. Three days later, on January 28, they held a public meeting at Stelle’s Tavern, of which General John Patterson, a congressman from New York, was made chairman and James Glover secretary. General Hovey presented his report favoring a canal on the Indiana, rather than the Kentucky side, and a committee consisting of Patterson, Wilkinson and himself, was appointed to petition the Indiana Legislature for a charter. Another associate from New York, Dr. Daniel Stephens, moved that Hovey should at once give his personal

6 John Smith to James Findlay. December 24. 1805, Findley Papers (MSS., Hidoriea‘ and Philosophical Society of Ohio, Cincinnati). 7 Palladium. December 28, 1806. Cox: The Burr Conspiracy in Indiana 261 attention to securing this charter. The expense connected with this preliminary step should be apportioned among the associates but was not to exceed $300 apiece. Hovey, Steph- ens, William Croghan, Daniel Hudson, and Davis Floyd were constituted a temporary board of directors with Samuel Gwathmey as temporary treasurer. Glover as secretary of the meeting was to notify absentees of its action and also bring the scheme to the attention of such others as he should think proper.8 Burr was possibly to be numbered among these absentees. His friendship as well as his temperament would lead him to connect himself with the undertaking and his contemporaries regarded him as an associate. During this time, however, personal affairs carried him to Philadelphia. He left for that city on January 16, just before the petition of the Company was presented to the Senate, and wrote his daughter that he should return on the 29th. His next published letter to her is dated in Washington on January 28.9 So he could have attended the meeting at Stelle’s had he wished, but he may have preferred to keep his connection, if any, a secret one. Burr, it may be remarked parenthetically, had gone to Philadelphia on a double mission. He sought to have quashed the indictment standing against him in New Jersey for the killing of Hamilton. For that purpose he bore letters from influential members of Congress and others asking Governor Bloomfield to exert himself in Burr’s favor.10 Perhaps he thought he could bring more pressure on the New Jersey executive from Philadelphia than from Washington. In addition, as he confessed to his daughter, he wished once for all to determine his standing with “Celeste”, a name used by him to designate a lady of attractive face, family, and fortune, to whom for some years he had paid assiduous but in- termittent attentions. In this double quest involving both head and heart he was unsuccessful. Apparently he could neither relieve the one nor soothe the other. The indictment still stood between him and the property in New York that he hoped to salvage from political and professional wreck. Furthermore we may also believe that it prevented him from raising loans in behalf of his forthcoming projects, whether they beckoned him to

8 Liberty HaU and Cincinnati Merouru, March 12, 1806. ‘Matthew L. Davis, Memoirs of Aaron Burr (New York, 1836), 11. 554. ‘OIbiCL, 353. 262 Indiana Magazine of HGtory

Mexico or merely to the Falls of the Ohio. As for his love affair, he wrote Theodosia that it was “forever cloSed”,ll and so we may leave it and turn our attention to more prosaic land deals and canal projects. But even in these material affairs, granted that he was actively interested, fortune continued to fail him. This was hardly due to his absence from Washington at this juncture, for his open connection with the undertaking would have been of doubtful utility. His close friends occupied strategic po- sitions in Congress, yet their combined efforts proved un- availing. That body turned down the proposal either for a definite grant or a possible preemption. The associates must turn westward and bring pressure to bear on the newly created legislature in Indiana Territory. This may have been one of the purposes that led Burr beyond the $ountains, although two years before he had re- corded his intention to go thither. His main idea, we may be sure, was to explore the approaches to Mexico, but while determining the most favorable highway to this glittering goal, he need not despise such wayside helps as political preferment, land speculalion, or industrial development. These subsidiary operations might aid his plan or at least serve to conceal it from too inquisitive officials. Concealment was important, pending a break with Spain. Shortly after the Eighth Congress closed its session, Burr started on his enigmatic western hegira. Arriving at Pitts- burg at the end of April and not finding there his anticipated companion, Wilkinson, he proceeded at once down the Ohio. On May 11 he reached Cincinnati, where during his stop of a day, Senator John Smith was his host. Here he also en- countered Dayton, who had preceded him.l* The ex-Senator, for Dayton, like Burr, was now out of office, had already written to a subordinate in the War Office that the associates expected an act of incorporation from the Indiana Legislature, which was to meet for the first time in June, 1805. All then seemed favorable to the project and the response from his correspondent was equally encouraging. But after Burr’s brief halt, during which he, Dayton, and Smith had a chance to discuss their mutual interests, and after the advent of Wilkinson, for that worthy shortly followed Burr, the associ-

11 Ibid.. 366. * Ibid., 868, 369. Cox: The Burr Conspiracy in Indiana 263 ates, now near the scene of activity, evidently determined to postpone operations. On June 2, Dayton informed his eastern correspondent that no further arrangements would be under- taken that year. Measures would be resumed, however, when he returned to the East.la If the associates for reasons of policy had determined to proceed more cautiously, the western press did not follow suit. The Kentucky newspapers still “presumed” that Burr’s visit was “confined to that object,” that is, the construction of a canal. His own course at his next stop, Louisville, con- firms this inference. From that place, on May 19, he dropped a brief note to Wilkinson: Before you touch the Kentucky shore in this vicinity see and converse with Joseph Davis at Jeffersonville. Your friends are appre- hensive that something is meditated against your personal convenience. Verb. Sat.14

