Disclaimer: Nolichucky Pictures, LLC, has used its best efforts in preparing this transcript from a video interview. Nolichucky Pictures, LLC, makes no representation or warranties with respect to the accuracy, applicability, fitness, or completeness of the contents of this transcript. Nolichucky Pictures, LLC, shall in no event be held liable for any loss or other damages. This transcript is made available by Nolichucky Pictures, LLC, for non-commercial research and education only. Any unauthorized use is strictly prohibited.

State of Franklin Documentary

Interview with Kevin Barksdale, Ph.D. Marshall University

December 9, 2008

Describe the characteristics of the backcountry white settlers. What psychological factors do you believe led to their separatist attitudes?

When you’re describing the characteristics of back-country settlers in the Upper East Tennessee Valley, and what ultimately lead them to support the State of Franklin separatist movement, the are a number of different factors:

(1) Backcountry localism: desire for local autonomy to control their political and economic destinies, falls right into the need to create a separatist movement, an independent state and government, where they can have control over these factors. (2) Native American hatred – a deep down visceral hatred toward the Native Americans and a desire for their land, and a complete lack of understanding about their culture. These kinds of things tend to ultimately feed the separatist sentiment. Indian policy changes after the American Revolution. (3) Desires for personal financial improvement, greed, desire for land, and an accumulation of wealth drives the separatist tendencies. (4) Lingering ideology and radicalism of the American Revolution drove the backcountry separatism. The ideas that come out of the American Revolution: the desire for a responsive government, in this case, a responsive state government of North Carolina, of these westerners’ belief that this is not happening, a belief that government is not responsive to the citizenry, that it is the Lockean idea that it is their obligation, their right to overthrow that government, or in this case, to establish a new state government, so that they can create a responsive state government, a responsive bureaucracy that deals with issues that they are dealing with.

When you combine those four issues, localism, Indian hatred, lingering radicalism of the American Revolution, and desire for personal wealth, those are the forces that drive separatist sentiment.

What were the similarities in behavior between the Franklites and the earlier Wataugans?

There are a number of similarities between the Wataugans and the Franklinites. (1) Desire for more political influence. Both Wataugans and Franklinites are going to want to have their state governments have established courts, a political infrastructure that were lacking in the West. (2) Shared desires to have their governments improve their communities and infrastructure. A desire for roads and turnpikes, the expansion of the militia. These kinds of things led the Wataugans and the Franklinites to assert their own independence, their own belief and desires for a more focused improvement for their own lives and their own communities. (3) Shared general perspective on Native Americans. They were an impediment to economic, political and social expansion. I think they engaged in very similar tactics with Native Americans. Questionable treaty tactics, an overwhelming drive to acquire land at all costs. These are some other kinds of similarities. (4) The leadership of both: the Wataugan colony later becoming the Washington District, and later becoming Washington County. Those same families and many of those same individuals will be part of the economic and political leadership of Watauga, but also will become part of the economic and political leadership of Franklin. If you look at the Sevier family and the Carter family, these are families who are inhabiting the Upper Tennessee Valley early on, and their ability to accumulate property, and their ability to dominate the regional political system, allows them to transcend Watauga and ultimately the State of Franklin, and then ultimately the State of Tennessee and southwest territory.

Tell us about the economic status of the white settlers. Who became the ruling class and why?

This is one of the most important questions in understanding the State of Franklin. One of the common misconceptions about the American frontier was an egalitarian society that lacked a socio-economic hierarchy, and that’s completely not true. Historians have demonstrated there has been, from the very beginning, classes or a class system, in the Western frontier, and the Upper Tennessee Valley provides a perfect example of this.

2 In the beginning of the settlement of the Upper Tennessee Valley you see a development of a ruling class, of political and economic leadership, and you see the emergence of a clearly stratified society. And what’s driving that, on the Western frontier, the primary driving force behind the satisfaction of society is going to be the accumulation of land. Prior to the American Revolution, and through the American Revolution, there had always been a shortage of specie1 of cash on hand in the West. One of the principle ways of accumulating wealth was acquiring land, and in a specie poor region, land was king. The early settlers of the Upper Tennessee Valley, many of them acquired large parcels of land, multiple parcels of land, often the richest bottomland, and the most fertile land. This gave them an initial leg up on the later settlers who would have to come in and have less access to land, and was able to purchase or acquire through other means, land that wasn’t as valuable. What ends up happening is that you have sort of a cadre of political and economic leaders who have established their economic hegemony in the region through land ownership.

Another driving force that leads to the stratification of the Upper Tennessee Valley will be the desire to improve this economy. Many of these political and economic and leaders in the region have commercial businesses, whether they are commercial farmers, many were slaveholders with a large commercial farm. Many were storeowners, many of them own taverns and distilleries and other sort of peripheral businesses ideally suited for the West. The problem was that these entrepreneurs believed that the only thing that stood between them and financial success was lack of an infrastructure. There were no roads; there were no obvious ways in to the Upper Tennessee Valley. There were no courts where they could legally register land patents or where they could defend their property. These were the kinds of demands that intertwined with emergence of this ruling class, and how they viewed their relationship to their parent state, North Carolina, and the kinds of things that ultimately would drive the Franklin independent movement. The desire to improve their economic standing, their entrepreneurial spirit, and some of the impediments that got in their way, not only a lack of infrastructure, but Native American obstacles, the State of North Carolina’s unwillingness to support some policies they were hoping to implement, the state government’s unwillingness to do the kind of things that these Tennessee Valley ruling men wanted to do. But, ultimately, those were the kind of forces that lead to the emergence of a ruling class, whether you are talking about the Sevier family, or the Tipton family, or the Cobb family, or the Carter family - all families who were politically connected, as well as, part of this sort of economic ruling class.

Describe the circumstances leading to North Carolina’s 1784 Cession Act.

The 1784 Cession Act comes directly out of the financial consequences of the American Revolution. The American Revolution bankrupted what would become the United States, as well as the state governments. The funding of militias, the supporting of armies, taxes, and all these kinds of things that went in to the fighting of the American Revolution. After the war was over, the destruction of America’s commercial fleet, severing ties with North America’s closest trading destination, which was Great Brittan, who cut off

1 Specie is money in coin form.

3 economic ties. This put a crunch on the United States – the Confederated States, at this point.

One the techniques or methods the newly formed American republic decided that they could rely upon to sort of alleviate what was ostensibly bankruptcy, was to sell western land, to use what they considered uninhabited, although it was inhabited by many Native American groups, but uninhabited western lands, and that they could sell these off. The Federal Government had some land after the American Revolution, but there were several states, North Carolina, Virginia, and New York, who had a lot of western land that was largely uninhabited. The U.S. Government decided to pass a tax on states that have western land that they are not doing anything with, in order to (1) raise tax revenues; and (2) it would convince many of these states who didn’t have the money to pay the taxes to turn the land over to the Federal Government. The Federal Government could then turn around and take some of the state’s debt, and turn around and sell that land and get themselves out of debt. That was the principle.

Early on, before 1784, immediately after the American Revolution, Virginia and New York gave up their western land. They ceded their western land to the U.S. Government. North Carolina held out for a number of different reasons. Largely, they were holding out for the best deal they could get. By October of 1784, there was considerable support in Eastern North Carolina for ceding this land over to the U.S. Government. There was growing support in Western North Carolina, which would eventually become the State of Franklin, to turn this land over to the Federal Government. What ends up happening is the North Carolina General Assembly meets in October of 1784, and, after back and forth political debate, they sign the Cession Act, which turns…North Carolina’s western territory, which was largely everything west of the Appalachian Mountain chain, in what would eventually become the State of Tennessee, they turned it over to the U.S. Government.

The passage of the Cession Act had a multi-fold effect, a sort of ripple effect, across North Carolina, as well as, the U.S. Government. The Cession Act was actually passed with the support of future Franklinites. Many leaders of the future State of Franklin would actually support the passage of this Cession Act, but then will turn around immediately after the Act is passed, and claim that their primary motivation was to form an independent state, which would eventually become Franklin, was because they felt like they had been abandoned by their parent state. They voted for North Carolina to turn this land over to the Federal Government, and then complained afterwards that they had actually been abandoned by North Carolina. This was definitely an underhanded way of getting this piece of legislation passed through.

In between the passage of the Cession Act in October, and when they’ll actually repeal the Cession Act in December of 1784, the leaders of the future State of Franklin got together in the town of Jonesboro and actually begin to fashion an independent state. They haven’t called it Franklin, yet. They are just kicking around “what can we do,” “how can we do it,” “what is necessary for us to form an independent state?” Eastern North Carolinians get word of what’s going on in the Upper Tennessee Valley and they

4 feel betrayed. There were a number of stipulations when North Carolina turned this land over, that the U.S. would effectively be in control of the land, and that no independent states would be formed without their consent: a number of things that were agreed upon that the initial Franklin independence movement really flew in the face of. Eastern North Carolinians, led by a guy named Richard Spaight, and a number of other political leaders in Eastern North Carolina, decided, “we’ve been bamboozled, hoodwinked, by these Westerners.” It very quickly become evident that they had sort of been lied to and been manipulated, so in December, they get together and they say they are going to repeal the Cession Act, and do repeal it, and there is sort of a blow-up in Eastern and Western North Carolina, the future State of Franklin. Of course, Franklinites feel like they’ve had a rug pulled out from underneath them, and that their statehood movement is the right way to go, and the Eastern North Carolinians basically argue that “we didn’t get adequate compensation for our cession of this land.” We poured so much money into the Western frontier to protect the settlements from the militias, and to boost and prop up the economy. We’ve already invested so much in this, and the land was worth more than the tax relief that they would get from the federal government, so they backed out of the deal. It will eventually reach the U.S. Congress on whether or not the U.S. Government will force North Carolina to uphold the Cession Act and actually turn the land over, and the Franklinites will be advocating with William Cocke, prime diplomat, will be right in there advocating that not only should the Federal Government accept this cession of North Carolina’s land, but the Federal Government should also accept Franklin’s admittance as the 14th state. Ultimately, the Cession Act, from the passage in October 1784, and its repeal in December of 1784, and then the debates in the U.S. Congress in 1785 and 1786, in between that period, that’s when Franklin will be formed.

Describe the average settler’s reaction to the Cession Act. Why would they be upset?

