{"1": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "^o\\ni9 v*, AP^\\nb\\nO V\\n-Y\\nX /.c:\u00c2\u00ab;^- -\u00c2\u00b0o\\n-o\\n,*J", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0002.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0003.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0004.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "TENNESSEE HISTORICAL SOCIETY PAPERS.\\nis\\nHISTORY\\nSOUTH CAROLINA CESSION\\nNORTHERN BOUNDARY OF TENNESSEE\\n!J-\\nBY W. R. QARRETT, .fA.\\nNashville, Tenn.:\\nSOUTHERN METHODIST PUBLISHING HOUSE.\\n1884.", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0005.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0006.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "Soutl] hm\\\\m (Session,\\nEead Before the Tennessee Historical Society, November 8, 1881.\\nTHERE are some events of history which possess but little historic\\nimportance, but for this very reason are invested with peculiar\\nhistoric interest.\\nSuch incidents, either from the brief period of their existence, or\\nfrom their failure to produce any marked results upon the general\\ninterests of communities, are soon lost to view amid the great and\\npregnant events which stand out as the landmarks of a nation s his-\\ntory. When in after years these lesser facts are recalled to our notice\\nby the researches of the historian or the antiquarian, they strike us with\\nsurprise, and possess all the charms of novelty.\\nTo this class belongs the history of the narrow strip of land touching\\nthe southern boundary of North Carolina and Tennessee, and extend-\\ning from South Carolina to the Mississippi River. This strip is about\\n12 miles wide and more than 400 miles long, and was ceded by South\\nCarolina to the United States on the 9th day of August, 1787.\\nThe inquirer, whose attention has never before been especially drawn\\nto the subject, is surprised to find that immediately touching the south-\\nern border of our State South Carolina should ever have owned a ter-\\nritory of such eccentric dimensions and so peculiarly located. The\\ncircumstances connected with its cession to the United States recall a\\ntrain of interesting associations dating from the settlement of the South-\\nern States to the years 1802 and 1804, when this strip was finally di-\\nvided between Georgia and Mississippi territory, each receiving the\\nportion immediately north of its own limits.\\nTo understand clearly the causes which led to the possession by South\\nCarolina and the cession to the United States of this singular territory,\\nit is necessary to glance briefly at that period of our history when\\nthe thirteen States, after the surrender of Yorktown and the treaty\\no Paris, having secured their independence, were engaged in construct-\\ning a general government. One of the questions of the day most dif-\\nficult of solution was the government of their western territory.", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0007.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "4 South Carolina Cession.\\nThe troubles* of North Carolina in controlling her froward and pre-\\ncocious daughter, Tennessee, are familiar to us all. Similar difficulties\\nwere experienced by all the other States owning western territory.\\nThese difficulties wore caused partly by the natural barriers of remote-\\nness, inaccessibility, imperfect communications, and divergent interests;\\nand partly by the independent and intractable character of the western\\nsettlers, who were restive under any restraints which appeared to be im-\\nposed by people at a distance. Domestic troubles, however, were by no\\nmeans the only ones. There was a strong pressure from without, and\\nespecially from the New England and Middle States, to induce the great\\nStates of Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas to surrender their west-\\nern territory. A glance at the map will show the grounds of their jeal-\\nousy in entering into a union with these four States, who then owned\\nmore than three-fourths of all the territory ceded by Great Britain in\\nthe treaty of Paris.\\nAccording to Mr. Anderson s History of the United States, only six\\nStates, previous to 1781, had exactly defined boundaries viz., New\\nHampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and\\nDelaware. The disputed claims to western territory, and their final\\nadjustment, are all that is now important to consider. These claims,\\nas is well known, were finally ceded to the United States by all claim-\\nants.\\nHow different might have been the fate of America, whether for bet-\\nter or for worse, had the four great States held to their western lands\\nwith the tenacity usually shown by powerful communities! Virginia\\nmight now be extending from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, and from\\nNorth Carolina to the lakes, embracing an area and numbering a pop-\\nulation far overshadowing her sister States, truly the Old Dominion, in-\\nstead of being shrunken up, as she now is, between the Alleghanies and\\nthe ocean, shorn of her lands, and fallen from the first to the tenth State\\nof the Union. The Carolinas and Georgia might now be .stretching\\nfrom the Atlantic to the Mississippi, powerful in lands, population, and\\nresources. Such might have been their fate had these States pursued\\na selfish policy. Such was the fear of the other nine States, who urged\\nthe western cessions, and who looked with just alarm upon a union\\nwith neighbors who might in a few years acquire, by the settlement of\\ntheir western lands, such overpowering influence. Whether such un-\\nwieldy States could have held together, whether the same wonderful\\ngrowth and the same healthy development could have been attained by\\nthe West under the management of the parent States, it is now idle to\\nintpiire.", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0008.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "South Carolina Cession. 