Burr in this note is referring to Thomas T. Davis, a former Kentcukian, who was of one of the three judges in Indi- ana Territory.I6 Wilkinson later stated that the warning “alludes to an intention to arrest General Wilkinson on a false claim of debt.”16 We may also believe that Burr sounded Davis about the canal project, which now had a rival chartered by the Kentucky Legislature. He may have mentioned the invasion of Mexico, the enterprise for which Davis Floyd was later tried as an accomplice. Either on this occasion, or more likely in the following year, the distinguished traveler showed Judge Davis a letter from the Secretary of War to the effect that Burr’s plan, whatever it was, had the approval of the g0vernrnent.l‘ Burr himself, according to later testimony, spent some time in reconnoitering the Falls. Jared Brooks, the engineer for the Kentucky company, reported that he conversed with

1s E. Bacon, Chairman, Report of the Committee to inquire into the oondwt of Gen- eral W‘ilkinson, February 26. 1811 (Washington), 496-498, 601. 14 Burr’s Conspiracy Exposed: and General Wilkinson Vindicated, etc. (Washington, 1811), appendix, 6. This portion of a preliminary publication was evidently intend d to be included in Memoirs of General Wilkinson, 11, but it is not in the second volume of the later three-volume work. Cf. for a somewhat different reading, Wilkinson’s Memoirs, I1 (Philadelphia, 1816). Appx. LXIX, and E. Bacon, Report of Cimmittee, etc., 108. 1sA letter from Thomas T. Davis, dated at Staunton, Virginia. May 21, 1800, to the editor of the Impartial Observer (Natcha, Miss.), appearing in that paper July 12, 1800, reports the probable election of Jefferson and other news from the seat of govcrnm nt. Notice of the appointment of Davis as judge in Indiana Territory, “vice W. Clarke de- ceased”, appears in the Zndepdent Gazetteer (Lexington. Ky.) , March 29, 1803. In 1806, Governor William H. Harrison made Davis also “Chancellor” of the Territory. See PaUadium, March 20, 1806. m Burr‘s Conspiracy Exposed, eb, Appx.. 6. See note 48, below. 264 Indiana Magazine of History

him at length on proposals to improve navigation there. After the serious charge of treason was brought against Burr, however, Brooks thought that the other’s inquiries about a possible canal and his later proposals to establish a colony on the Washita were both used as blinds to hide his separatist in- trigues and that the Falls was one point where he proposed to rally his followers.18 Davis Floyd did in fact gather his contingent there. We need not follow Burr’s movements below the Ohio. Suffice it to say that in Frankfort, John Brown, one of the canal associates and now also an ex-Senator was his host. After brief visits in Lexington and Nashville, during which reports became current that he was no longer interested in the canal project,lD Burr floated down the Cumberland River and shortly afterwards met the dilatory Wilkinson at Fort Massac. He was once more within the jurisdiction of Indi- ana, but his movements henceforth confirm the rumor that he was no longer interested merely in digging canals. Wilkinson whose “sanguine temperament” had led him into the enterprise was likewise looking for other sources of gain and of glory. As we have noted above, he halted at Cin- cinnati to consult with Smith and Dayton. At Clarksville some days later he interviewed Hovey and began once more to talk about the canal and the riches that it would bring to its promoters. One of his subalterns warned him that Hovey, whose reputation was none too good, “might take them all in”.2o Nevertheless the project went forward. Governor Harrison, on June 29, summoned the legislative assembly to select a delegate to Congress. It met at Vincennes on Mon- day, July 29, and chose Pierre Menard as president, pro tem- pore, of the Legislative Council, Benjamin Chambers as its permanent president, and Jesse B. Thomas as speaker of the House.21 It was this assembly that passed the law creating the “Indiana Canal Company,” capitalized at 20,000 shares of $50 each. Twelve directors were named to have charge of its affairs until the first Monday of the following May. They were empowered to take possession of land up to 100 acres and to use the stone, timber, gravel, etc., necessary to con- struct the project and to cross other properties and build - 18 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Mercury. February 25, 1808. 19 Palladium, June 1, 1805. * E. Bacon, Report of Committee, eto.. 606, 606. a Pdhdiztm, Ausust 17, 1805. Cox: The Burr Conspiracy in Indiana 265 bridges with the customary payment of damages agreed upon ; they could receive donations of land and increase their capital stock; they were exempt from taxes and assessments. These were the ordinary provisions of the charter of a joint stock company, but according to the eighteenth section of the law they were also empowered to “invest any part of the capital and profits in the public debt of the United States or of any state or in the stock of any monied institution, or may employ the same in commercial operations, or in any other mentioned transactions not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the United States or the laws of this territory and for the sole benefit of the said company.” Article 19 of the law empowered the directors, after ac- cumulating $100,000 in gold and silver or the value thereof in lands, to issue promissory notes. The value of these notes, however, according to Article 20, was not to exceed double the cash in funds or These three articles reveal the real purpose of the act. At any rate the canal was never dug but the associates, instead, set up a bank of issue. Their opponents charged that this was the real purpose from the start, and that its promoters would be enabled to sell their lands at a profit and to issue paper money at will and in this way to swindle the people out of a few hundred thousand dollars. Some even professed to see in this corporation a scheme by which Burr and Wilkinson were to secure funds for the wider purposes of their conspira~y.~~ The General is not named among the incorporators, but Burr’s name is there.24 That leads us to suspect the active but covert participation of both from the start. Moreover the provisions of the act that led to the establishment of the bank betray Burr’s handiwork. A few years before, while a member of the New York assembly, he had procured the passage of a charter for the Manhattan Company, a corporation that was created ostensibly to supply New York with pure water.25 The earlier company never busied itself with water, unless in connection with its stock, nor did its Indiana fellow. Incidentally the wily projector of the hse profited little or nothing from either scheme.