The average yeoman farmer of the Upper Tennessee Valley, I’m sure, had quite an interesting reaction to the Cession Act. One, I think the appeal by the leaders of the State of Franklin, to the small holders in the Upper Tennessee Valley, that they had been abandoned by their parent state, and that the parent state had been neglecting their well being and hadn’t been providing enough resources to protect their communities by bolstering the militia, or haven’t been spending enough money on infrastructural development. These were very powerful appeals to the average Westerner because there was truth in this. There was a need for greater militia strength to protect their communities, and their land holdings, and their economic expansion from the Native people, the real Cherokee. There was clearly a need for internal improvements in the region. Any of these small holders, if they were going to engage in any kind of market activity, and many were engaged in commercial activity, they needed this kind of infrastructure improvement. They needed courts, they needed roads, and they needed these kinds of things to protect their investments, to protect businesses. I’m sure when they heard about the Cession Act that they thought, “This is the final straw,” “we’ve been abandoned,” “we’ve been turned over to the federal government.” “If we don’t have a responsive state government, how can we possibly expect someone in New York to be responsive to our needs?” This was a perfect opportunity to appeal to them to support the statehood movement, the separatist movement, and there was a considerable amount of

5 support. It was a logical thing. There may have been universal support for it in the very beginning, in between October 1784, before North Carolina steps up to the plate and says “we’re willing to agree to some of your concessions.” There was considerable support on the issue. It would have been a huge benefit for these Westerners to have a state government in which the location of political power is in their own backyard, and to have political representatives from their own communities who knew about their needs. I’m sure there was a tremendous amount of support for a new state that came directly out of the issue of abandonment.

What were the white settlers attitudes toward the Native Americans, especially the Cherokee, who took the British side during the Revolution? What was the position of the Federal Government regarding the Indians?

When you’re talking about attitudes and feelings about the Native American people among Westerners, if you want to generalize, there was a considerable hatred directed toward the Native people, and this went from the period of early settlement, especially in the Upper Tennessee Valley, the 1760s, the time of the French-Indian war, through Lord Dunmore’s war along the Ohio River, through the American Revolution, and even extending after the American Revolution. The second half of the 18th century was one long conflict.

Out of this, the violence on both sides fostered a tremendous amount of anger, hostility, and hatred. The old adage, “the only good Indian is a dead Indian,” – this comes out of this. This is a natural reaction to the violence from the American Indian - the Euro- American communities experienced and perpetrated on one another.

The Native Americans, after the American Revolution, begin to be seen by Westerners as more of an obstacle to conquer: an obstacle to their economic development; an obstacle to their expansion; an obstacle to their American dream; and obstacle to obtaining land, acquiring a homestead, to expanding their land holdings to become wealthy - to provide for their families. The Native American became an obstacle and, perhaps, always served as an obstacle since the early Western settlement.

After the American Revolution, the state governments who had interest in the Western peripheries, and the newly formed U.S. Government, take a very different perspective on the Native American people. There’s no benevolence in their perspective. What there is, is an economic pragmatism. After the American Revolution, the U.S. Government and the state governments find themselves wading in treacherous economic waters. The U.S. government is deeply in debt. The state governments are deeply in debt. A large part of that debt was accrued because the Western wars, the Western Indian wars that had gone on in the Western frontier and the Western peripheries, had cost a tremendous amount of money to bolster militias, to pay off families, to send in regular troops - these kinds of things took a lot of money. Especially, the states began to realize a more cost-effective way to deal with the Native American problem, as they would have seen it, as opposed to initiating a war, treaties with the Indians, actually involve formal diplomatic treaties, you begin to see a blossoming of a new kind of Indian policy, an expansion of the Indian

6 agency, the sort of Indian infrastructure that’s being run by the U.S. Government, the hiring of a number of very effective Indian agents. Joseph Martin would be the principal one in the Upper Tennessee Valley. They began a long process of trying to engage the Native Americans in formal diplomacy. It’s much more cost effective. The Native Americans have been historically very open and receptive to selling land at great rates, great prices. They have been receptive to Europeans and Americans who have been willing to immerse themselves in Native American culture, follow formal Native American diplomacy, and the U.S. Government and the states realized “this is the way we should go.”

Specifically related to the Upper Tennessee Valley, the State of North Carolina joins in with Virginia, as well as, with the U.S. Government. In 1785, in South Carolina, during a large treaty negotiation, the first major treaty negotiation between the U.S. and the Native Americans, one of the principle groups involved, in what would become of the Treaty of Hopewell (Hopewell, South Carolina), were the Cherokee. You have the Overhill Cherokee, the cluster of towns in Eastern Tennessee, but also you have the Valley Cherokee, the Lower Cherokee, you have all the Cherokee represented – over one thousand Indians represented at the Treaty of Hopewell.

At the Treaty of Hopewell, when the U.S. Government, along with Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina got together, they conducted a treaty that provided benefits for both sides. There was land reserved for the Native Americans, including land in the Upper Tennessee Valley, including a large portion of the land that will ultimately become the State of Franklin. The future Franklinites already had the future capital of Greeneville in the Treaty of Hopewell territory. Many of the important towns, a lot of the land claims, conflicted with the Treaty of Hopewell. But at Hopewell, the U.S. Government and Indian agents got together and provided a treaty that really benefited both sides. The Native people agreed to curtail violence toward Westerners. They agreed to some territorial cessions, always a standard feature of these treaty negotiations.

So, as the U.S. Government and the states are beginning a more specific policy aimed at diplomacy to avoid costly war, the Franklinites are actually going in a different direction. The Franklinites, because they are so ambitious, and because much of their land claims were already on contested Native American grounds, especially the southern part of the Tennessee Valley. That land had already been reserved for the Cherokee, and under the Treaty of Hopewell, would continue to be reserved for the Cherokee. The Franklinites realized that they had negotiated, or believed that they had negotiated, as many land cessions as they have, and acquired as much land as they peacefully can from the Cherokee, and they believe that the only real policy that will allow them to expand their communities, to expand their economy. To actually acquire that Native American land will be to go against the current trend of diplomacy, and to basically engage in very intimidating treaty negotiations, and to ultimately fall back upon warfare raids on Native Americans communities, these kinds of things, to ultimately effectively drive them off of the territory.

7 They engage in a number of treaties, the Treaty of Dumplin Creek, the Treaty of Coyatee. These are treaties very different than Hopewell. The Franklinites were effective at these treaties because they had a deep understanding of which Cherokee leaders were willing to sell them more land, so they only invited those. They didn’t invite Cherokee chiefs who may be resistant to this kind of thing.

Most of the treaties conducted by the Franklinites were intimidating. The language that was used in the treaties themselves, basically informed the Cherokee if there was resistance, or grievances, or any kind of violence perpetrated on Westerns, there would be retaliation. This was not normal for an Indian treaty to talk about the collapse of the treaty as you’re signing the treaty.

The Franklinites also very much realized that they could use the threat of violence, basically war, as a tool to get what they wanted. The U.S. Government, they’re going in the other direction. The Franklinites specifically are angry at the State of North Carolina for being involved in this new kind of diplomatic strategy, and the Franklinites go the other way, and the violence ratchets up after the American Revolution, especially between future East Tennesseans. The Overhill Cherokee begin to see a lot more raids of villages. John Sevier organizes a very effective militia who’s engaged in destroying and burning Overhill towns. There is also a splinter group, a revolutionary group who are very angry with what the Overhill leaders are doing regarding Western settlers. They don’t believe the Overhill Cherokees should have negotiated any treaties. They don’t believe the Overhill Cherokee leaders should have given up any land. And, led by Dragging Canoe, the so-called Chickamauga Cherokee, they sort of considered themselves the last holdouts. Dragging Canoe and the Chickamauga Cherokee really become the resistance force among the Overhill Cherokee trying to prevent Western expansion, Western encroachment, really going tit-for-tat with John Sevier and the Franklin militia, and that’s what ultimately fosters this period of unprecedented violence in the Tennessee Valley.

Who among the settlers was driving the constant Westward expansion and why?

The desire for Western expansion, as well as, Western separatism and the Franklin movement, is being universally supported in the Tennessee Valley. The desire for the accumulation of land, to remove the Native American menace, to expand the economy, to allow more political autonomy, more political empowerment of the region, these are things, I think, were universally shared from the top down, to the leading men, the leaders of Franklin, the leaders of the Tennessee Valley, all the way down to the laborer. Everyone benefited from Western expansion. Everyone benefited from improving the infrastructure. Everybody benefited from the acquisition of land. The Franklin movement was…clearly being led by a relatively small group of political and economic leaders, but they’re not forcing this from the top down. This is something that had support from the lower quarters, the lower classes, the laboring classes because they all had shared…this is one of the ways that the leaders of Franklin were able to appeal to so many of these small groups. These were issues; these were concerns that were shared universally. These are the benefits to a new State of Franklin, the benefits to driving the Overhill Cherokee

8 further West, the benefits of bringing in a turnpike, of improving water transportation, bringing in a court. These were benefits that would be shared by the largest landholder, as well as, the farm laborer. I think it would be a distortion to portray the Franklin movement as a movement being driven by a small group. A small group is actually pulling the levers with the clear support of the majority of the populace of the Upper Tennessee Valley.

Did the Franklinite leaders use the threat of Indian attack to further their agenda?

John Sevier, and the leaders of the State of Franklin, relied heavily upon the real, as well as, upon the imagined threat of Indian violence, for a number of different reasons. There were clearly Indian raids, especially by the Chickamauga Cherokee on Middle Tennessee settlements, and the Cumberland settlements, which eventually become Davidson County and Nashville, and also in Eastern Tennessee and the Upper East Tennessee Valley, as well as, on the Southern communities of Franklin. There was clearly a threat. It wasn’t an imagined threat, but Sevier, and the leaders of Franklin, often either exaggerated that threat, when perhaps that threat wasn’t there, maybe during a period of relative peace, or they actually manufactured the threat during particularly politically expedient times. For example, the best example of this comes at the very end of the Franklin movement, 1788. Sevier, and the leaders of Franklin, had seen the writing on the wall. Many of the leaders of Franklin had abandoned the movement, had reverted their loyalties back to North Carolina. Sevier has just been defeated at the Battle of Franklin, really humiliated at the Battle of Franklin, there has also been an arrest warrant issued for Sevier by the Governor of North Carolina, and there’s actually a posse being raised to go after Sevier. Things are looking pretty bleak for Sevier and the Franklin statehood movement, and for Sevier personally. He’s really facing charges of treason, and, it just so happens at that time, that Sevier decides that he is going to protect the communities of Franklin, protect the communities of the Tennessee Valley from the Overhill Cherokee, and initiates a raid on the Overhill Cherokee and the Chickamauga Cherokee towns - a particularly violent raid.

Historians, after the fact, but, actually, men like Joseph Martin, the Indian agent that represented the U.S., this sort of southern Indian agent for the Federal Indian Agency, actually made note of the fact that it seemed like John Sevier was using this raid on the Overhill Cherokee as a way of diverting attention from some of the negative things going on around him: the collapse of the statehood movement, his impending arrest, these kinds of things.

The Franklinites clearly played up their ability to protect their communities from the Native Americans as a way of garnering support. They played up this threat during the trying times for themselves, and I don’t think this tactic was lost on a lot of the critics of Franklin, as well as, a lot of historians who look back on some of the violence, especially between 1787 and 1789. That this turmoil surrounding Franklin and the turmoil that surrounded the leadership of the Tennessee Valley just doesn’t happen to coincide with this uptick in violence on the Western frontier.

Who created Franklin’s “Declaration of Independence” and when?

