Indiana Magazine of History
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 extend- ed 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 ad- ministration 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 juris- diction.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 situa- tion 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 mysteri- ous 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 equal- ly 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, al- ready 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 fur- ther 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 activi- ties. 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 ex- pression 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.