* Laws of Indiana Territory (1801-1806), 55-58. The entire ha cover6 fifteen pageg * PaUudium, November 18. 1806 . %The names of the first directors are: George R. Clark, John Brown, Jonathan Dayton, A. Burr. B. Hovey, Davis Floyd, Josiah. SteDhens, Wllliun Croghsn, Samuel Gwath- rney. John Harrison, Marston 0. Clark, and Samuel Vance. 5M. L. Davis, Memoirs of Aarm Burr, I, 113-417. 266 Indiana Magazine of History

Shortly after the incorporation of the Indiana company, Burr returned from New Orleans and journeyed through the southern part of the territory to St. Louis. Here he passed several days in mysterious converse with Wilkinson.26 Then he proceeded to Vincennes bearing an urgent request, almost a command from Wilkinson to Harrison that the latter should send Burr to Congress from Indiana. The ex-Vice President reported that Harrison showed him every evidence of good will but he “had no conversation on the subject you mentioned,” and he added: “Governor Harrison, with whom I am more and more pleased ,will tell you of a letter I have received from Dayton. This Harrison is fit for other thing^."^' It was the privilege of the American people, a generation later, to confirm Burr’s opinion. That worthy, however, did not have the presidency in mind when he wrote. He prob- ably rated the territorial executive as a good prospect for service in Mexico. What he meant by the reference to Dayton we cannot tell. Possibly it was the errant canal project. But he continued his journey eastward without disclosing further activity in its behalf. The opponents of the newly chartered enterprise were not equally considerate. Kentucky it seems had been threatened with a similar corporation. An act to incorporate an insurance company, passed in 1802, had also authorized the establishment of a bank. After exciting discussion in the fall of 1805, the act was repealed over the Governor’s veto.as While the controversy was on, those who favored the repeal also turned their fire on Hovey’s project, as sponsored by Burr, Wilkinson, Brown, et al. They contended that the northern bank of the river was less suitable as a canal site than the other and characterized the whole scheme as a speculative measure, whose promotors might possibly cut a mill race but who really aimed to set up a commercial and banking house. These promoters, they asserted, planned to pay for their stock in lands, sell out for cash and thus realize a good price for their real estate holdings. It had been reported that Yankee capital was engaged in the enterprise. Judging from

z6 W. F. McCaleb, The Aaron Burr Conspiracv, 34 ; American Stabe Papers, Misc., I, 571-679. 21 Burr’s Conspiracy Exposed, Appx., 2, 5. Palladium, November 25, December 9, 16. 1806. Cox: The Burr Conspiracy in Indiana 267

such Yankee specimens as were already in the country they augured no great advantage from this In answer to this attack four directors of the Indiana Com- pany signed a statement repudiating the charge that the major part of the subscriptions were in lands. Most of the $200,000 of capital stock had been subscribed in Louisville, and not a cent of that subscription was in real estate. Those directing the company, they explained, had quickly come to the conclusion that there was not enough ready money in the ‘ Western Country for such an undertaking and as it was a matter of importance both to the East and the West, they had opened subscriptions in the eastern cities as well. In turn they expressed their regret that those who were behind the rival Kentucky canal had not better informed themselves about their task, so as to carry it out to ad~antage.~~ The controversy over the canals was mixed up with the struggle to repeal the Insurance Act. A correspondent styl- ing himself “A Yankee” charged that the legislature of Ken- tucky by repealing this act, had cast doubt on all contracts with that body, so the promoters had to go elsewhere.s1 In reply, “A Kentuckian,” later identified as Fortunatus Crosby, pointed out that the repeal of the Insurance Act in the fall of 1806 could not possibly have influenced Hovey and his associates a year before. The real reason that led them to seek a charter from Indiana was that they expected more favorable terms there than in an older state like Kentucky and the event proved that they were right. The controversy readily became personal. Statements of Hovey were matched by opinions of Jared Brooks, engineer for the Ohio Canal Company, the Kentucky corporation. When “Yankee” quotes Wilkinson, “Kentuckian” laments that the other is so imprudent as to undertake a defense of the General. Brown and Burr also came in for “Kentuckian’s” censure. The method of introducing their bill into Congress was reprehensible. It was not fitting, he thought, for the Vice President, who was personally interested, to appoint as members of the committee those who were to profit from it. Brown’s course was still more censurable, for he was working against the interests of his own

m Ibid., November 18. 1806. 80 Ibid.. December 9, 1806. ax Ibid. aIbi&, December 16, 1805. 268 Indiana Magazine of History