9

The actual creation of what you would consider the Franklin Declaration of Independence is really a complicated issue. It’s complicated, primarily, by one reality, that is, the majority of the official papers of the State of Franklin have been destroyed or lost. A large portion of them were destroyed during these sort of “courthouse wars” that went on during the Franklin movement itself, where the anti-Franklinites, also known as the Tiptonites, after John Tipton, would raid Franklin courthouses and destroy paperwork, and the Franklinites would do the same thing, ultimately leading to the destruction of a lot of the official papers. So the lost papers of the lost State of Franklin, to quote Ned Erwin, “are at ETSU.”

I have a basic idea of when this sort of Declaration of Independence occurred. It occurred between the passage of the Cession Act in October of 1784, and the repeal of the Cession Act of December 1784. Sometime between October and December of 1784, is when you have the official declaration of separation. Whether or not if they were calling themselves the State of Franklin or not, is kind of up in the air. When you try to pinpoint exactly where that Declaration of Independence related to Franklin comes from, a number of different factors, a number of different places, and a number of different individuals. First, you have to understand that this is coming immediately after the American Revolution, so you can draw upon the principles that drove the revolutionaries during the American Revolution. Locke’s ideas of popular sovereignty and the role government plays in a citizen’s life and how responsive it should be, the right of a citizenry to overthrow a government that’s not being responsive to its needs, comes right out of Locke’s Treatises on Government and the Enlightenment. There are those origins, are the principles embodied by men like Jefferson, Thomas Paine, coming out of the American Revolution, about the role the government should play in your life, the relationship between political representation and tax policy. The leaders of Franklin, they’re drawing upon the American Revolution, not only ideologically, but also rhetorically, they’re drawing heavily upon this.

The second location for sort of the origin of the Franklin independence movement will come from just across the boarder in Washington County, Virginia, just across the North Carolina/Virginia line. In Washington County, Virginia, they had a political leader by the name of Arthur Campbell. Arthur Campbell had a brother, David Campbell, who was a judge, essentially a Franklin judge, a North Carolina judge, and would eventually become a Tennessee judge. Arthur Campbell had a lot of the same beliefs that will ultimately find their way into the Franklin movement. He believed that the state government of Virginia was not being receptive to the needs of Western Virginians. He promoted economic, infrastructure development, political autonomy - a sort of localism. The same kind of things the Franklinites would espouse, as well. Campbell had familial connections to Franklin and clearly had some kind of ideological influence on the Franklinites. There is a clear connection. They’re just too many similarities.

Another place, if you want to look, at the origins of the Franklin independence movement, we have to look at the Upper Tennessee Valley intelligentsia. We have to look men like William Cocke, and Landon Carter, and David Campbell: men who will

10 basically form the ideological foundations for Franklin. These men who were intelligent men, many of them lawyers, gifted orators, and they were able to pull upon what Arthur Campbell was saying in Washington County. John Locke’s ideas - ideas of the Enlightenment, principles of the American Revolution. They were able to sort of forge all of this into a separatist movement in which the principles of the movement itself, many of them were the founding principles of the country. Many were the founding principles of Western democracy, and they were very skilled at doing this. This is why Franklin was as successful as it was, because you have these kinds of men, men who came out of the American Revolution, were part of the American Revolution, who fought in the American Revolution and knew what it meant, and knew how that legacy could be used. That’s where the Franklin Declaration of Independence comes from. It’s not one man; it’s not one principle. It’s not even a small group. It’s individuals who are drawing upon the legacy of the revolution, the legacy of the Enlightenment, precedent in Washington County, as well as, their own experiences, and their own beliefs that create what we call a Declaration of Independence. The tragedy, of course, is that the document doesn’t exist, or documents don’t exist, so we can’t really look at them and see what’s in here, what are the principles behind the separatist movement.

Who convinced John Sevier to join the Franklin movement, or how was he convinced to join the Franklin movement, and why did he have reservations about it?

One of the first things that’s important to note about John Sevier and his relationship to the Franklin separatist movement, is early on, John Sevier actually opposed the Franklin separatist movement. One of the motivations for separatism was the idea that the parent State of North Carolina, the center of political power, was really neglecting the Western frontier, neglecting communities, and not only neglecting the infrastructure, but the strength of the militia. The militia was the body of strength that protected these communities, protected the economy and protected the families. There was truth in this – that there was never enough money, that there was never enough support for the expansion of the militias, especially Washington County’s militia. So, this became a driving issue behind the Franklin independence movement.

The State of North Carolina, after repealing the Cession Act, and after there has already been some sort of discussion of a separatist movement, and they really start to get down to brass tacks, they begin the actual process of creating a government, of creating a legislature, a Franklin assembly, of beginning to think about a constitution, these kinds of things.

You really can’t be fence sitting at this point, and John Sevier, who was clearly the face of the Eastern Tennessee Valley, when he was put into a position to where he had to decide, the State of North Carolina steps in after the appeal of the Cession Act, when they realize they have to listen to the concerns of Westerners, they’ve got to do something about it if they want to maintain loyalties and avoid the kind of catastrophe that, ultimately, the State of Franklin creates. They actually do some of the things that John Sevier and others had been concerned about. They expand the militia, they crate a

11 separate militia district, they put Sevier as the captain of that militia district, and they are apparently beginning to alleviate some of the concerns that had led many to support the separatist movement.

John Sevier makes note of this, “the things I was most concerned about” (there was actually a letter that describes this), “the things I’ve been concerned about, what we’ve been concerned about, the things that would have led me to support an independent state, have been alleviated. North Carolina has stepped up and they’ve relieved some of my concerns; therefore, I don’t believe that we should support a separatist movement.”

John Sevier, for a number of reasons why, he never explicitly states this, but John Sevier wasn’t an idiot. He knew if the Upper Tennessee Valley residents went against the State of North Carolina, and then went against the U.S. Government, they would put themselves in a very precarious situation that could cost them their land claims, would cost them their political power, all of these kinds of things. It was a gamble. So, Sevier thought, “well, the major problems that we’ve had have been solved, and I don’t support and I discourage my fellow Tennessee Valley residents from supporting the separatist movement.”

One of John Sevier’s closest friends was William Cocke. William Cocke, from all accounts, was a brilliant man, a wonderful speaker and an intellect. He and David Campbell were clearly the brightest minds behind the Franklin movement. William Cocke, in a number of private conversations that haven’t been recorded for posterity, somehow convinced John Sevier to go back and support the Franklin movement. John Sevier, in just a couple of weeks, goes from opposing the State of Franklin to supporting the State of Franklin. How William Cocke does it, we don’t know. You can speculate on the kinds of things that would have made Sevier switch his opinion, but that’s basically what happened: that John Sevier goes from being an opponent of backcountry separatism to being an advocate. As far as we can tell, William Cocke had the most to do with actually influencing that opinion.

Describe John Sevier and his charisma.

John Sevier was clearly a charismatic figure - charismatic enough to allow him to become a historic heroic figure. There are a number of examples. There’s an example of, later in his life, a young boy and his father are waiting on Sevier to give a speech, and they’re waiting for Sevier along a dusty road, and the young boy is excited about the idea of seeing John Sevier. He’s built up what this man looks like in his mind. This is John Sevier, this is Nolichucky Jack, this is a hero of the American Revolution, a hero of the Battle of Kings Mountain, an Indian fighter, and all the legends that have developed around Sevier. This boy and his father are waiting there and Sevier rides up on his horse and the young boy looks at his father and says, “he’s only a man.” He was expecting a giant, a super hero, if you will.

Sevier, and there are a number of these kinds of incidences, of Sevier wooing the ladies. Sevier was clearly a charismatic figure. He was a tremendous leader, military, political.

12 He inspired men. He inspired men on the battlefield and politically. He was clearly an intelligent individual who was able to combine these rare qualities.

One of the things about John Sevier and how you know he was such a charismatic leader was John Sevier was able to appeal to the average Westerner, the average militiaman and the average farmer. He was able to sort of identify with those individuals. He was also just as comfortable dealing with men like Landon Carter or William Cocke, educated men with substantial land holdings and with political and economic connections. He was able to bridge that gap. He was able to bring the disparate communities of the Upper Tennessee Valley together. He was able to bring them together to protect communities against Native Americans. He was able to bring them together to forge them into sort of a political block to support backcountry separatism.

The evidence of John Sevier’s charisma is everywhere and continues to present itself all the time. Sevier has, and will probably always continue to be, a sort of heroic figure in history. This is not the kind of honor and that an individual achieves if he doesn’t have this kind of charisma.

Describe John Tipton. What do we know about him?

John Tipton was another story. We know much less about John Tipton. John Tipton is kind of the anti-hero of the Franklin story. I don’t know if I’d go as far as to call him the villain, or the enemy, but he truly was an enemy to Sevier. John Tipton is more of a shadowy historical figure.

Clearly Tipton had a charisma about him as well. He was able to cultivate a substantial following in the Tennessee Valley. He obviously had the same kind of political and economic ambitions as John Sevier. Both were very ambitious men. Sevier and Tipton had a shared military history in the American Revolution. Both Tipton and Sevier were prominent and effective politicians. John Sevier, for a number of reasons, I think, many of them having to do with his exploits at Kings Mountain, as the leader of the Overmountain Men, as well as, the prominence of the Sevier family in Tennessee, and the continued prominence the Sevier family has in Tennessee, those are the kinds of factors that lead to Sevier becoming a hero. The Tipton family’s inability to get their descendant’s story out, Tipton sort of naturally fills that position of antagonist, of enemy, of the “other.” In Sevier’s case, it’s sort of a natural story. You have the hero Sevier and his enemy John Tipton, and many historians, writers and novelists have played off of this sort of dichotomy. I think the two men, probably deep down, were very similar in who they were, what they believed, the kinds of ambitions they had, their experiences. It just so happened that Sevier faired better in the historical narrative than John Tipton.

What was Tipton’s position on separation from North Carolina?

John Tipton’s position regarding separating from North Carolina is fairly ambiguous because of the lack of records. Tipton left even fewer records than Sevier, relating to Franklin, so we have to speculate. From many accounts, Tipton actually supported,

13 initially supported the creation of a new state. Tipton would have benefited in the same way Sevier and his group would have benefited: more opportunity for political power. Tipton had an economic stake in improving the Upper Tennessee Valley’s infrastructure. Tipton apparently supported the idea of a new state. Where Tipton’s support for a new state begins to wane, is when he begins to learn that North Carolina opposes this new state…. I believe Tipton’s not thinking so much of remaining loyal to North Carolina, he’s thinking this is actually going to be a political struggle, an internal political struggle, and if Sevier and his group are going to go with a new state, I will cultivate a group of people, of political followers, and we’ll cast our lot with North Carolina. Tipton really sort of placed his money on a much safer bet. North Carolina was the way to go. So, what Tipton does when he learns there is going to be resistance from the State of North Carolina, that there’s not the kind of support necessary for the creation of a new independent state from the U.S. Congress, Tipton casts his lot with North Carolina and becomes the leader of the anti-Franklinites.