5\\nLet us trace briefly the pressure of public opinion, the political arti-\\nfices, and the domestic difficulties which finally impelled the four great\\nStates to the voluntary surrender of the largest tract of land ever alien-\\nated in the history of the world by powerful communities without blood-\\nshed.\\nThe first public movement in this direction was made in Congress iu\\n1777, in the debates and preliminaries to the adoption of the Articles\\nof Confederation. This contest was for the time ended by the refusal\\nof Virginia to cede her westei-n lands, and the refusal of Maryland to\\nenter the confederation without it. Virginia claimed all of the vast\\nterritory north-west of the Ohio River, from her charter, from actual\\npossession, and from the fact that the British were expelled from it by\\nthe expedition under George Rogers Clarke, entirely composed of Vir-\\nginia troops, and under Virginia authority, and after the refusal or fail-\\nure of the United States to assist. It will be remembered that the Par-\\nliament of Great Britain had, iu the beginning of the contest with her\\ncolonies, passed an act annexing all the territory north-west of the Ohio\\nRiver to Canada. The expedition of George Rogers Clarke prevented\\nthe policy of Great Britain from being successful in limiting the terri-\\ntory of the United States to the Ohio River. The claim of Virginia,\\nhowever, was not undisputed. Massachusetts and Connecticut claimed\\nthat their original charter extended across the belt of this territory, re-\\nspectively within the latitude of their northern and southern bounda-\\nries; and that although they had never exercised any jurisdiction, their\\nrights had not been extinguished by the grants of the Crown which de-\\nprived them of the intervening country. New York also claimed from\\nthe lakes to the Cumberland Mountains, under certain alleged grants\\nfrom the Indians. It is evident that these claims of New York were\\nurged for the sole purpose of using them as a lever to compel the other\\nStates to abandon their claims to the north-western territory. It is\\nprobable, moreover, that Massachusetts and Connecticut entertained no\\nserious thought of acquiring possession of any portiou of this territory,\\nbut used their claims as a lever to effect a cession from Virginia, the\\nCarolinas, and Georgia, and for other political purposes. Hildreth,\\nwho cannot be accused of partiality to Virginia, says, in this connec-\\ntion New York, whose claim was the vaguest and most shadowy, led\\nthe way by giving a discretionary power to her delegates in Congress\\nto cede that portiou of her claims west of a line drawn through the\\nwesternmost extremity of Lake Ontario. This was in February,\\n1780, when the second effort was made to force a cession from the\\nclaimant States. Connecticut offered to cede her claims in October", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0009.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "6 South Carolina Cession.\\nof the same year, retaining that portion since known as the Connecticut\\nReserve. The Virginia Legislature, on Dec. 30, 1780, made a cession\\nof all claims north-west of the Ohio, but requiring as a condition a\\nguarantee from the United States to the possession of Kentucky. The\\ndelegates from New York, who had been vested with discretionary\\npower, made a deed on March 1, 1781, and on the same day the dele-\\ngates of Maryland, who were authorized to do so, ratified the articles\\nof confederation, and the union of the States was begun.\\nThis cession of Virginia, the only State who resigned any territory\\nreally occupied, and whose claims were undisputed, as far north as the\\nfoi ty-first parallel, except by the shadowy claim of New York, is at-\\ntributed by Hildreth to the terror of invasion upon the approach of Ar-\\nnold. Bancroft alludes to this cession in the following words: Vir-\\nginia did more, avowing her regard for a federal union, and preferring\\nthe general good to every object of smaller importance, she resolved to\\nyield her title to the lands north-west of the Ohio, on condition that\\nthey should be formed into distinct republican States, and admitted\\nmembers of the Union and Jefferson, who from the first had pledged\\nhimself to the measure, announced to Congress this great act of his ad-\\nministration in a letter full of hope for the completion of the American\\nUnion, and the establishment of free republics in the vast country to\\nwhich Virginia quitted her claim.\\nAlthough these cessions had produced the effect of allaying the jeal-\\nousy of Maryland, and thus completing the confederation, yet the west-\\nern lauds continued for many years to be a source of disquietude and\\ncontention. The following extract from Hildreth presents the condition\\nof afiiiirs in 1782 With the increasing power of the treasury, the west-\\nern lands were earnestly looked to as a financial resource. Unwilling-\\nness to guarantee to Virginia the possession of Kentucky, and the influ-\\nence of certain land companies, not without their weight in Congress,\\non whose behalf a claim was set up to large tracts west of the mount-\\nains, had hitherto prevented the acceptance of the Virginia cession.\\nA committee, the appointment of which the delegates from Virginia\\nvainly opposed, having gone into a full examination of all the claims\\nto western lands, whether on the part of States, companies, or indi-\\nviduals, had made a report upholding the title of New York against\\nall claimants. That report gave rise to many warm debates, which re-\\nsulted, however, at the close of the cession in the formal acceptance of\\nthe deed of New York conveying all her title to Congress an accept-\\nance intended to compel the other States to make satisfactory cessions.\\nMassachusetts and Virginia voted against it the Carolinas were divided", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0010.