Burr was too far away to answer his detractor; nor is it likely that he would have broken his customary silence had he been in a position to make reply. Brown however was spurred to protest against “Kentuckian’s” insinuations. He claimed that he was not associated with Hovey’s projects while a member of the Senate. After Congress adjourned and he became a private citizen he felt at liberty to engage in an enterprise of such public service and private emolument, but to the moment of writing he had only advanced $260- his share toward the expense of making the survey and ob- taining the charter. He pointed out that the committee in question was not appointed by the Vice President, but by the Senate as a whole and asserted that corruption did not ac- company that appointment unless his critic thought the entire Senate corrupt. Brown accompanied his disclaimer with an affidavit of Hovey to the same effect, and a quotation from Dayton’s official report mentioning the general importance of the project.88 “Kentuckian” retorted that his charges were based on statements by Hovey, on whom Brown also relied for justifi- cation. He professed to be anxious to give the ex-senator a chance to explain the transa~tion.~~A few days later Brown learned who his traducer was and called on him for satisfac- tory proofs that he had bartered away the interests of his constituents, and defied him to show an instance of such be- trayal in his whole twenty years of public service.36 The other countered by asking for a few weeks indulgence when the proofs would be forthcoming. He still persisted in his contention that speculation had chiefly inspired the suspected associates and that this purpose, not yet denied, was currently believed .3e Finding his critic indisposed to accept the testimony already submitted, Brown on April 10, 1806 published statements from General Wilkinson that he hoped would remove every doubt. “From the great respectability of General Wilkinson’s character,” he wrote, “the unequivocal testimony he has given in my favor cannot fail to remove any suspicions and misrepresentations from the misuse of my name.” Wilkinson stated that he had accidently met Hovey in Novem-

ea Ibid., December 25, 1806. Ibid., January 2. 1806.. ‘“Ibid., January 9, 1806. a8 Ibid., February 20, 1806. Cox: The Burr Conspiracy in Indiana 269 ber, 1804, at the home of Secretary Dearborn of the War De- partment. As a result of this chance meeting, he was induced to write a letter commending the canal project. He then had no knowledge of any other ; was interested in the development of the western country; and later, “owing to the seductions of his sanguine temperament” agreed to take “some concern” in the canal and also to interest Brown in it-after Congress should adjourn. Later Wilkinson’s “public engagements” made his withdrawal expedient and now he had no interest or col- lateral in the canal and offered this declaration to exonerate himself .87 It is doubtful if these published statements fulfilled Brown’s expectations. The subsequent history of the Indiana Canal Company, conformed too closely to the predictions of its opponents; it became the banking corporation that they prophesied and that alone. When a score of years later, a canal flanked the obtrusive falls, it was located on the Ken- tucky side. Few promoters of the other project regained political favor.a* Neither Brown nor Dayton reentered public life, while their speculative associates, Burr and Wilkinson, tasted the very dregs of public disapproval. This, however, was the result of further developments in which Indiana’s chief victim was Davis Floyd. We have already noted Floyd’s connection with the Canal Company. He states that he first met Burr at Jeffersonville, in 1805, at the home of Judge Thomas T. Davis, and that he saw Burr frequently in Washington during thte following winter. On the passage of the “Two Million Act,” Burr told him that he could settle the boundaries of the United States for half that sum.88 By this he doubtless meant that his project for invading Mexico could be carried out for less than a million dollars. Late in the winter of 1806 Floyd bore a letter from Burr to Edward W. Tupper of Marietta, who had offered his services in case of a war with Spain, and a gift of books on military tactics accompanied the missive.4o From these activities, as emphasized in subsequent disclosures, we may infer that Floyd knew in substance Burr’s plans to invade Mexico. Even so, he had the others assurance that nothing was in- tended against the Government, but that on the contrary, the

Zbid.. April 10, 1809. See note 24, above. ca Wilkinson Papers, IV, 129 (MSS.. Chicago Historical Society). * Quarterly Publieath of the HiaWd and Philosophical Society of Ohio, IX. 16. 270 Indiana Magazine of Histmy

cabinet officers knew of his views and that they were to be kept secret because it would cost the United States less to take Mexico by surprise. These statements were further confirmed when in the late summer of 1806 Burr came West a second time. He then showed Floyd and William Prince of Vincennes, another prospective associate, a letter purporting to come from the Secretary of War, that implied approval of his course. This letter, which was also shown to Judge Davis, apparently convinced all three that Burr’s intentions were h~norable.~’ This visit was made to Jeffersonville in September, 1806. Immediately thereafter Floyd sounded one David Fisk about taking part in a proposed settlement on the Wa~hita.~~Burr was already negotiating with a Colonel Charles Lynch for the so-called Bastrop Grant on that river and shortly made a substantial payment on his p~rchase.*~We may regard this transaction as a mere modification of Burr’s original purpose, made necessary by the prospect of continued peace with Spain. If successful he would find himself in a few months on the Louisi- ana frontier at the head of several score of vigorous young men who might serve him as colonists or form the nucleus of a force to invade Mexico. Floyd, at least, heartily accepted the role now prepared for him and was reputed to be the “quarter- master general” for the widely heralded but dubious enterprise. As such he was successful in enlisting some thirty recruits before the expedition started. Floyd next figured in the first hearing of Burr before a federal jury at Frankfort. Joseph Hamilton Daveiss, the district attorney, evidently hoping to discomfit his political enemies and possibily to compromise the President, endeavor- ed to fix upon Burr the charge of setting on foot an expedition against Mexico. He was unable to press the charge largely, as he claimed, because of the absence of Davis Floyd, his chief witness. The latter was then attending the sessions of the Indiana Legislature, and as Daveiss asserted was his “principal witness as to stores and supplies engaged and en- gaging.”44 A few days after this fiasco Burr was at Louisville and