There are a number of other things that really drove Tipton into this corner: the debate over the nature of the Franklin Constitution; the frame of government – there are some other factors that ultimately kept Tipton from supporting a new state. But, ultimately, the bottom line, Tipton realized that if he could gain the support of North Carolina, and if he had the support of the U.S. Congress, then he was in a better position politically within his own community, within that region, and that’s what he decided to do. Sevier went one way and Tipton went the other.

Do you think his choice was a conscious decision to do the opposite of what Sevier was doing?

I don’t think that’s out of the realm of possibility. As far as I know, there is no evidence of any kind of political tensions between John Sevier and John Tipton prior to the time of the Franklin movement. But, that doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. I’m sure they were political rivals. They must have been competitive within the economy. They were both large landholders – Sevier a larger landholder – but Tipton owned quite a bit of land as well. So, there were most likely tensions between the two men before the Franklin movement. How deep those tensions were, it’s clear, that this sort of debate over separatism exacerbated these tensions. How deep they were? We don’t know.

Why do you think Tipton has been demonized in historic texts?

John Tipton serves as a natural foil to John Sevier. John Sevier becomes a hero, this sort of hero making. We’ve talked about all the reasons why: hero of the Battle of Kings Mountain, a hero of the American Revolution, his charisma, who he was, his role as an Indian fighter, these kinds ultimately fed naturally in to the side of Sevier as a hero.

In a similar way, John Tipton, in his opposition to Sevier, his opposition to the State of Franklin, and some of the things John Tipton said about Sevier, sort of naturally fed into John Tipton becoming sort of a villain in this story, if you will. I think it ultimately boils down to the ability of the Sevier family, John Sevier’s descendants to defend Sevier’s

14 name. It also has a great deal to do with the fact that Tipton sort of slides off into political obscurity, while John Sevier becomes the first governor of the State of Tennessee, serving for a number of terms, and then John Sevier has become memorialized at a number of places, from Nashville to Washington D.C. So, I don’t think it’s as much Tipton’s fault that he becomes the villain in this story. It’s that John Sevier’s role as a hero made John Tipton’s role as the villain necessary. That’s just how it emerges. Both of those, John Sevier is neither this pure hero and John Tipton’s clearly not this pure villain. They were both very similar in who they were and what they wanted to do. Their views on government were very similar. Essentially it boils down to a power struggle for the hearts and minds of the residents of East Tennessee, and John Sevier was more effective at winning those hearts and minds, and if it wasn’t for the support of North Carolina, John Tipton would have suffered the same kind of fate that John Sevier will suffer during the Battle of Franklin. Probably defeated and had his reputation tarnished and, I think that’s happened in history books, not so much during the actual events of Franklin. I think when it all boils down to it, I think John Tipton got the best of John Sevier in the events surrounding the Franklin movement, but the historical record and America’s collective memory, clearly John Sevier won that battle.

Tell us about the currency with which Franklin’s leaders were paid.

One of the most oft repeated aspects of the Franklin movement had to do with how the Franklin leaders, either political leaders, as well as the judges and sheriffs that were affiliated with Franklin, how they were actually paid.

This is a cash-short region. This is a region in which specie had long been scarce, and early on, at least one time, the leaders of Franklin were paid in animal pelts. Different animal pelts. They basically created a system that equated animal pelts to currency. On at least one occasion, a very highly sensationalized occasion, especially by historians later, the leadership of Franklin were actually paid in deerskins and beaver skins, and these kinds of thing. I think what’s important about that, not only does it reflect upon the idea of species shortages; it also shows how important land was. But the leaders of Franklin didn’t take their positions in the Franklin government for pay. The majority of them sort of entered in to those positions for the power it would bring them. It didn’t matter that they weren’t being paid in specie. It didn’t matter that they weren’t making a decent salary because they could ultimately create a policy, or create policies, that would allow them to accumulate more land, that would allow them to bring in roads, to improve their businesses. It was far more valuable than any kind of political payment.

I think this is analogous to way contemporary politicians, modern politicians, get involved in politics. Many of them come from positions, situations where they are making vast amounts of money, and they take government jobs that are going to pay much less money, but they are going to be allowed to do things for industry, for whatever policy they are interested in, and perhaps improve their situations in a way that’s more valuable than actually the pay. And I think that’s what men like John Sevier and William Cocke…they didn’t need government jobs, these men owned large tracks of land, were in very strong financial situations, and could afford to work for, symbolically work for

15 animals pelts, when you knew you could pass a policy that would allow, would validate 3000 acres of land, and maybe allow you to double that amount land. It was sort of a no brainer.

[The payment of pelts] It’s been used by scholars, writers and novelists to basically sort of create this idea, it’s a historical misconception, that the Upper Tennessee Valley was this, was the wild west, that is was a sort of Western backwater. But, there was a thriving economy, communities, a growing population, slave holding. It was the Western frontier, but this in not Daniel Boone’s penetration of the Cumberland Gap, this is a community that’s developing, that has developed economically, politically, socially, and the fact that the Franklinites were being paid in these pelts has been, I think, used to distort the reality of these communities. It’s more of a novel fact related to Franklin more than it is any kind of representation of the realities of the sophisticated market economy that had developed. There’s not a tremendous amount of evidence that this actually occurred, but this is repeated in anything that has ever been written about Franklin, this fact is brought up. It makes the Franklinites look like they are this primitive backwoodsmen who forged this independent state from the ashes of the American Revolution, upon the success of the American Revolution. It’s sexy, it’s heroic, and largely untrue.

Describe North Carolina’s governor Martin’s reaction to the Cession? Why did he not invade Franklin?

North Carolina Governor Alexander Martin will be the first of the three governors to have to deal with Franklin crisis, if you will. Governor Martin has to confront the Franklin separatist movement toward the end of his term as governor, and is very hostile toward the idea of the creation of an independent State of Franklin. Governor Martin would have presided over the division of the state, if the Franklin movement would have gone through smoothly, he would have presided over the division of the state. The loss of land, the loss of income, it would have been a catastrophe for the state. It would have tarnished his reputation. And he was clearly very, very hostile toward the Franklin separatist movement.

Early on he sent a manifesto were he basically criticizes the actions of the Franklinites, criticizes the manipulation of the Cession Act, aims it directly at the leaders of Franklin, and the Franklinites respond. So there was a contentious back-and-forth between the Franklinites, in the little less than a year he had left in office.

He actively worked on the Franklin movement, and if he had had another one or two years in office, [things] could have gotten much more violent early on, then it actually did. Governor Martin never made any overtures toward sending any kind of armed force to suppress the Franklin movement. He never, other than his manifesto and correspondence with other Franklinites, that’s been preserved, and also working with North Carolina’s political leadership to undermine the Franklin movement, that’s basically what Governor Martin did behind the scenes.

16 Things will change considerably when Governor Richard Caswell is elected North Carolina’s governor. Governor Richard Caswell had friendships and business relationships with several leaders of the State of Franklin movement, most notably John Sevier. Richard Caswell and John Sevier, and a number of other land speculators, William Blount and a few other men, had actually engaged in an attempt to purchase a large swath of Tennessee River bottomland, which eventually becomes Muscle Shoals, Alabama, and in 1783, they formed a land company called Muscle Shoals Company and actually tried to purchases the land from the Native Americans that claimed it, and there were a number of claimants, the Upper Cree Indians, the Chickasaw Indians and the Cherokee Indians, all claimed it. I think they actually tried to purchase the land from the Chickasaw, but those claims will change over time.

Richard Caswell and John Sevier had a relationship. They were friends. When Caswell becomes governor of North Carolina, obviously his relationship with John Sevier puts him in a very unusual situation where he is dealing with a friend who is now the governor of a rouge state - that his administration and leadership of North Carolina are opposed. Caswell continues to correspond with Sevier, and he regrets the situation these two men find themselves in, and some unusual things happen between Caswell and Sevier during the Franklin movement. There’s actually evidence that John Sevier and Caswell actually speculated land together during the Franklin movement. [They] enter a claim in 1785 on a piece of property in the State of Franklin and they actually purchase the property after the separatist statehood movement collapsed, but they were clearly speculating land while Caswell was the governor of North Carolina, while his administration was doing everything it could to undermine Franklin, and he was working with John Sevier, who was the governor of this rouge state.

The ramification of Caswell being governor, and how that would affect North Carolina’s policy toward Franklin is quite unique, as well. Caswell’s predecessor, Governor Martin, never initiated violence. I don’t think violence was something he would have necessarily opposed. There’s no direct evidence, but the sort of venom in how Governor Martin approached the Franklinites in letters and messages, the way he presented himself to the Franklinites, indicates that he may have been receptive to directly confronting the Franklinites.

Governor Caswell had a lot at stake. He had land in the Tennessee Valley. He had business and personal relationships in the Tennessee Valley. The last thing he wanted to do was plunge the Tennessee Valley in to war. The last thing he wanted to do was initiate civil war, partisan violence, so his administration embraced a policy that probably best described as a “divide and conquer” tactic. What Caswell decided to do, instead of directly confronting the Franklinites, was to try to peel off support from Franklin: to peacefully defeat Franklin by dividing the communities of the Tennessee Valley and then peeling off supporters.

He had an ally in John Tipton. John Tipton who was loyal to North Carolina, who already had some people who supported his position, and, so what happens, is that Caswell decides the most effective way of peeling people off from the Franklin movement is to

17 create a parallel government, and really what he really did is just maintain the North Carolina bureaucracy in Franklin. He kept the North Carolina court system going, he had a North Carolina legal system, he had a North Carolina sheriff, he also was able to maintain parallel elections. He had North Carolina delegates who would be elected to the U.S. Congress, North Carolina delegates to continue to be elected from the counties that they recognized in the Tennessee Valley, [interruption] would be elected to the North Carolina General Assembly. He maintained this sort of parallel government alongside the Franklin government, which provides a pretty unique situation and a confusing situation to the citizenry.

The belief was that if the Tennessee Valley residents saw this parallel North Carolina government, that they would gradually revert their loyalties back. Caswell also played a big role in a policy that was also designed to sort of continue to peel off support from Franklin, and he continually offered pardons to people that were supporting Franklin. He would say “you could come back into the mix, if you pledge your loyalties to North Carolina, we’ll forgive all your sins. If you’ve taken up arms illegally against the Overhill Cherokee, or if you refused to pay taxes to North Carolina, we’ll forgive this.” The North Carolina General Assembly, with the support of Caswell, actually offers supporters of Franklin, actually offers to forgive back taxes from supporters of Franklin in 1785, 1786 and 1787. You don’t even have to pay these taxes, pay these back taxes, just pledge your loyalty and come back into the fold.

So, Caswell is very different from Martin. Martin was antagonistic toward Sevier and the Franklinites, and Caswell, with his personal and economic connections, wants to defeat Franklin, but he wants to do it without disrupting the economy, and without destroying the communities, and without the loss of life, and he has this divide and conquer strategy that he relies upon. Of course, the unintended consequence of this divide and conquer strategy is to create, to inflame partisanship between Tipton and Sevier that’s ultimately going to lead to violence anyway, but perhaps Caswell’s policy diminished the violence that occurred, or perhaps it didn’t, perhaps it exacerbated it. It’s sort of up in the air. You could argue either side of it.