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "South Carolina Cession. 7\\nall the other States in the affirmative. Thus matters remained until\\nafter the close of the war.\\nAfter the disbandment of the army, Congress was very thinly at-\\ntended. The first business of importance was the acceptance of the\\ncession of Virginia, March, 1784, that State having modified its ces-\\nsion by the omission of the guarantee of Kentucky, and conditioned it\\nwith a reservation of the title to land to be sold to repay the soldiers\\nengaged in the expedition of George Rogers Clarke in the conquest of\\nthe north-western territory.\\nSimultaneously with this acceptance, Jefferson submitted his fa-\\nmous plan for the subdivision and government of the north-west terri-\\ntory, and such other western territory as might be obtained by cessions\\nexpected from the other States. The adoption of this report and the-\\nsubsequent acts of Congress show that the main cause of jealousy was\\nremoved, and the title of the United States to the north-west territory\\nwas considered substantially assured by this cession of Virginia and\\nits acceptance. As yet, however, the cession of Connecticut had not\\nbeen accepted, and Massachusetts was sleeping on her claim.\\nAn irresistible public opinion was now brought to bear upon theses\\nStates and upon the claimants of the territory south of the Ohio River^\\nNorth Carolina vacillated, her Legislature passing an act in June, 1784,.\\nto cede Tennessee, and repealing the same in November, before Con-\\ngress could accept it. In March, 1785, Massachusetts authorized her\\ndelegates to cede her claims, and her cession was accepted on April 19,.\\nthe anniversary of Lexington. This cession v/as free from reservations\\nor conditions of a selfish character, and bore on its face the evidence of\\nits patriotic purpose. On Sept. 11, 1786, Congress, in order to com-\\nplete the title of the United States to the north-west territoiy, accepted\\nthe cession of Connecticut, notwithstanding the sinister reservation by\\nwhich that shrewd State sought to convert the nominal surrender of her\\nabstract claims into a real establishment of possession of proprietary\\ntitle. Ceding all claims to jurisdiction, she reserved the proprietary\\ntitle to the large tract of land known as the Connecticut Reserve,\\nthe proceeds from the sale of which went into the treasury of the State,,\\nand now constitutes a large portion of her magnificent school fund, thus,\\nrewarding her own patriotism with a pecuniary compensation.\\nThe title to the north-western territory being now freed from all\\nclaimants, the pressure was directed against the Carolinas and Georgia.\\nIt is not surprising that Georgia should cling to her western territory\\nwith more tenacity and yield it with more feluctance than any of her\\nsister States. Separated from it by no mountain barriers, and lying;", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0011.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "S South Carolina Cession.\\nin immediate contact, her western possessions seemed more a part of\\nherself and no adverse interests urged her western settlers to demand a\\nseparation. Besides all this, a new complication had now arisen, which\\ndisposed the southern claimants of western territory to look with less\\nfavor upon a cession of their claims to the United States. This was\\nthe spirit manifested by the Northern States to concede to the claims\\nof Spain the temporary control of the Mississippi River as high as\\nNatchez, which was then occupied by Spanish troops. In August?\\n1786, panting for the revival of trade on any terms, seven Northern\\nStates, by their delegates in Congress, approved a plan submitted by\\nJay to yield to the claims of Spain temporary control of the Mississippi\\nRiver, and the possession of the disputed territory. The five Southern\\nStates violently opposed it, and it was only defeated by lacking the con-\\nstitutional majority of nine States. Georgia especially resented this dis-\\nposition to abandon her territory to Spain, and refused to listen to any\\nproposition to cede her territory to the United States.\\nThese events occurring in 1785, and the sectional spirit which they\\naroused, put an end for the time to any cessions of south-western terri-\\ntory. In 1787, after the excitement and sectional jealousy had been\\nsomewhat allayed, although the affairs with Spain were still unsettled,\\nthe pressure upon North Carolina and Georgia was revived by the first\\ncession of any south-western territory to the United States. This was\\nthe cession by South Carolina of the strip of land which forms the sub-\\nject of this paper. As far as we can judge of the motives of men, when\\nleft to find them with no guide but their acts, it would seem that South\\nCarolina desired to bring to bear on North Carolina and Georgia the\\nsame pressure which New York had so successfully exercised on Vir-\\nginia, with this difference, however, that South Carolina ceded valid,\\nthough useless, claims, while New York enjoyed the doubtful honor of\\nattempting to give away what did not belong to her. There may have\\nbeen also some feeliug of pique against Georgia in the action of the\\nHotspur State, caused by the suit then pending between the two States.\\nThe following are the circumstances of the cession and I will here\\nacknowledge my indebtedness to the courtesy of Mr. Chas. Warren,\\nActing Commissioner of Education, and to Mr. Spofford, Librarian of\\nCongress, for supplying me with extracts from the records of the Con-\\ngress of the Confederation, furnishing information that can be found in\\nno work on United States History with which I am acquainted. I pre-\\nsent these extracts to the Society in behalf of Mr. Warren, and being too\\nvoluminous to read in full, although very interesting, I give a synopsis\\nof their contents, accompanied by such reflections as the subject suggests.", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0012.