41 Waller Taylor to [President Jefferaonl, September 16, 1807, in “Bixby Collection” (MSS.. Missouri Historical Society, St. Louis). American State Papers, Miac., I, 624. W. F. McCaleb. The Burr Conspiracy, 83-86. Qumterlv Publication of the Historical and Philosophicd Societv of Ohio, XII, 99 ; Gf. also. McCsleb. Burr Conspiracv, chap. VII. Cox: The Burr Conspiracy in Indiana 271 then Floyd and William Prince, evidently perturbed by the hearing and by the alarming rumors afloat, showed reluct- ance to follow him. Prince, indeed, told him that if he could convince Governor Harrison that his views were legal they would no longer object to going with him.46 On October 24, Burr had written Harrison, just as he had previously written Andrew Jackson, when news came to the Ohio Valley that the Spaniards were invading Orleans Territory, urging him to get his militia in readiness for a war with Spain. Now upon the prompting of his two agents and perhaps, too, because he heard that he was for a second time to be arraigned before a grand jury at Frankfort, he wrote this vigorous disclaimer : Considering the various and extravagant reports which circulate concerning me, it may not be unsatisfactory to you to be informed (and to you there can be no better source of information than myself) that I have no wish or design to attempt a separation of the union, that I have had no connection with any foreign power or government, that I never meditated the introduction of any foreign power or influence into the United States, or any parts of its territories, but on the contrary should repel with indignation any proposition or measure having that ten- dency; in fine, that I have no project or views hostile to the interests or tranquility or union of the United States, or prejudicial to its government; and I pledge you my honor for the truth of this declaration. It is true that I am engaged in an extensive speculation, and that with me are associated some of your intimate and dearest friends. The objects are such as every man of honor and every good citizen must approve. They have been communicated to several of the principal officers of the government, particularly to one high in the confidence of the administration. He has assured me my views would be grateful to the administration. Indeed, from the nature of them it cannot be otherwise, and 11have no doubt of having received your active support, if a personal communication with you could have been had. Accident and in- dispensable occupations have prevented me from visiting you for the purpose. This explanation seemed due to the frankness of your character and your responsible station, to my own feelings ,and to the attachment with which your kindness and confidence had influenced me. If I have ascribed to you a solicitude you have not felt, you will impute it to the great value I place on your esteem, and I pray that you will always believe me to be your faithful and affectionate friend.46

He seemingly convinced the Governor and at least one of his wavering followers. Floyd continued to busy himself in preparations for Burr’s reputed colony on the Washita. One of the prospective colonists, Robert Pryor of Sheppardsville,

4s See note 41, above. D. Clark, Proofs of the Corruption of Geneml James Wilkinson, APDX.,5, 9. 272 Indiana Magazine of History

Kentucky, later testified that he was hired by Floyd, together with several others, at $12.50 per month and a bonus of 160 acres of land at the end of a year’s service. He was also to receive provisions and clothing for the period of service. The last item was regarded by his interrogator as an unprecedent- ed allowance in Kentucky for a white man in civil service. Pryor was hired on the eighth or ninth of December and left Louisville on the twelfth. He testified that there were twenty-four men in Floyd’s boat and that they had “arms enough for them all and perhaps more.” Another states that he saw no farming utensils, while several note the absence of women and children among the After uniting with the contingent under Comfort Tyler and Harman Blen- nerhassett, which had been forced suddenly to leave its ren- dezvous on the upper Ohio, and after having joined the two boats brought down the Cumberland by Burr, the combined flotilla consisted of nine boats manned by some sixty men.48 Of these Floyd was credited with three boats and thirty men. Floyd and his fellow “officers” played a prominent part in the pitiful drama that followed. One witness credits him with telling some of his men, before they reached the mouth of the Ohio, that they were going to take Baton Rouge and Mexico. When asked how they were going to do it with so few men, Floyd assured the witness that a large party would unite with them at Natchez and that at the mouth of the Red River Wil- kinson would join them with his ~rmy.~*aFloyd, if correctly reported, was evidently trying to keep up the courage of his men. Burr almady knew, before he left Tennessee, that Wil- kinson had made a truce with the Spaniards and that as a result there was little prospect of immediate war with them. He may have thought it good policy, however, to let his followers discuss the taking of Baton Rouge, a widely advertbed feat a Harry Toulmin, “Memorandum of depositions taken in the town of Washington in the Mississippi Territory relative to the conduct of Colonel Burr”, in Papers of James Madison, XXX, 22391C (MSS.). Other testimony gives $10 and $12 a mon:h as the com- pensation and six months as the period of service. Cf. American State Papers, Misc., I, 463, 466, 476. December 16 is mentioned a8 the day of departure (ibid., 477). There are some references to a chest of muskets with bayonets, extra pistols and other firearms in Floyd’s boat (ibid., 466, 417). and these weapons, it is claimed, were later cast overboard or hidden in the woods, when the boats were searched in Mississippi Territory. A purchase by Burr of bar iron, hoes, mattocks is noted. Floyd had earlier considered this purchase (ibid., 467). MMcCaleb, Burr Conspiracv, 266. One witness ~utathe number on hearsay at 103 (American State Papers. Miac., I, 477). Another reporta the boat in which he journeyed as containlng “Floyd. Ralston and about fifteen others” (ibid., 461). Floyd’s part of the flotilla is stated as two boats and a batteau; possibly the boat of John Berry (see note 59, below) was one of these. The boats were larger than customary craf8 and later brought a mcd price in Natchez (ibid., 478). aaZbid.r 624, 626. Burr evidently refrained from direct communication with his men (ibid., 622). Cox: The Bum Conspiracy in Indiana 273 that had been attempted two years before under much less notable leader~hip.*~b While in the vicinity of Fort Massac and the little garrison at Chickasaw Bluffs, Burr’s course did not betray any evident fear ,of the military, nor any individual distrust of the com- mander-in-chief, his whilom associate. But far different was his reaction when he reached Bayou Pierre, on the settled out- skirts of Mississippi Territory. He found that his prospective arrival had aroused there intense excitement, due largely to the exaggerated reports circulated by Wilkinson and intensi- fied by the latter’s preposterous activities in New Orleans. Had Burr planned to go to that city, as some testimony indi- cated, he now gave over that purpose, nor was it safe for him to venture too near Natchez. It was essential, however, to learn the actual situation there and in the region to the south- ward. For this reason, then, we believe, he sent Floyd and Alexander Ralston on ahead in a light boat and not to spy out the military strength of Baton Rouge and of Fort Adams. The two precursors passed the night of January 11 near the latter post. Their host, a Dr. John F. Carmichael, stated that Ralston revealed to him their purpose to revolutionize West Florida. But even his testimony shows that Burr was simply directing himself against the Spanish government. Ten thous- and men, he claims Ralston told him, were ready to join Burr. This is too reminiscent of Wilkinson’s exaggerated reports to be believed. But Burr, so the testimony runs, had only a hundred and fifty, so as not to attract too much attention before taking Baton Rouge. Ralston and Floyd, so the former reported, were on their way to New Orleans where they expected to meet General John Adair of Kentucky. The latter was journey- ing thithoerthrough the Indian country, but all three were tol confer with Wilkinson whom they expected to favor their pi~~..49 If those plans still contemplated the invasion of Mexico, Carmichael’s report of Wilkinson’s arbitrary arrests in New Orleans speedily dissuaded them from going further in their pursuit. They returned to their harassed Chief, who with his mystified “people” had taken up their position on the west