Why did the Federal Government ignore the State of Franklin, even as a territory?

I think it would be a fallacy to argue that the Federal Government actually ignored the State of Franklin. There is an absence of direct communication between the Federal Government and the State of Franklin for a number of reasons. Maybe those communications were lost when the Franklin documents were destroyed. My sense about why there was so little communication between the Federal Government and the State of Franklin is because, if there were this direct line of communication, this would be sort of a passive approval of Franklin, a tacit acknowledgement that the Franklin government was legitimate. None of the North Carolina governments could actually refer to John Sevier as the Governor of the State of Franklin. Anytime they mentioned Sevier it was “the Governor of the Supposed State of Franklin.” So, if you actually address a letter to John Sevier, Governor of the State of Franklin, then you are basically acknowledging that it exists. One reason you couldn’t do this is because it’s like negotiating with a terrorist

18 state, if you will. The leaders of Congress and political leaders, America’s political leadership across the globe, even if they were stationed in [interruption] posts, were clearly following what was happening in the Tennessee Valley. They understood that Franklin was pushing for an independent state. They understood the consequences of this, if it played out, on the Constitutional level, it had already become evident by 1784-1785, that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate, for a number of reasons. So, the members of Congress are already beginning to think about fashioning a new frame of government, a new United States Constitution. Within that Constitution, our current document, there is ample evidence that what was going on in Franklin was not only being watched but was being considered for its Constitutional implications.

The dynamics that occurred around Franklin, the turmoil, the confusion, both within the North Carolina state government and the Franklin government, ultimately will lead to Constitutional changes, and will ultimately have an impact, a direct impact on how states are formed, how territories go from territories to states, what needs to happen on ground, what role the Federal Government should play when states are being divided, what role the parent state should play. There are broad Constitutional implications. So, Franklin wasn’t being ignored, it was being silently considered.

Why did Thomas Jefferson oppose admitting Franklin into the Union?

Thomas Jefferson was a big proponent of western expansion, formation of new western states, but he opposed the Franklin statehood movement, and there’s a reason why. Jefferson didn’t necessarily oppose the creation of a new western state out of North Carolina’s western lands, what he opposed was the method in which the Franklinites went about forming that new state.

Basically, challenging the State of North Carolina, the manipulation of the Cession Act, the policy they enacted toward the Native Americans. Jefferson wanted an orderly formation of a new state. He wanted a statehood movement that fit certain guidelines, that was done peacefully, that was done with the support of the Federal Government, government with the support of the parent state. He believed the way the Franklinites went about forming this independent state had disastrous implications on pre-existing states. That if a disgruntled partisan group of Westerns were angry at policies being enacted in another part of their state, and they decided that they were just going to form a new state so we can control our own political destiny, that could ultimately lead to the splintering of states. He even refers to this [interruption] that you can see this dramatic fragmentation of the thirteen original states, and that you can have all these smaller independent states.

That will be less effective and will ultimately undermine the general republic. That’s what Jefferson was concerned about if North Carolina had agreed to the State of Franklin, and if there had been support from the U.S. Congress, he would have had no problem with it. As a matter of fact, he’s a supporter of Vermont’s efforts for statehood, and, ultimately, as President will play a new role in the formation of western states. But, the

19 way the Franklinites went about fashioning their state - that’s what he opposed. Not the existence, not the effort to create a new state, but the way they went about doing it.

How did the new U.S. Constitution kill Franklin’s bid for statehood?

Outside of the Tennessee Valley, Franklin’s longest contribution to the formation of America has to do with Constitutional implications of the Franklin statehood movement. The Franklin statehood movement will have broad Constitutional implications. And I think it continues to have Constitutional implications. Anytime anyone discusses creation of a new state, or when historians talk about how states come in to existence, whether you are talking about Kansas before the Civil War or Virginia during the Civil War, the implications of the Franklin separatist movement are there.

The Franklin separatist movement occurred at a period of time where political leadership of the new United States was grappling with how much power and authority the Federal Government should have, and what the frame of government should look like, and what were the implications of the way you structure your government. How do you balance power? The Articles of Confederation were drafted and ratified during the American Revolution and proven to be ineffectual. [The Articles of Confederation] hadn’t extended enough authority to the Federal Government. [It] hadn’t allowed the Federal Government enough authority to raise taxes, to protect the Nation; it was wholly inadequate.

After the American Revolution, it became fairly evident that there was going to have to be a new Constitution, a new frame of government for the American republic. The Franklin statehood movement corresponded with this period, with this period of fashioning this new frame of government. The turmoil and confusion that surrounded the State of Franklin led the political leadership of the U.S. to come to the realization they had to codify how a new state is formed. And they do so in Article 4 Section 3 of the Constitution. It was drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1789. They codify exactly how a new state comes in to existence. And you can see Franklin’s fingerprints on this. The Article 4 Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that in order for a new state to be fashioned from a pre-existing state, a parent state, if you will, the new state must have the consent of the parent state. In terms of Franklin, for Franklin to become a constitutionally accepted independent state, then North Carolina would have to agree to the formation of this new state. This comes directly out of the Franklin statehood, North Carolina’s reluctance or unwillingness to support Franklin’s independence movement, the confusion that caused, led the framers of the Constitution sit down and say this is exactly how it goes; this is what must happen.

There are much broader implications for this. During the Civil War, the State of Virginia is confronted with an effort by the Western Virginians to fashion a new state. When President Abraham Lincoln is considering whether or not to allow this new state of West Virginia to become America’s 35th state, he goes back to the Constitution, and one of the

20 questions that he asks is [to] a team of rivals, his Cabinet: is this Constitutional? And what he’s asking is, under Article 4 Section 3, is it Constitutional? His Cabinet splits, but he ultimately agrees that West Virginia becomes the 35th state, but what he relies upon is that principle that comes out of the Franklin debacle, and that is “you must have the approval of the parent state before a new state can be fashioned.” And, the state of West Virginia goes to Virginia, which is being governed by Frances Pierpont, someone who had remained loyal to the Union, and the Pierpont administration, per the Constitution requirements, agrees to allow West Virginia to become the 35th state. This is a direct connection of the formation of the State of West Virginia, seventy years later, a direct connection between Franklin and the State of West Virginia, and this continues even after West Virginia’s formed. You see, the Franklin debacle and the confusion, these Constitutional implications that came out of that, continue to play a role is how the country is fashioned, Western expansion and all kinds of implications.

Discuss the dual power situation with respect to duplicated services/offices maintained by North Carolina and Franklin.

Richard Caswell’s divide and conquer strategy for the Franklin statehood movement, by creating a sort of parallel bureaucracy, where North Carolina’s bureaucracy parallels Franklin’s bureaucracy, created a considerable amount of confusion among the citizenry. Even basic aspects of life like who to pay your taxes to, what court to attend, these are the kind of basic, kind of confusing things that resulted from Caswell’s policies.

For example, if you wanted to be safe, between 1785-1787, in the Upper Tennessee Valley, if you wanted to be safe, to know that your marriage was going to be recognized, you needed to be married both in a Franklin court, as well as, in a North Carolina court. You also had to confront the reality of having to face two different tax structures, Franklin’s and North Carolina’s tax structures. Which one of these states did you feel comfortable paying your taxes to? Do you pay one or the other or sometimes both?

Another confusing aspect of having these parallel bureaucracies in the Upper Tennessee Valley: [to] whom [did] the average citizen paid his taxes to? You pay your taxes to North Carolina? You pay your taxes to Franklin? Many chose a third option to not pay their taxes at all. There was also confusion over which court to attend. Do you register your deed in a Franklin court, or in a North Carolina court? Do you register your will in a Franklin court or a North Carolina court? So, these sorts of parallel autocracies created confusion among the average citizen, as well as, fueling partisan tensions among the leadership of Franklin and their supporters.

Describe the courtroom violence that occurred between the Franklinites and the Tiptonites.

During the Franklin movement, the courthouses often became the sites for partisan violence among the Franklinites and Tiptonites. The existence of two court systems, court structures, two legal systems, if you will, separate courts, separate Justices of the Peace, separate sheriffs, created a situation in which, really fostered a situation that encouraged

21 violence. This is what I mean by that – the courts themselves, the courthouses themselves, became, for a number of different reasons, sites where Franklinites and Tiptonites would often verbally and physically spar. As a matter of fact, the only known direct confrontation between John Sevier and John Tipton will actually occur in a Washington County courtroom. Where John Sevier and John Tipton sort of have words with each other and John Sevier whipped Tipton in the head with a cane, and they eventually exchanged blows, and supporters from both sides tear them apart. This was not uncommon. There was quite often violence at these courthouses, in these courthouses, in these courtrooms. Both sides, the Franklinites and the Tiptonites would often raid these courthouses, and doing things like, or this is how they would describe it, “throw the court out,” so they would sort of force them out of the courtroom. These courthouses are also where they kept official papers. This is where all the Franklin papers were kept. The Tiptonites would charge into a courtroom, throw the court out of doors, and confiscate the records. What they did with these records, we don’t know. That is why there is so little of the actual Franklin papers still in existence. These courtrooms were the scenes of physical violence, quite often.

Also, polling stations during elections - there was often violence. Just as these duel bureaucracies were being maintained by Caswell in North Carolina - just as they kept parallel courts and parallel sheriffs and these kinds of things - parallel polling stations on Election Day, they have Franklin polling station and a North Carolina polling station. These stations often became sites of violence as well.

Discuss Sheriff Pugh being jailed by Sheriff Caldwell.

One of the more sensational events that result from the maintenance from these two dual bureaucracies occurs between the two sheriffs of Washington County: the North Carolina sheriff, Jonathan Pugh, and the Franklin sheriff, Andrew Caldwell.

Jonathan Pugh is sent to arrest James Sevier, Franklin Governor John Sevier’s son, for failure to pay taxes to the State of North Carolina. Pugh shows up to arrest James Sevier but, for some reason, doesn’t exactly arrest him. The record isn’t exactly clear about what happened, but word finally gets back to John Sevier that the North Carolina Sheriff from Washington County is trying to arrest his son for failing to pay North Carolina taxes. Of course, this sends Sevier off in a rage. Sevier raises a small posse and comes back to Washington County, comes back and confronts Jonathan Pugh. With him, he brings Andrew Caldwell, the Franklin sheriff from Washington County. They confront Pugh. Sevier says “why are you trying to enforce a North Carolina law, why are you trying to collect North Carolina taxes from my son?” He instructs Andrew Caldwell to arrest Jonathan Pugh and the Franklin sheriff of Washington County arrests the North Carolina sheriff from Washington County, after a request from John Sevier, for trying to collect back taxes from his son. This is another example of the kind of confusion the parallel bureaucracies caused in the Upper Tennessee Valley.

22

Describe the State of Franklin’s relationship with Benjamin Franklin.

One of the questions that always comes up when you discuss the State of Franklin is how did the namesake, Benjamin Franklin… what role did he play in the Franklin movement? Did he support the Franklin movement? Did he oppose it? Is there any direct communication between Franklin and Sevier and the leadership of the State of Franklin?