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "South Carolina Cession. 9\\nIn the year 1785 South Carolina instituted suit against Georgia, be-\\nfore Congress, under the ninth article of the confederation. On June\\n1 of this year Georgia was summoned to appear on the second Monday\\nof May, 1786.\\nThe following is a portion of the petition of South Carolina:\\nTo the United States of America in Congress assembled The petition\\nof the Legislature of South Carolina sheweth that a dispute and differ-\\nence hath arisen and subsists between the State of Georgia and this\\nState concerning boundaries. That the case and claim of this State is\\nas follows, viz.\\nCharles II., King of Great Britain, by charter, dated the 24th\\nMarch, in the fifteenth year of his reign, granted, etc. That\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0on the 30th day of June, in the seventeenth year of his reign, the said\\nking granted to the said Lords Proprietors a second charter, enlarging\\nthe bounds of Carolina, etc That Carolina was afterward di-\\nvided into two provinces called North and South Carolina. That by\\na charter dated the 9th day of June, 1732, George II., King of Great\\nBritain, granted to certain persons therein named all the lands lying-\\nbetween the rivers Savannah and Altamaha, and lines to be drawn\\nfrom the heads of those rivers respectively to the South Seas, and styled\\nthe said colony Georgia ThatSouthCarolinaclaims the lands\\nlying between the North Carolina line and a line to be run due west\\nfrom the mouth of the Tugaloo River to the Mississippi, because, as the\\nState contends, the River Savannah loses that name at the confluence\\nof Tugaloo and Keowee rivers, consequently that spot is the head of\\nSavannah River; the State of Georgia, on the other hand, contends\\nthat the source of Keowee is to be considered at the head of Savannah\\nRiver.\\nThe petition recites other disputed points of boundary, and con-\\ncludes with a prayer to Congress to take jurisdiction and try the case\\nunder the Articles of Confederation.\\nThe case was adjourned from time to time, until Sept. 4, 1786, when\\nboth States appeared by their agents. Proceedings were then instituted,\\nand a court appointed to try the case, which was to sit in New York.\\nNo judgment was ever rendered by this court in consequence of the\\ncompromise of the suit between the parties. Both States appointed\\nCommissioners, who met at Beaufort, S. C, clothed with full powers to\\nmake a final settlement. And now comes a singular part of the his-\\ntory and the origin of the twelve-mile strip. These Commissioners\\nCharles Cotesworth Pinckney, Andrew Pickens, and Pierce Butler, on\\nthe pai t of South Carolina; and John Habersham, Lacklan Mcintosh,", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0013.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "10 South Carolina Cession.\\na majority of the Comnlii^sionel\u00e2\u0080\u00a2^^ on the part of Georgia signed an\\nagreement and convention establishing the line as it now exists be-\\ntween the two States, running along the Savannah River and its most\\nnorthern branch, the Tugaloo, and the most northern branch of the\\nTugaloo, the Chatuga, to the point where it intersects the North Caro-\\nlina line. This would have granted all our twelve-mile strip to Geor-\\ngia, along with the other territory ceded by South Carolina to Georgia\\nin that convention. It so happened, however, that the Legislature of\\nSouth Carolina was at the same time in session.\\nOn March 8 of the same year, just one month and twenty daj S be-\\nfore the completion and signature of the convention at Beaufort, the\\nSouth Carolina Legislature passed a bill conveying to the United States\\nthe territory bounded by the Mississippi River, the North Carolina line,\\nand a line drawn along the crest of the mountains, which divide the\\nwaters of the East from the waters of the West from the point where\\nthese mountains intersect the North Carolina line to the head-waters of\\nthe most southern branch of Tugaloo River, and thence west to the Mis-\\nsissippi River, thus mapping out our twelve-mile strip. The delegates of\\nSouth Carolina were directed to make a deed conveying the same. These\\ntwo apparently inconsistent acts of South Carolina both needed the con-\\nfirmation of Congress. They were accordingly presented to Congress on\\nthe same day, accompanied by the deed of cession, Aug. 9, 1787. The\\naction of Congress bears marks of worldly wisdom. The cession to the\\nUnited States was accei)ted on the same day. The motion to confirm\\nthe conventi(m of Beaufort was referred to a committee, who, as far as\\nI can find, never reported. This report was perhaps prevented by the\\nabsorbing interest in the constitutional convention then in session, and\\nwhich CO 1 pleted its labors in the following month by adopting the\\npresent constitution, and the Congress of the Confederation soon after\\npassed out of existence, and with it the ninth article, under which the\\nsuit of South Carolina was instituted.\\nI must here notice an error into which Hildreth has fallen. What-\\never may be thought of the bias of his politics, or the justice of his re-\\nflections, he is certainly reliable in points of fact, and his work might\\nwell be styled a Cyclopedia of United States History. He evidently\\nwrote it seated by the journal of Congress, following in chronological\\norder each event as it transpired. He thus brings to light many curi-\\nous and interesting details which the more rhetorical or philosophical\\nhistorians neglect, I have relied nmch on his statements in the pres-\\nent sketch. He seems, however, to have fallen into an error in regard\\nto the South Carolina cession, as proved by the extracts from the jour-", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0014.