McCaleb, Burr Conspiracy, 266 : I. J. Cox, The West FWCaatroversy. 160-168.. ‘0 Wilkinson’a Memoirs. 111, APPX., =v. This testimony was later denied by Ralston. who claimed that Carmichael was influenced to Rive it through some “money transaction’.. See Letters in Relation to Burr’s Conspiracy (MSS., Library of Congress). The Newberry Library of Chicago has a photostat reproduction of this volume of documents. 274 Indiana Magazine of History

side of the Mississippi, a few miles above Natchez. Here Floyd seems to have been active in taking measures to meet unpro- voked aggressions on the part of the overexcited Mississippi militia. The last note (of dubious authenticity, indeed,) that Burr addressed to his followers, bore the initials of Floyd along with those of Comfort Meanwhile his ill-fated Chieftain, after conferences with the territorial authorities had submitted to the civil authorities and after some two weeks delay was subjected to another hearing before a grand jury. That body, having vead statements from the leader and his followers-all to the effect that their destination was the Washita-not only failed to bring in a verdict against the fonner, but vigorously objected to the elaborate measures taken to apprehend him. Notwithstanding this acquittal, Judge Thomas Rodney of the Territorial Su- preme Court, who had conducted the hearing, refused to re- lease Burr from his bond.60 Finding Rodney unwilling to act further, Judge Harry Toulmin of the Circuit Court of Wash- ington County, Mississippi now took a hand in the proceedings. He issued a warrant for the arrest of Burr, Bbnnerhasset, Floyd and Ralston, the last two largely on the testimony of Dr. Carmichael, and personally examined Comfort Tyler.61 Burr had by this time fled to escape kidnapping by Wilkinson’s ag8ents,but before leaving he visited his followers and advised them to dispose of the property represented by the boats and provisions and to divide the proceeds among themselves. He still assuved them that they would get the lands that had been promised them. With the flight of their leader the party, wrote an observer “frittered away to nothing. Never perhaps, did an enterprise of such vast extent and aided by such a concentration of intrigue, terminate in effects so truly contemptible.”52 But the quartet against whom indictments were pending could not vanish so completely. Judge Toulmin, indeed, dis- covered some embarassment in disposing of those arrested, especially in determining where they should be tried. It was expedient that the trial should occur where the evidence could best be brought out and with the least harassment to

I___- American State Papers, MQc., I, 523. 670. W McCaleb, BUTT Conspiraw, Chap. X. 5% Harry Toulmin to Captain P. P. Scbuyler, February 2. 1807. See Letters in Rda- tion to Burr’s Conspiracy. 6* Libertv Hall and Cincinnati METCUTV,March 10, 1807. Cox: The Burr Conspiracy in Indiana 275 the accused. On this basis, although at the expense of much criticism for inconsiderateness, he committed Blennerhassett for trial in Virginia. Ralston wished to be tried in Kentucky and Floyd in Indiana, alleging in addition to legal residences in that state and territory, respectively, the possibility of procuring the testimony of Judge Davis, who had been shown by Burr a letter from the Secretary of War, countenancing the expedition as a measure secretly favored by the government. But the chief evidence against them, Toulmin claimed, was that of Doctor Carmichael, while the testimony of Judge Davis granted they could get it, would not acquit them. Hence Toulmin committed them for trial in Mississippi territory, before a court of oyer and terminer especially summoned for that purpose. Judge Toulmin was roundly abused, so he reported, as a tool of General Wilkinson, although he had never seen the latter nor had he had any communication with him. The General, however, regarded Toulmin as a most loyal judge.6S In a letter to President Jefferson, February 13, 180’7,Wilkin- son mentioned that while his plan to seize Burr had been frustrated, Floyd and the other three should not escape. He promised, if they were arrested, to send them around to the seat of government. On March 1, recurring to the topic, he asserted: “Should these men be left to the mummery of a trial, before a tribunal -which has no cognizance of their offences, they will certainly be discharged.” He urged the President to bring them before the Supreme Court of the United States by some regular process. Evidently he was becoming distrustful of his own methods. He expressed confidence in Carmichael’s testimony that Ralston and Floyd were accessories of Burr, and privy to his ‘‘illicit designs”, and recokned himself a target for their male~olence.~~ On the very day that this letter was penned, Governor Wil- liams was writing him: “Floyd has given bail and started for Kentucky.”66 The accused was fortunate in escaping the stormy voyage to which the truculent General had condemned others. In May, Williams mentioned that indictments had been returned against Floyd and Ralston in the Wilkinson County Circuit, Mississippi, where Carmichael lived, and he expected