Well, it’s sort of a complex story, but in general I guess it’s safe to say that, Ben Franklin didn’t support the Franklin statehood movement. There’s only one letter that I know of in which Ben Franklin directly communicates with John Sevier and the Franklinites regarding the Franklin statehood movement; and, Franklin is very critical, largely of the Indian policies that the Franklinites are conducting.

What Franklin says is “why, why are these Westerners engaged in such contentious, such a contentious Indian policy? Why are they initiating warfare when we know historically that the Indians are willing to negotiate and offer very favorable terms for land purchases?” So he’s basically very critical of this aspect of Franklin policy. Now, there are two letters that John Sevier mails to Benjamin Franklin in which Sevier is largely, is basically soliciting support. Sevier sends letters out, Sevier and William Cocke and others send letters out to a number of different people trying to solicit support. The idea is, if you can get some prominent Americans, some noteworthy Americans, especially a man like Benjamin Franklin, which has to do with why the state is named Franklin. You get the support…

What was Sevier trying to do regarding the letters to Benjamin Franklin?

There are two letters that John Sevier wrote to Benjamin Franklin. [In] neither one of the letters is there any evidence that Benjamin Franklin responded to these letters, but they are contained in one of the collections of the official papers of Benjamin Franklin. John Sevier sends two letters to Franklin. Both of them basically asking Franklin to lend his support for the Franklin statehood movement. Sevier did this for, Sevier and the other leaders of Franklin sent out letters to others who are prominent Americans: Jefferson, Madison, whoever. I guess the theory was that if they could gain the support of a handful of prominent Americans who could help shepherd the Franklin statehood proposal through Congress, this is the way you could do it. And he asked Benjamin Franklin to support the movement; he lays out the reason why.

This is directly tied to why the State of Franklin is named Franklin. This would have been sort of a symbolic gesture, to connect the state to one of the most celebrated Americans- the Revolutionary War hero, the great statesman Benjamin Franklin. You associate your state with Franklin, you associate your state with the American Revolution, [and] you associate your state with the best that is America. This is what they were trying to do. This was part of the, sort of propaganda strategy that William Cocke and John Sevier - it’s very sophisticated. It was ineffective, but it was a very sophisticated PR strategy to attract support for - from prominent Americans. It’s like getting an endorsement, a

23 presidential endorsement is what they were effectively looking for, a statehood endorsement. And they’re unsuccessful.

What was the Spanish connection all about and was it significant?

One of the more remarkable events connected to the State of Franklin occurred in 1788. Seventeen Eighty-Eight was a catastrophic year for the State of Franklin and John Sevier. Seventeen Eighty-Eight would witness the complete collapse of the Franklin statehood movement. Seventeen Eighty-Eight would witness John Sevier’s defeat at the Battle of Franklin by John Tipton, and largely the forces of North Carolina being under the guise of Tiptonites. It would also be the year John Sevier is arrested for treason. It was a particularly bad year. And John Sevier and many of the leaders of Franklin, many of the leaders of Franklin who were going to remain anonymous during this event, decide that one of their last chances of preserving their political hegemony, protecting their statehood movement, and perhaps improving their positions, either within the United States Government, within the United States itself, or maybe even outside the United States.

One of the ways they could improve their position was to enter into secret negotiations with the Spanish Empire. The Spanish, after the American Revolution, maintained a shrinking foothold in North America, specifically Spanish territory [and] Mississippi Valley territory that they controlled. Their sort of colonial hub was New Orleans, [Louisiana], [and] Natchez, Mississippi. They controlled the lower half of the Mississippi River, as well as part of Florida, southern Florida, what they called Western Florida. And the Spanish were desperate to maintain their colonial possessions in North America. They were desperate to create a buffer between the rapidly expanding United States and their colonial territory. The Franklinites believe if they reach out and enter into negotiations with the Spanish, that the Spanish can scratch their back and they’ll be able to scratch Spain’s back.

The way it’s supposed to work, John Sevier reaches out to… well, first off, it’s all facilitated by former North Carolina Congressman, a man who was serving as an Indian agent for the United States government, a man by the name of Dr. James White2. He was a physician during the American Revolution. James White contacts the primary Spanish diplomat in North America, a man by the name of Don Diego de Gardoqui, who lives in New York, prominent diplomat, basically a guy who was connected, well connected into both the Spanish government as well as the United States Government. James White goes to Gardoqui and says, “I believe that I can convince Westerners,” he’s not specific initially, but, “I can convince Westerners to actually ally with the Spanish Empire, if you’re willing to make some concessions.” The main concession that James White is talking about is for Spain to allow western farmers, western entrepreneurs to ship goods down the Mississippi River. Spain, after the American Revolution, cut off trade on the lower Mississippi River as a way to sort of protect their territory, to protect their economy, and the United States led by their diplomat, John Jay, is in negotiations with Gardoqui over opening the Mississippi River. James White says “look, we may be able to

2 This is not the James White who founded Knoxville, Tennessee.

24 convince these sort of Westerners to actually join the Spanish Empire in some capacity, if you’ll make the concession and allow their boats, allow their flat boats, allow their crops to use the Mississippi River,” which is obviously geographically and strategically important trade route and commercial port. Gardoqui says “okay, this seems like a no- brainer to me, go ahead and make contacts.”

One of the first places James White comes is to the State of Franklin, where he sets up a meeting with John Sevier. John Sevier is very keen on White’s idea, actually indicates to White that he’s interested in it. White goes back and tells Gardoqui. They negotiate some more. Gardoqui gets White some Spanish passports and some Spanish currency. He comes back to the State of Franklin and once again meets with John Sevier. John Sevier says “you’ve got my support and the support of some other leaders of Franklin,” we don’t know which leaders exactly, this wasn’t left in the historical record, and John Sevier then sends his son, James Sevier, this is the same James Sevier who was arrested for not paying back taxes, sends James up to New York to meet with Gardoqui with two letters. One of the letters says, “we support the idea of some kind of alliance, and this is why….” The other letter requests money, military aid, [and] political support from Gardoqui and the Spanish government. James Sevier… Gardoqui says “okay, let’s move this along, but let’s keep this as quiet as possible. You’re really getting to the point now where the Sevier family is involved in something that could easily be considered treason. James Sevier comes home. James White then does some [interruption] throughout these sorts of Spanish colonies. He goes to Mississippi, Mississippi Valley. He goes to New Orleans; he meets with Esteban Miro. Don Esteban Miro is the governor of New Orleans. He goes to Cuba and meets with Don Josef de Ezpeleta who’s the governor of Cuba. And he is basically drawing in support for this, what would be a Franklin/Spanish alliance. As it begins to progress, and begins to move ahead and negotiations really begin… just about the same time they really get going, they begin to collapse. A number of reason why they begin to collapse: sort of cultural clashes, you’re talking about Protestant English speaking Tennessee Valley citizenry versus a Catholic, Spanish speaking Spanish colonial citizenry, so these cultural incongruities. You also begin to see Sevier return his loyalties back to North Carolina about the same time. So it never really progresses any further than the actual discussion phase.

Historians have challenged, especially the Sevier apologists, have challenged the veracity and the validity of these negotiations. Were they real? Was Sevier just playing the Spanish as fools? This would fit right in with his “hero making” aspect of Sevier mythology. I think the record is clear that there’s enough correspondence between the Franklinites, specifically the Sevier family, White, Gardoqui, Miro and some of these other Spanish officials that something was going on - that there clearly were negotiations.

Now what were Sevier’s motives in this? Well, you can leave those up to speculation. I personally believe that Sevier was serious, at least initially, that he was. This is a man who had just been arrested; this is a man who had been publicly humiliated by this defeat. This was a man who could see his political fortunes waning and he was reaching out to another government for help. It was sort of logical for him to do this. This of course is not one of the more savory aspects of Sevier’s life. And, as a matter of fact, what was known

25 as the Spanish conspiracy or the Spanish intrigue by later historians, Franklin was just one part of it.

In the Cumberland District that would become Nashville, James Robertson, who is often given the credit for being the founder of Nashville, was also involved with the Spanish. [In] Virginia’s Kentucky District, a man by the name of James Wilkinson, a friend and someone Sevier knew quite well, sort of another hero of the American Revolution, he was involved in Spanish negotiations. So this was going on. To deny its existence is one thing, there is some question as to how serious Sevier was, but he was serious enough to send his son to New York and to directly request passports, which he received. There is evidence that John Sevier was issued a Spanish passport. I don’t think John Sevier would have had any reason to travel to New Orleans, Louisiana, if he wasn’t seriously considering this. It’s a historical debate, but to deny its existence, I think, would be a fallacy.

Let’s talk about the papers…

Over the last 50 years there have been letters and documents that have come to light that were contained at the archives, the Spanish archives in Seville, Spain, that have shed further light on Sevier and the Franklinite’s complicity in this Spanish conspiracy, if you will.

For a number of years, the earliest biographers of Sevier, the chroniclers of early Tennessee history have either downplayed or outright denied the existence of this conspiracy, the existence of these negotiations between the Sevier family, some other leading Franklinites and the Spanish colonial government. They basically denied it or tried to minimize the actual - Sevier’s willingness to be involved in this.

But, researchers beginning in the 1940s began to sort of dig into the Spanish archives. The Spanish archives, they keep the letters, even the letters from the 17th and 18th century in these ‘legajos,’ which are these bundles that are tied together with string, very primitive way, it’s still the case. But they’ve begun the process of microfilming these, along with the help of a lot of American universities. Some researchers went over and began going through these ‘legajos’ looking for documents that relate to Tennessee history, and they found a number of these. The Corbetts, a husband and wife team, that went and did this and subsequently published, transcribed a lot of these, and published these in the Journal of East Tennessee History. These papers came to light and they basically prove that Sevier was involved at some level with this. It’s really impossible to deny that the conspiracy existed. There’s still some wiggle room on how serious Sevier was about it. But even further research into the so-called Spanish archives that I have done myself has proven that there are dozens, perhaps as many as 100 documents that show connections between the State of Franklin, some with John Sevier, some not with John Sevier’s name on it, but definitely the State of Franklin and the Spanish government. So I think as time goes on, more evidence will come out that shows just how far along these negotiations went, exactly what they were talking about, and you can look

26 at some of the other Spanish conspiracies or negotiations that went further than the Franklin/Spanish negotiations.

The one I mentioned before, in Kentucky, went much further than the one in Franklin, went much further than the one in Cumberland. As a matter of fact, James Wilkinson, who was involved about the same time that James White and John Sevier were involved, would ultimately be arrested and accused and tried for treason later on, with Aaron Burr, for doing sort of the same kind of thing. But this kind of trans-national conspiracy that followed the American Revolution was more widespread than many people want to acknowledge.

Discuss the issue of a pardon forgiving Franklinites and the amendment excluding Sevier from being pardoned.