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "South Carolina Cession. 11\\nnal of Congress, which I have followed in recounting the South Caro-\\nlina suit and cession. He says The geography of this region was not\\nyet well understood, and after this ample cession to the United States\\nof all her remaining western territory, a cession which might as well\\nhave been spared, since the lines described by it included nothing.\\nWe have just seen that the cession to the United States was made\\nbefore the action of the Beaufort Convention, that the two acts were\\nreported to Congress on the same day, and that the Beaufort Convention\\nwas never confirmed by Congress. The lines described did, therefore,^\\ninclude something, and did convey a real title.\\nThus the twelve-mile strip became the territory of the United States,\\nand intervened as a wedge between Georgia and North Carolina, and\\nafforded for several years a suggestive invitation to cede their western\\nlands. The example was followed by North Carolina in 1790, when,\\nafter her patience was exhausted by the attempt to establish the State\\nof Frankland, she ceded her western lands to the United States. Ken-\\ntucky anticipated the expected second cession of Virginia, and became\\na State in 1792, without undergoing the territorial apprenticeship.\\nThis left the full pressure of the demand for western cessions to fall\\non Georgia. This sturdy State resisted until 1802, when her unwilling\\ncession, by no means a free gift, proved to be a shrewd bargain. She\\nthen ceded the Territory of Mississippi, nearly all of which was covered\\nby Indian titles, and received in return that portion of the South Car-\\nolina cession immediately north of her boundary, $1,250,000 in money\\nfrom the proceeds of the sale of public lands, and what ultimately\\nproved very costly to the United States, a guarantee for the extinction\\nof all Indian claims in her present limits. The remaining portion of\\nour twelve-mile strip, all of which, after the admission of Tennessee,\\nwas styled in legislation the territory of the United States south of the\\nState of Tennessee, was, in 1804, added by Congress to Mississippi Ter-\\nritory, and now constitutes the northern portion of the States of Ala-\\nbama and Mississippi.", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0015.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "Northeri] Boundary of Tei^nessee,\\nRead Before the Tennessee Historical Society, March 18, 1884.\\nri^HE dividing Hoe between Virginia and North Carolina, a portion\\n-L of which line now constitutes the northern boundary of Tennes-\\nsee, was first conceived in the luiuds of Charles II. and his Council.\\nIts history thus begins in 1665, when, without a local habitation, it\\nexisted as an imaginary line having but one finite end, and purporting\\nto bound unexplored countries. The confusion and disputes which at-\\ntended the effort to locate and mark it by natural bounds, extended\\nthrough a large portion of our colonial history, and reached far into\\nour national life. Piece by piece it was extended and patched, follow-\\ning on in the wake of civilization in its westward march, until its final\\ncompletion in 1859-60, when it Avas located and marked by the Joint\\nCommission of Tennessee and Kentucky, and confirmed by legislation\\nin both Htates.\\nOur history is thus divided into two 2: eriods. The first period ex-\\ntends from the grant of Charles II. in 1665 to the Cession Act of North\\nCarolina in 1790, when this line constituted the boundary between\\nVirginia and North Carolina. The second period extends from the\\nCession Act of 1790 to the final completion of the line in 1860, during\\nwhich time it constituted, until 1796, the northern boundary of the\\nSouth-west Territory, and subsequently the northern boundary of Ten-\\nnessee.\\nDuriug the first period it was extended by three successive steps.\\nFirst: In 1728, by a Joint Commission under the authority of King\\nGeorge II. and of the Lords Proprietors of Carolina, it was run 241\\nmiles from the coast to a point on. Peter s Creek. Second: In 1749, it\\nwas extended to a point on Steep Rock Creek, a distance of eighty-eight\\nmiles, by Commissioners of King George II. Third In 1779-80 it was\\nextended to the Cumberland Mountain by a Joint Commission of North\\nCarolina and Virginia, and was continued to the Tennessee River by\\nthe Virginia Commissioners, and its termination marked on the Mis-", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0016.jp2"}, "17": {"fulltext": "Northern Boundary of Tennessee. 13\\nsissippi. The line of the Virginia Commissioners, commonly known\\nas the Walker s Line, was confirmed by two enactments of North Car-\\nolina in 1789 and 1790, and by Virginia in 1791.\\nIn the days when European monarchs rewarded their favorites with\\ngrants of immense tracts of territory in the New World, they did their\\nsurveying at the Council-table, and used oceans and parallels of lati-\\ntude for boundary lines. Thus, when James I., in 1606, gave the\\nLondon Company that immense tract called Virginia, he bounds it by\\nthe thirty-eighth and thirty-fourth parallels of north latitude, by the\\nAtlantic Ocean and the South Seas. He similarly bounds the territory\\nof the Plymouth Company by the same oceans, and by the forty-fifth\\nand forty-first parallels. The belt of three degrees between these\\ngrants he leaves open to either company which shall first occupy the\\nterritory. When, in 1609, the same king changed the charter of the\\nLondon Company, he enlarged the limits of Virginia, and describes\\nthe boundaries as follows From the point of land, Cape or Point\\nComfort, all along the sea-coast to the northward two hundred miles,\\nand from said Cape or Point Comfort all along the sea-coast to the\\nsouthward two hundred miles, up into the land throughout from\\nsea to sea. The territory thus granted to Virginia extended from Cape\\nFear to Sandy Hook, and included all of what is now North Carolina\\nand Tennessee, and portions of what is now South Carolina, Georgia,\\nAlabama, and Mississippi, as well as all of what is now Maryland,\\nDelaware, and Ncav Jersey, and portions of what is now Pennsylvania\\nand other Middle States. The grant to the Plymouth Company in\\n1620 made the fortieth parallel their southern limit, and established\\nthis parallel of forty degrees as the northern boundary of Virginia.