Pmera of Junes Wilkinson (LISS.), III., el%. a Letterm in Relation to Burr’s Conmpiracy (MSS.) . 111 Third Annual Report of the Direator of the Dqwtwu?nt of Arehimsr d Hirtary @ the Sbts of Mhirrippi (Nashville, 1906). 76. 276 Indium Magazine of History their trial to take place there in the fall. But when in the following August he learned that they were indicted in Rich- mond, he reported that Floyd had left some time before for Kentucky.’O Floyd had gone to Indiana, of course, rather than Ken- tucky, and there he finally underwent trial. Here he might expect fair treatment; nor was he disappointed. In April, after his arrival home, Governor Harrison had written the President : “I can truly affirm there is not a man in the territory who possesses more entirely my confidence .and esteem . . nor do I believe there is a man who possesses a higher sense of patriotism and more devotion to the Constitution of his country.”K7 Floyd needed this expression of confidence. His name appeared on the list of those who were to be summoned as witnesses against Burr, provided they themselves were not to be put on trial. Other In- dianians thus named were William Prince of Vincennes and Judge Davis.68 The Judge felt impelled to write and ask a friend to explain why he did not obey the summons. The subpoena reached him August 12, but summoned him to appear in Richmond on the third. The court of chancery, of which he was sole judge, was to meet in a few days and he was also a member of the court that was to try Floyd. So he chose the duty immediately before him and also detained one John Berry, who was a material witness against Floyd.6* Possibly the presence of these witnesses at Richmond might have affected the verdict against the chief defendant. Evi- dently Jefferson was concerned at their absence and had written the Attorney General about it, for the latter replied, Sep- tember 8, 1807, that as the Indiana Court was to meet August 8, any interference would be of no avail. “But I see no solid objection,” he added, “against permitting them to try Floyd in the Indiana Territory for acts of treason committed there, as they have first got him in custody. His acquittal there would not be, I think, pleaded in bar to an indictment for acts

Ibid.. 82. .p McCaleb, Burr Conspiracy, 282. Letters in Relation to Burr’s Conspiracy (MSS.). “Thomas T. Davis to 111, August 16, 1807, in ibid. The John Berry mentioned lived !n Indiana Territory some twelve miles from Jeffersonville. He. like Floyd, was active m enlisting recruits and directed one of the boats of the expedition. with the title of “Captain” by virtue of his skill as a pilot. He told his recruits that they were also to miat the Spaniards. if the latter invaded American territory (American State Papera. Mk.,I, 468, 466. Cox: The Burr Conspiracy in Indiana 277 done in Virginia or Kentucky. The record would show the offences not to be the In Indiana therefore, Floyd was tried, convicted and sen- tenced to three hours in jail and a fine of twenty dollars. One of the judges, Waller Taylor, thought it necessary to write the President about this remarkable leniency. Floyd was principally convicted, he explained, on his own confession. The expedition in which he was engaged was variously stated to be against Mexico and Baton Rouge--both outside of the United States; but this undertaking had the approbation of the Government. In proof of this he cited the letter which Burr had shown Judge Thomas Davis. Judge Taylor was also impressed by the letter that Floyd and Prince had ob- tained from Burr and that had convinced Governor Harrison of the latter’s loyalty.a1 This letter Taylor had copied and sent to the President. Moreover the court took Floyd’s indebt- edness into consideration. If they imposed a heavy fine on him, it would injure both his family and his creditors. Nor could they give him more than a nominal imprisonment, for there was not a jail in Indiana territory that would hold a man twenty-four hours against his will. Taylor did not close his lengthy explanation without putting in a word for himself. He had already applied for the receivership of public monies in the land office at Jeffer- sonville-an office that he desired to hold in addition to his present one. He preferred, he added, to live in Jeffersonville, if he could do so with profit, but he assured the President that any action the latter took would be agreeable to him.e2 But that incident was not yet closed. A few days after the trial the Indiana Legislature elected Floyd as clerk of the lower House. Public outcry, emanating from Clark County and furthered by the editor of the Western World, promptly condemned as Burrites those who were responsible for his election and even attacked Governor Harrison who had pub- licly dared to express his belief in Floyd’s innocence. But expression on the other side was equally loud and dogmatic. The two representatives from Knox County asserted that they had “acted as becoming [their] stations, and as any in- dependent honest man would have acted in similar circum-

OOCaesar A. Rodney to President Jefferson, Papera of James Madison (MSS.), XXX, 19607.