Beginning with North Carolina Governor Richard Caswell, one of the tactics that was used to try to peel off support for Franklin and to sort of convince supporters of Franklin to sort of revert their loyalties back to North Carolina, was to basically offer these Franklinites a full, free pardon. That’s what they call it. Basically, we’ll forgive all your political sins. If you’ve taken up arms against North Carolina, or whatever; if you refused to pay taxes; if you’ve spoken out publicly against the State of North Carolina; whatever you’ve done, we’d be willing to forgive it. Dozens of times North Carolina state records indicate that these pardons were offered. Publicly they were posted, they were published in memorials and posted throughout the Tennessee Valley. “Revert your loyalties and we’ll give you a pardon.” And it worked. And by 1787, you see a lot of supporters sort of pledging their loyalty to the State of North Carolina again. In 1788, even some of the political, top political leaders, David Campbell was an example- a Franklin judge related to Arthur Campbell from Washington County. He’s a Franklin Supreme Court judge, justice, sort of a main judge in Franklin. He begins to sort of rejoin North Carolina’s judicial system.

At the very end of the Franklin movement, when Franklin is basically just a smoldering ruins, there’s one more round where within the North Carolina General Assembly they’re actually debating these pardons, and they decide, “alright, we’re going to continue to extend pardons to all the supporters of Franklin,” basically unconditional pardons, if you will, “if they’ll come back and pledge their loyalty.” But, there’s a debate over whether to allow John Sevier to be included in this.

Initially, they refused. It reads “all the supporters of Franklin can be pardoned if they pledge their loyalty, except John Sevier.” There’s some debate over this: “is this how we should do it?” Ultimately what they decide to do is to allow Sevier to be pardoned. I think largely this shows you the stature that Sevier had obtained within the Tennessee Valley. I think North Carolina’s political leadership realized that if we don’t pardon Sevier, we may get a backlash. If we don’t pardon Sevier, we may not be able to bring along some of the other leaders. We may only get a lukewarm support for the State of North Carolina, but by bringing Sevier into the fold, that was it. Without Sevier, there is no State of Franklin. That’s why they were so determined to get, that’s why William Cocke spent so

27 much time trying to convince John Sevier to support the State of Franklin. The State of Franklin would not have existed for four years, would not have even gotten off the ground if it weren’t for John Sevier. And the minute he returns his loyalty, the minute the State of North Carolina, when it came time to put that final nail in the coffin of Franklin, they knew what was needed was to bring John Sevier back into North Carolina’s fold. All from a position, a political position, [Sevier] very quickly wins back his seat as a state senator. Then he parlays that into a position in the Southwest territorial government. Then he’s elected at the behest of William Blount, his friend and fellow land speculator, to become the first governor of Tennessee.

This issue of a pardon - that was a pragmatic pardon of Sevier by the State of North Carolina. I’m sure there were plenty of North Carolinians who would have loved to have kept, sort of stripped Sevier of his political power, but they realized that the broader ramifications of that would have been destructive to the state and maybe to the citizenry.

Let’s discuss the Battle of Franklin. What precipitated it?

The Battle of Franklin was really sort of the beginning of the end for the Franklin statehood movement. The Battle of Franklin is the name that was given to what was largely a skirmish between the Franklinites, John Sevier and his militia forces, and John Tipton and the North Carolina militia force that supported Tipton. It all began probably appropriately with Washington County Sheriff Jonathan Pugh. This is the same Jonathan Pugh who went to jail after, who was thrown into jail by Andrew Caldwell for trying to force John Sevier’s son, James Sevier, to pay back taxes. Jonathan Pugh was instructed by John Sevier, excuse me, Jonathan Pugh was instructed by John Tipton to go to John Sevier’s farm on the Nolichucky River and confiscate Sevier’s slaves as payment for North Carolina back taxes. John Tipton tells Jonathan Pugh to confiscate those slaves, “and take those slaves back to my farm,” back to Tipton’s farm on Sinking Creek, and Jonathan Pugh does takes the slaves. [He] takes them back to Tipton’s house.

John Sevier, who was actually down in the southern counties of Franklin, training, mustering the militia, training the militia for a planned expedition against the Overhill Cherokee, gets word. He’s already got his militia forces mustered- there’s some debate over this- 100-150 militiamen, there’s no definitive number of how many he’s got down there, but he says, “Franklin property has been confiscated.” That’s how he refers to it, it’s not my slaves, it’s “Franklin property has been confiscated.” He takes his militia force, he says “we’re going to go to John Tipton’s house, and we’re going to re- confiscate my slaves, and we’re going to throw Tipton in jail.”

He arrives at Tipton’s farm with his militia force with him. And, Tipton, of course, the idea of sending Jonathan Pugh to confiscate Sevier’s slaves, and take those, of all places, back to Tipton’s house was a provocative move. Tipton knew what the response would be, and he doesn’t explicitly state this, but it was obvious this is what was going to happen. It’s obvious by the fact that he had between 40 and 50 men in his house when Sevier and the Franklin militia forces arrive at his farm. I don’t think this would have been typical - to have 40 to 50 armed men in your house if you didn’t think there was

28 going to be a response from John Sevier. Sevier shows up, sets his men up very strategically, and sends a memorial to John Tipton that basically says, “Surrender, I’ll accept your surrender. You’ll be treated fairly according to the laws of the State of Franklin.” John Tipton quickly responds, and says, “No, thank you. As a matter of fact, why don’t you surrender? You’ll be treated fairly bases on North Carolina laws.” This is sort of a standoff.

Sevier orders his militia forces to, both John Sevier, Jr., his youngest son, and James Sevier are both there with him, and John Sevier has his militia forces marching back-and- forth, menacingly in front of Tipton’s house, sort of threatening. In the meantime, John Tipton has sent out a request for reinforcements, supporters, the North Carolina militia is what he’s asking for. Supporters come down and meet Sevier’s forces and this is what instigates the first day’s armed conflict. There are a number of rounds fired between the Tiptonites and the Franklinites. Somehow, remarkably, no one is wounded. But during the middle of the firefight, two women charge out of Tipton’s home, basically trying to escape. The Franklinites, probably accidently, actually shoot one of the women; wound her in her arm. She becomes the only casualty, the only person wounded during the first day. Eventually night comes and things sort of settle down. Tipton’s forces are still parading in front of, excuse me, Sevier’s forces are still parading in front of Tipton’s home. Tipton is still holed up in his home, now with reinforcements. Now there are two forces poised across from each other.

The next day, once again, Sevier sends a request for Tipton to surrender. Once again, Tipton rejects it. Tipton sends for more reinforcements. More reinforcements come in, are coming in, and Sevier decides to try and head-off those reinforcements at Dugan’s Ford, at a particular river, creek crossing, and he sends his sons, John and James, and a small detachment to go and meet these forces as they come towards Tipton’s house. Before they can actually reach this rendezvous point, they, these, and this is also a bitter blizzard has blown in, something they could barely see, a driving snow. Before John and James Sevier can actually confront this, these reinforcements, shots ring out behind them, and once again, it’s sort of a shooting fray going on again. Eventually the reinforcements actually turn out to be closer than they originally were, Tipton’s reinforcements. They joined the battle, if you will.

And while this is going on, about the time Tipton’s reinforcements arrive, Tipton and the group that’s held up in the house spring out of the house and sort of in two fronts, confront Sevier’s forces, driving Sevier and his forces back. John Sevier, for some reason, wasn’t actually at the battle, he was like a mile or so away, but he is quickly ushered away and escapes this being captured, if you will. John and James Sevier aren’t so lucky, at the very end of the battle they are actually, they actually walk right into, the battle’s actually over, [and] they walk right into Tipton’s farm where they’re immediately captured. John Tipton wants to hang them on the spot, but Evan Shelby, one of, someone that Sevier knew, and Tipton knew, a well-respected man in the community, talks him out of it. Eventually, John Sevier agrees to turn himself in and subject himself to the laws of North Carolina. He never does this. That’s how the Battle of Franklin ends.

29 There are only- it depends on the accounts you read, but there were only, there were less than half a dozen people actually killed, maybe another half dozen wounded. Sheriff Jonathan Pugh was one of the individuals actually killed in the Battle of Franklin, which I think is devastating to John Tipton and the community itself.

That’s really the only pitched battle of the Franklin separatist’s movement, and the results ultimately lead to a, less of a military defeat, and more of a sort of a political disgrace for John Sevier.

Discuss how the end of Franklin was a circle completed with former Franklinites humbly beseeching North Carolina to assume their governance.

One of the more remarkable things that occur after the Franklin statehood movement has collapsed is how quickly the leaders of the State of Franklin reemerge into positions of political power, and political influence within the state. John Sevier becomes a state senator very quickly, sort of reemerges as the sort of political leader of the Tennessee Valley. As a matter of fact, I don’t think reemerges is even right; he never really leaves that position, that political pedestal. He’s at least recognized by the State of North Carolina and the United States Government as a political leader. A number of the other Franklinites become leading men, and, once again back in North Carolina.

In 1790, the State of North Carolina again cedes the same territory back to the Federal Government, and the Federal Government, in turn, turns this into the Southwest Territory. This territorial status- the confusion surrounding not only Franklin, but Vermont and some of these other statehood movements had led to the creation of a, the codification as a very specific method in which a state or a territory becomes, excuse me, a territory becomes a state.

So once what would become Eastern Tennessee, the Upper Tennessee Valley becomes part of this new territory in 1790, called the Southwest Territory. It’s being controlled by a man by the name of William Blount who’s given the, he becomes the Territorial Governor. He is a close personal friend of John Sevier. As a matter of fact, when Blount is organizing the government, the territorial government, he goes and he basically taps a number of Franklinites, including John Sevier to serve in prominent positions in this territorial government. There’s a tremendous amount of continuity between North Carolina. The Upper Tennessee Valley is part of North Carolina when it becomes Franklin, when it becomes the Southwest Territory and when it becomes Tennessee, especially when the leadership eventually, after the population of the Southwest Territory grows enough and they created sort of a political infrastructure. The Southwest Territory becomes in 1796 the State of Tennessee.

John Sevier and some others within the Franklin movement assume positions of political power and influence within this new State of Tennessee, so in a lot of ways the collapse of the Franklin statehood movement had very little impact on who actually governed the Upper Tennessee Valley, who was actually in control and making decisions. I think as I said before, a tremendous amount of continuity between the political leadership over

30 these, from 1783 to 1796, it’s largely the same people who are making decisions. Perhaps the family and the individual who loses the most during this changeover is John Tipton, who appears to have less and less political influence in Eastern Tennessee after 1789. So maybe in the end, even though Sevier and Franklin ultimately fail, John Sevier wins, not only does he win the war of historical memory, but he also wins the war of political authority over John Tipton.

Discuss Sevier’s arrest and escape.