\\nThe subsequent dissolution of the London Compan^ by James I. did\\nnot change the territorial limits of Virginia, but only its proprietor-\\nship, converting it into a royal province. Charles II. attached but\\nlittle sanctity to the rights of the colony, or the gift of his grand-\\nfather. On March 24th, 1662, he granted to some of his favorites,\\nviz. Our right trusty and right well beloved cousin and Councillor,\\nEdward, Earl of Clarendon, our High Chancellor of England; our\\nright trusty and right intirely beloved cousin and Councillor, George,\\nDuke of Albemarle, etc., ad nauseam, all that province,\\nwithin 36\u00c2\u00b0 of north latitude, etc. On June 30th, 1665, he enlarged\\nthis grant, and named a line destined to become famous in our history\\nand a familiar word to our people, the line of 36\u00c2\u00b0 30 Col. Byrd tells\\nus how this second grant was brought about: Sir William Berkeley,\\nwho was one of the grantees, and at that time Governor of Virginai,", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0017.jp2"}, "18": {"fulltext": "14 Northern Boundary of Tennessee.\\nfinding a territory of thirty-one miles in breadth between the inhabited\\npart of Virginia and the above-mentioned boundary of Carolina, ad-\\nvised the Lord Clarendon of it and his Lordship had interest enough\\nwith the king to obtain a second patent to include it. This was per-\\nhaps one cause of the unpopularity of Gov. Berkeley in Virginia. In\\nthis second grant Charles II. gives to the Lords Proprietors of Car-\\nolina all that j)rovince, territory, or tract of ground, extending\\nnorth and eastward as far as the Carahtuke River, or inlet, upon a\\nstreight westerly line to Wyonoke Creek, which lys within or about\\nthe degrees of thirty-six and thirty minutes northern latitude, and so\\nwest in a direct line as far as the South Seas; and south and westward\\nas far as the degrees of twenty-nine inclusive, northern latitude, and so\\nwest in a direct line as far as the South Seas, etc.\\nThus this profligate monarch, ira])ortuned by greedy and unscrupu-\\nlous courtiers, scarcely giving a thought to the consequences of his ac-\\ntion, ignores alike the acts of his predecessors and the vested rights of\\nhis subjects, and bounds by an imaginary line a territory which he has\\nno right to convey. Among any other people on the globe, the seeds\\nthus sown, the conflict of title, and unlocated boundary would have\\nborne in future years its legitimate fi-uit of strife and bloodshed. That\\n*this fatal consequence was averted from our ancestors is due, in part, to\\nthe abundance of unsettled territory; but it is mainly due to the liberal\\nspirit and fraternal feeling which animated them in the revolution, and\\nto the community of interests aAvakened by the struggle. In May,\\n177(), Virginia framed a bill of rights, and enacted a constitution.\\nSection 21 of this instrument declares: The territory contained with-\\nin the charters erecting the colonies of Maryland, Pennsylvania, North\\nand South Carolina is hereby ceded and confirmed to those States for-\\never. Haywood remarks on this point Here was magnanimously\\ncut off and surrendered all the territory which had been taken from\\nVirginia to satisfy the grants to the Lords Proprietors. Haywood is\\njust in calling this action magnanimous. While Virginia could not\\nperhaps have maintained a successful claim to the possession of those\\nterritories to which her abstract prior title had so long lain dormant,\\nand had ])een weakened, if not destroyed, by so many capricious grants\\nfrom the same power by which it was created, yet her position offered\\nstrong temptations to pursue the time-sanctioned European policy, the\\npolicy which European statesmen consider sagacious, which has built\\nup all the great powers of Europe at the expense of their neighbors,\\nand which is pursued now, and ever has been pursued throughout the\\nwhole history of their diplomacy. That policy would have been to", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0018.jp2"}, "19": {"fulltext": "Northern Boundary of Tennessee. 15\\nnurse her claims, to hold them as a perpetual thorn in the side of her\\nsister States, to prevent the formation of the Union, to make herself\\nthe great central absorbing power, and gradually to encroach on the\\nlesser States. Such a policy was favored by a portion of her politi-\\ncians, and was feared by several of the smaller States, especially by\\nMaryland. Had a monarch ruled the destinies of Virginia, such would\\nhave been the inevitable tendency of events. With a territory undis-\\nputed from the fortieth parallel to 36\u00c2\u00b0 30 except the little corner\\nwhich included Maryland, Delaware, and portions of Pennsylvania\\nand New Jersey; with actual possession joined to best title, and the\\nright acquired by conquest from Great Britain, to all the unoccupied\\nwestern lands up to the lakes with wealth, population, and resources\\nthen far superior to any of her sister States, the prospect was certainly\\nalluring, had the ambition of Virginia aimed at empire. But a far\\ndifferent spirit animated her people. Fired with the love of liberty,\\nand struggling for their own freedom from the grasp of Great Britain,\\nno thought entered their minds of aggression against the brethren\\nfighting by their sides. Impelled by this spirit of her people, she de-\\nvoted her efforts to bind the States in a fraternal compact, to