Q See note 46, above aa Waller Taylor to President Jefferson, September 16. 1807. See no&6 above. 278 Indiana Magazine of History stances.” Burr had declared that his plans were in no way inimical to the United States and that his sole object was “to break the chains, and lose the yoke of a part of our fellow human species who ever have been, now are, and ever will (from appearances) be kept in the most abject political and religious bondage.” His followers were guilty simply of following him, and if in so doing they were weak and credulous, they should be pardoned rather than hounded out of society. As representatives of the people they were empowered, when they lacked express instructions from a majority of their constituents, to act as they thought right. Moreover the personnel of subordinate officers of the legislature bore no relation to the general good of the community. The fact that a man merely went down the Ohio with some of Burr’s boats and later was chosen clerk of the House of Representatives did not make all members of that body Burrites or all their acts “Burritical.” Four candidates, they explained, were considered for the post; two of them withdrew in favor of Floyd and he was preferable to the fourth. They promised that a report, shortly to appear, would show that Floyd had been undeservedly indicted and that his conduct did not merit the censure attached to it.*a The promised statement, evidently that signed by “Broken Blunderbuss,” is in keeping with the suggestive pen name. With labored humor the writer endeavors to show that neither Floyd, nor his seductive principal, nor the Gov- ernor who expressed his belief in the former’s innocence, was guilty of treason, and insinuates that one of the jurors, who was a personal enemy of Floyd, influenced his fellows to return the verdict against him.64Next came a series of resolutions adopted by “a numerous and respectable meeting of the citizens of the county of Knox,” on January 4,1808. The committee that reported them was named on the motion of John Johnson, Floyd’s defeated competitor. The resolution mentioned the severe comments in the press of the country on the conduct of two of the judges, because of their lenient action in Floyd’s case, and of the Legislature for appointing him as its clerk, and regretted the natural imputation that the people of the territory were implicated in Burr’s schemes. While

Y Wastern% Swt (Vineennea), November 17, 1807. For materinl used in prepvine thL pswr, I am eapecidly indebted to Mi- Edher U. McNitt and her rssodder d tbe hdi8M State Library for their ocnrrteour aid. Wsltcm Su%. November ZS. Deeembm 16. 1807. Cox: The Burr Conslpiracg in Indiana 279 forbearing to comment on the action of the judges, they strongly disapproved that of the Legislature, reiterated their attachment to the Constitution and Government of the United States, invited similar expressions of sentiment from the other parts of the territory, and hoped that their resolutions would completely vindicate the people of their own

Evidently their brethern in the Illinois country continued to doubt their attachment to the Government of the United States and six weeks later a committee headed by William Morrison, reiterating their devotion to country and government, claimed that the Burrites in their midst were “few in number, insignificant in talent and equally contemptible in character and principle.” They also disavowed and disap proved Floyd’s selection, which was made while the members from their section were absent from the Legislature and because they were thus ignored, professed to look upon the continued connection with the eastern part of the territory as a grievance. This assertion reveals the spirit that largely inspired their resolutions. Triplicate copi’es were made of the statements to be sent to President Jefferson and to the editors of the Western World and of the Western Sun.ee In the last named paper there also appeared another ef- fusion from “Broken Blunderbuss,” who poured still further contempt on “the little editor” of the Western World and other traducers of Floyd and then promised to leave the subject.O’ Floyd’s enemies issued a satirical pamphlet in response to one in his favor which reviled his supporters roundly, and then turned their diatribes on Jonathan Jennings. This led “Sand and Rosin” to defend the latter, while incidentally mentioning the ill-deserved attack on Floyd.es With this shift- ing of personnel, the latter loses much of his accidental importance. Floyd does not wholly disappear from view nor was the controversy that raged about him forgotten. In 1810 William Prince, his whilom associate, became its target. He appealed to the Legislature for vindication and on December 6, 1810, a committee of which General WikJohnston was chair-

=Ibid., J8nuUy (1. 1808. m1bid.. March 28, 1808. Ibid. Ibid., April 6, AprIl 80, 1808. 280 Indiana Magazine of History man reported that after faithful examination they could find nothing criminal in Prince’s reported connection with Aaron Burr, nor in that of “any person who has heretofore received executive patronage.” This expression, be it noted, might include Floyd. Harrison was still governor of the territory and the affair was still fresh in men’s minds. Prince, indeed, then made his claim that he was one of the first through General Harrison to bring Burr’s movements to the attention of the Government.eg In an advertisement in the Westm Sun, running during April and May, 1812, Floyd tendered his services to the public as attorney and counsellor at During Governor Posey’s administration his name was suggested as territorial treasurer but his appointment was not confirmed largely be cause of the opposition of Jonathan Jennings. During the latter’s administration, however, Floyd was appointed circuit judge-an appointment that aroused the criticism of Jen- ning’s opponents. In July, 1822, both men announced themselves as candidates for congress, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of William Hendricks. This brought up a question of constitutionality for both were then holding other offices. Shortly afterward, it appears, Floyd was appointed to an office in Florida and never returned to Indiana.’l Thus passed from an important stage of the Burr Conspiracy, the only one of his associates who was ever convicted for participation therein. His conviction, be it noted, did not prove an insuperable barrier to further advancement.

-Broadside statement of William Prince, July 20, 1822, bound with volume XIV of t&e Western Sun and Gemral Advertiser in the Indiana State Library. ”He has been styled not a great lawyer but a satisfadon judge See.L. J..Monka Courts and Lawyers oj Zndiano (Indianapolis, 1916). I, 62, 63. Western Sun and Gwneral Advertiser, May 18, June 5, July 24, 1819. Cf. duo, Monka. Courts and Lawuerr of Indiana