John Sevier will ultimately be arrested. That’s just sort of the culmination of John Tipton’s sort of private vendetta against John Sevier. It’s ultimately convincing the State of North Carolina to issue an arrest warrant, and he manages to do this. But the events surrounding it are remarkable for a number of reasons. How it all begins, Sevier’s arrest: Sevier is arrested for a couple of different reasons. He’s nearly arrested at one point in 1787 because he participated, or was an accomplice in a murder of two peaceful Overhill Cherokee chiefs. These two Cherokee chiefs, Overhill Cherokee chiefs, were actually involved in at least “talks” under the banner of peaceful negotiations, and John Sevier is privy to these talks. Apparently he wasn’t there when these chiefs had been invited into a tent with these Franklinites, but it’s the militia force that Sevier’s organized, and he’s at the head of it. And he goes to, uh, these, well, these Cherokee chiefs when they’re talking, they’re fairly comfortable obviously, they’ve been invited in. A member of the Franklin militia whose family had been murdered by some other Native Americans; they may have been Overhill Cherokee, they may have been Chickamauga Cherokee, they could have been Creeks; they didn’t really distinguish between the Native Americans. But they had been murdered and the… [Interrupted].

Sevier’s arrest and escape, continued

John Sevier will ultimately face arrest. His arrest is really sort of the culmination of three or four years of John Tipton’s sort of personal vendetta against John Sevier. And Sevier ultimately would be arrested after an altercation that led to the shooting of an innocent bystander in the town of Jonesborough. And there’s a lot of mythology that surrounds that altercation itself, but after John Sevier gets into a scuffle with Andrew Caldwell, who was one of his supporters and was the Franklin sheriff in Washington County, and gets into an altercation with Andrew Caldwell and wounds an innocent bystander, he ultimately seeks refuge in the house of the widow of one of his supporters, Jacob Brown.

John Tipton organizes a posse; he’s got an arrest warrant that’s been signed by a North Carolina judge, to arrest John Sevier for treason. He shows up at the widow Jacob Brown’s house. Jacob Brown has been killed during the Battle of Franklin, and he [Sevier] shows up at Jacob Brown’s widow’s house. John Tipton, with a small posse, and basically goes in and arrests Sevier. Sevier puts up very little resistance at this point. John Tipton, just as he had done at the Battle of Franklin with John Sevier’s sons, wants to immediately hang John Sevier on the spot. He doesn’t. He is actually allowed to put John Sevier in irons and actually parade him in front of some of his supporters, Tipton’s supporters. He actually parades John Sevier, reportedly in irons, in front of Jonathan

31 Pugh’s wife’s home. Jonathan Pugh was the other sheriff who was killed during the Battle of Franklin. Eventually it’s decided that Sevier has too many loyalists in the Tennessee Valley, and he needs to be taken back across the mountains to Morganton, North Carolina, where he will be put in jail. Sevier protests, he wants to be able to stay in jail near his family and I’m sure he realized he’ll have a lot of supporters. But it just so happens that the sheriff and jailers in Burke County, where Morganton is, are actually the McDowell brothers, who are friends with Sevier, actually fought along side Sevier during, in the American Revolution. And they get word that he’s coming. He shows up, this is the story that’s told, he shows up at the jail in Morganton. He’s dropped off. As soon as his, the people who transported him over the mountain leave, they take the irons off of Sevier and basically Sevier is more or less free at that point. He goes, he and his friends and supporters and fellow soldiers, actually leave the jail and go to a tavern in Morganton where they’re having a beer or two. About that time, Sevier’s family and some other supporters come from across the mountain. They’re coming to Morganton to rescue John Sevier, and they find John Sevier drinking and talking with his friends in town, and they eventually all get on their horses and ride out of town, and no one tries to stop them. He comes back to his home, and shortly after that, he pledges his loyalty to North Carolina. A lot of mythology has emerged surrounding that. That’s not a very sexy end to the story of John Sevier and the State of Franklin.

One of the myths that’s emerged regarding that event is that John Sevier is actually arrested, after he was arrested, he actually escapes from jail, and there’s all these fanciful stories of John Sevier, still shackled, riding through Morganton to escape from his captors. This is sort of part of the Sevier mythology, but is not true.

What socio-political attitudes do we see in today’s East Tennessee that may have their roots in Franklin? How does Franklin still resonate in East Tennessee?

Outside of East Tennessee, the State of Franklin is a long-forgotten piece of history. Very few people I’ve encountered actually know about the State of Franklin, or understand its implications, and those who do only have a basic, cursory understanding of exactly what the State of Franklin was, who was involved and what were its broader historical implications. But in East Tennessee, this is not the case. In East Tennessee, the State of Franklin is part of the identity, the culture, the make up, the cultural composition of East Tennessee. East Tennesseans have developed a legitimate pride in the State of Franklin, and John Sevier and the things that have become associated. The State of Franklin has become part of the historical memory of East Tennessee. Just as the Watauga settlers, the Overmountain Men, the Battle of Kings Mountain, or the Sycamore Shoals negotiations or any of the other things that have come to define East Tennessee’s historical legacy. The State of Franklin is part of that. The sort of pride that has emerged relating to the State of Franklin has also led to a lot of the mythology that surrounds the State of Franklin. Very difficult to celebrate the State of Franklin and include discussions of land speculation, or Spanish conspiracies, or Native American murders, or arrests for treason and those kind of things. It’s very difficult to include all of that. So what has happened is some of the less savory aspects of the State of Franklin have been stripped away, and what’s left is this idea that the State of Franklin was the extension of the American

32 Revolution, that the State of Franklin was very much an outgrowth of the American Revolution and that John Sevier and his fellow Franklinites were protecting the principles of the American Revolution and were part of this sort of noble effort.

Obviously, the events surrounding the State of Franklin were much more complicated than that. East Tennesseans have embraced the mythology of Franklin, and they have identified with it. There are plenty of things about the State of Franklin, and about, and especially about the mythology of the State of Franklin that it’s easy to develop, cultivate civic and cultural pride around. Ideas of striving for political autonomy, this is something that has always resonated with East Tennesseans. The feelings of being marginalized by your state government, or being marginalized by national government; East Tennesseans and Appalachian people have always felt that way. The idea of associating a man, a heroic figure in Tennessee history like John Sevier with the event clearly has added to the mythology and romance surrounding the State of Franklin. But for East Tennesseans, and this is evident by the naming of significant highways after the State of Franklin, or banks, or other kinds of businesses and establishments after the State of Franklin, it’s clear that East Tennesseans are very proud of the State of Franklin. They’re very proud of what that means, and what that continues to mean in East Tennessee, and I think has played a large part in forming an East Tennessee identity and cultivating a community. This legacy of Franklin has been something you can build a community around. And I think that’s been a big part of it.

Discuss the number of times that the State of Franklin has “reared its head.”

The idea of an independent State of Franklin didn’t die in 1789 with the collapse of Franklin and the arrest of John Sevier. It actually reemerges a number of other times in the last 200 some odd years.

In the 1830s, East Tennessee actually had a thriving abolitionist community. There were men like Elihu Embree and Ezekiel Birdseye, prominent abolitionists with connections to New England churches and New England philanthropists who had cultivated a thriving abolitionist community and abolitionist movement in East Tennessee. One particular abolitionist, Ezekiel Birdseye actually promotes the creation of an independent State of Franklin. It will be a Franklin in terms of a Free-Land, a community, or in this case a state in which slavery will be abolished. He actually gains support from an up-and- coming Tennessee politician, Andrew Johnson. Johnson embraces Ezekiel Birdseye’s new State of Franklin movement. Birdseye is forced to submerge some of his abolitionist feelings behind the idea of internal improvements, harkening back to the State of Franklin movement in which they were promoting the need for internal improvements, and how a new state will allow them to do this. This is what happened in the 1830s. Birdseye and Johnson and a number of other specific boosters began to argue that the center of the State of Tennessee, the political center, which was now Middle Tennessee, was neglecting East Tennessee, and the only way they could have the kind of infrastructural and internal improvements that were necessary to cultivate an economy, to improve their, sort of, stations in life was to fashion an independent State of Franklin. Birdseye and

33 Johnson received considerable support for it, just not support from the State of Tennessee.

This whole, the State of Franklin reemerges in 1860 with the debate over secession. The debate over whether the state of, whether or not the State of Tennessee will join the Confederate States of America, how this ideology of secession will play out, whether it’s constitutional, what are the ramifications of it. There’s a debate that erupts in the United States Senate between Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis and, at this time, Tennessee Senator Andrew Johnson, in which Andrew Johnson is basically railing against the principle of secession, saying it’s destructive and devastating and we need to avoid it, and it’s going to destroy the Union and destroy the country. And Jefferson Davis fires back at him, and says “your state was created out of a secession, your state, you’re hypocritical for saying this.” And what Jefferson Davis basically throws in Johnson’s face is the Franklin story. And then Johnson sort of has his own version of Franklin in which he says that actually what happens is this sort of principle of separatism nearly destroys one of Tennessee’s most noble men, John Sevier, and it’s destructive. And he talks about the violence that surrounded it.

Even in the 20th century, the idea of Franklin, Franklin’s legacy reappears, once again, associated with internal improvements. Tennessee Congressman James Quillen, who was promoting a, trying to encourage more internal improvements in the region, actually tries to put forth a State of Franklin bill. This is within the United States House of Representatives. He actually promotes a State of Franklin bill, that is designed, it’s a symbolic bill, he’s not actually advocating that East Tennessee break off and form an independent state; he’s basically using the legacy of Franklin to talk about the unresponsiveness of the Federal Government and the rest of Tennessee regarding the improvement of East Tennessee’s sort of infrastructure. He’s largely talking about roads, highways and this kind of thing, but it reemerges again as a part of Tennessee’s legacy. I think, there’s no doubt in my mind that it’ll reappear again.

What are the lessons learned from the State of Franklin debacle?

I think there are a number of historical and political lessons that can be drawn from the history of the Franklin statehood movement.

Number one: The actions of the Overhill Cherokee and the native people regarding the State of Franklin should provide another nail in the coffin over the historical misperception that Native Americans were culturally violent, were incapable of understanding formal diplomacy, and were predisposed toward violence, and incapable of functioning in a modern or developing society. If you look at the history of Franklin and their efforts at diplomacy, their efforts at peacekeeping, their willingness to negotiate, their ability to connect both to the national government and to the state governments, and to negotiate formal treaties in such a way so as to prevent bloodshed completely refutes this.

34

Secondly, the Franklin statehood movement highlights the destructive nature and violence that accompanies political partisanship, especially extreme political partisanship. I think that the legacy of Franklin should serve as a warning to the consequences of extreme political partisanship, despite the efforts of men like Richard Caswell and others to try to prevent violence by actually inflaming partisan tensions, political partisan tensions as a way of dividing and breaking off support for Franklin. I think it sort of demonstrates the danger, the inherent dangers of political partisanship, extreme political positions. Franklin was just one example of it. I think that American history is littered with other examples.

Number three, I think for historians and people interested in the past, students, that Franklin serves as a great lesson that historical memory often distorts the past, and that there is an inherent need for one who’s interested in studying a historical event, an individual, a movement in this case, to be careful to separate the mythology from the reality. And that often, people who construct history, who write history, however you want to put that, often have biases, often have their own agendas and that you have to attempt to sort of wade through those agendas, to find as much as possible, the sort of reality behind historical events.

35