remove\\nall causes of jealousy, and to build up a great and permanent Federal\\nRepublic, she hastened to surrender all claims to the territory of her\\nsister States, and to dismember herself of her own vast domains. In\\nher great cession of the territory north-west of the Ohio the greatest\\ncession of territory in the history of the world ever voluntarily made\\nby a powerful State able to defend it she invited the other States to\\nfollow her example, and thus made possible the local governments and\\nmagical development of the West, and she averted the jealousy and^\\npossibly the anarchy and bloodshed that mightt have followed the as-\\nsertion of her claims. As w^e see her thus voluntarily stripping herself\\nof her territory until she shrinks up between the Alleghanies and the\\nAtlantic, shall we view her with that kindly pity which we feel for the\\nman whose good-natured weakness has permitted greatness and fortune\\nto fall from his grasp? Does not her course rather reveal a broad\\nwisdom which European statesmen have never been able to compre-\\nhend, and a philanthropy which looked to the good of mankind and\\nnot to the grasping of power, or the extension of State lines? Wheth-\\ner we consider her magnanimous or weak, we cannot refuse the praise\\nwhich poets and historians may bestow with kindling warmth but\\nwhich the world echoes with faint applause:\\nLess great in what thou art\\nThan in that thou has. forborne to be.", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0019.jp2"}, "20": {"fulltext": "16 Northern Boundary of Tennessee.\\nBut whatever may be our reflections on the course of Virginia, it is\\nat least certain that her action in 1776 forever quieted all questions of\\nconflict of title to the territory of North Carolina. It now remained\\nto complete the location of this imaginary line this line which, though\\nit failed to bring on the conflict of title and territory which the careless\\nand selfish kings of England had bequeathed as a legacy to America,\\nwas yet destined to bear some of its bitter fruit, and to become famous\\nin our history in another and more recent struggle, the contest for the\\nlimitation of slavery west of the Mississippi.\\nThe colonial disputes about the location of the line 36\u00c2\u00b0 30 were not\\nbetween the people of the two colonies, but between the Crown and the\\nLords Proprietors, Virginia being then a royal province and Carolina a\\nproprietary government. The first dispute occurred in 1710. The re-\\nspective commissioners met, and could not agree upon the starting-point\\nby a difference of about fifteen miles. They separated without doing any\\nthing. The Royal Commissioners made a report to Queen Anne, bringing\\nserious charges against the Commissioners of the Lords Proprietors of\\nCarolina. On March 1, 1710, an order of Council was issued, from which\\nI quote the following That The Connnissioners of Carolina are both of\\nthem Persons engag d in Interest to obstruct the settling of the Bounda-\\nrys for one of them has been for several years Surveyor General of Caro-\\nlina, and has acquired great Profit to himself by surveying Lands within\\nthe controverted Bounds, and has taken up several tracts of land in his\\nown Name. The other of them is at this time Surveyor General, and\\nhath the same prospect of advantage by making future surveys within\\nthe said bounds. The order concludes: Her Majesty, in Council, is\\npleased to order, as it is hereby ordered, the Rt. Houble the Lords Com-\\nmissioners for Trade and Plantations Do signifye her Majesty s pleasure\\nherein to her Majesty s Governor, or Commander-in-chief of Virginia\\nfor the time being, and to all persons to whom it may belong, as is pro-\\nposed by their Lordships in said Representation, and the Rt. Honble\\nthe Lords Proprietors of Carolina, are to do what on their part does\\nappertain. Col. Byrd, the Virginia Commissioner in 1728, defends\\nthe Carolina Commissioners against the charges above quoted. In\\nobedience to this order, a conference was held between the respective\\nGovernors, Chas. Eden and Alexander Spottswood, and an agreement\\nwas signed That from the mouth of Corotuck River, or Inlet, and set-\\nting the compass on the north Shoar thereof, a due West line be run,\\nand fairly marked, etc. This agreement bears no date, and was for-\\nwarded to King George I. for his approval. At the Court of St.\\nJames s, the 28th day of March, 1727. Present, the King s Most Ex-", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0020.jp2"}, "21": {"fulltext": "Northern Boundary of Tennessee. 17\\ncellent Majesty in Council His Majesty is hereupon pleas d\\nwith the advice of his Privy Council to approve the said Proposals,\\nand to order, as it is hereby ordered, that the Governor, or\\nCommander-in-chief, of our Colony of Virginia do settle the said\\nBouudarys, in conjunction with the Governor of North Carolina,\\nagreeable to said Proposals. In accordance with this order, the\\nRoyal Commission was issued: George II., by the Grace of God, of\\nGreat Britain, France, aud Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, to\\nour well -beloved* William Byrd, Richard Fitz William, and William\\nDandridge, Esqrs, members of our Council of the Colony and Domin-\\nion of Virginia, Greeting: Whereas our late Royal Father of Blessed\\nMemory, etc. This commission is dated Dec. 14th, 1727, in the first\\nYear of our Reign. The Carolina Commission runs in the name of\\nthe Lords Proprietors. Sir Richard Everard, Baronet, Governor,\\nCaptain General, and Commander-in-chief of the said Province: To\\nChristopher Gale, Esqr, Chief Justice, John Lovick, Esqr, Secretary,\\nEdward Mosely, Esqr, Surveyor General, and William Little, Esqr,\\nAttorney General, Greeting: I, therefore, reposing especial\\ntrust and confidence in you, to be Commissioners on the part\\nof the true and absolute Lords Proprietors. It is dated February 21st,\\n1728. The Commissioners met March 6th, 1728, and after some dis-\\nputes, placed a cedar post on the north shore of Currituck Inlet, as\\ntheir beginning point in latitude 36\u00c2\u00b0 31 and from that point ran a\\ndue west course, as they su})posed, allowing 3\u00c2\u00b0 west for the variation.\\nThey passed through the Dismal Swamp, and gained, as Col. Byrd\\nexpresses it, immortal reputation by being the first of mankind that\\never ventured through the great Dismal. At Buzzard Creek, about\\n169 miles from the coast, the Carolina Commissioners abandoned the\\nwork on Oct. 5, 1728. Col. Byrd and Mr. Dandridge continued the\\nline seventy-two miles farther, to a point on Peter s Creek, a tributary\\nof Dan River, near the Sauratowns, 241 miles and 30 poles from the\\ncoast, marking the termination on a red oak Oct. 26, 1728. A com-\\nplete account of this line was afterward given by Col. Byrd in a de-\\nlightful work entitled The History of the Dividing Line. Col. Byrd\\nwas a courtier and wit of the first order. Even Dickens would not criti-\\ncise us for calling him a remarkable man. He was the most popular and\\ninfluential man of his day in Virginia. In his elegant country-seat of\\nWestover, on James River, he was the most hospitable of cavaliers and\\nthe most genial of companions. Sparkling all over with wit, his His-\\ntory of the Dividing Line is perhaps the most entertaining book ever\\nwritten on so dry a subject. I have alluded to his characteristics, be-\\n2", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0021.jp2"}, "22": {"fulltext": "18 Northern Boundary of Tennessee.\\ncause they jjroducod an important effect on the location of the line o\\nwhich he was the liistorian and the father. With his cheerful and gen-\\nerous nature, he combined a hot temper and a lofty pride. He fully\\nexpected all the people along the border to be clamorous for the honor\\nof belonging to Virginia. He was disgusted to find that they all de-\\nsired to fall on the Carolina side of the line. After spurting out his\\nindignation, true to his generous nature, he favored their wishes as far\\nas his iastructions would permit, and consented to the location of the\\nline about a mile north of 36\u00c2\u00b0 30 In his history, hdwever, he cannot\\nhelp firing a few parting shots, of which the following will serve as a\\nspecimen We constantly found the Borderers laid it to heart if their\\nland was taken into Virginia. They chose much rather to belong to\\nCarolina, where they pay no tribute to God or Ci3esar. Of the action\\nof the Carolina Commissioners in abandoning the work on Oct. 5, I\\ngive Col. Byrd s opinion in his own language We lay still the next\\nday, being Sunday. The Gentlemen of Carolina assisted not at our\\nPublic Devotions, because they were taken up all the morning in mak-\\ning a formidable protest against our proceeding on the line without\\nthem In the afternoon Mr. Fitz William, one of the Com-\\nmissioners from Virginia, acquainted his colleagues it was his opinion\\nthat by his Majesty s Order they could not proceed farther on the line\\nbut in conjunction with the Commissioners of Carolina, for which rea-\\nson he intended to retire the next morning with those gentlemen. This\\nlookt a little odd in our Brother Commissioner, tho in justice to him,\\nas well as our Carolina Friends, they stuck to us as long as our good\\nLiquor lasted, and were so kind as to drink our good journey to the\\nMountains in the last bottle we had left This Gentleman\\nhad a stil stronger reason for hurrying back to Williamsburg, which\\nwas that neither the General Court might lose an able judge nor him-\\nself a double salary, tho he did but half the work, in which, however,\\nhe had the misfortune to miscarry when it came to be fairly considered.\\nCol. Byrd, with the remainder of his party, as we have seen, completed\\nthe line to Peter s Creek, as he expresses it, within the shadow of the\\nChariky Mountains, where we set up our pillars like Hercules, and re-\\nturned home. He closes his pleasant narrative as follows: Nor can\\nwe by any means reproach ourselves of having put the Crown to any\\nexhorbitant expense in this difficult affair, the whole charge from be-\\nginning to end amounting to no more than \u00c2\u00a31,000. But let no one\\nconcerned in this painful Expedition complain of the scantiness of his\\npay so long as His Majesty has been graciously pleased to add to our\\nReward the Honour of his Royal approbation, and to declare, not-", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0022.jp2"}, "23": {"fulltext": "Northern Boundary of Tennessee. 19\\nwithstanding the Desertion of the Carolina Commissioners, that the line\\nby us run shall hereafter stand as the true Boundary betwixt the Gov-\\nernments of Virginia and North Carolina.\\nThe second step in the location of this line was taken in 1749, when\\nit was continued from Peter s Creek to a point on Steep Rock Creek, a\\ndistance of eighty-eight miles, being in all 329 miles from the coast.\\nThere is no incident of special interest in this extension. It may, how-\\never, be noted that one of the Virginia Commissioners was Peter Jeffer-\\nson, the father of Thomas Jefferson. His colleague was Joshua Fry,\\nProfessor of Mathematics in William and Mary College. The Carolina\\nCommissioners were Daniel Weldon and William Churton. In one re-\\nspect this Commission deserves notice. Of the four joint Commissions\\nof North Carolina and Virginia, this was the only one which engaged\\nin no disputes, and the only one from which the Carolina Commission-\\ners failed to protest and withdraw. North Carolina was now, like Vir-\\nginia, a Royal Province. The Commissioners of both provinces held\\nunder the same authority, the King. This may account for their har-\\nmony.\\nNo other step was taken in the location of the boundary until after\\nthe beginning of the Revolution. We now find commissions worded in\\na different style, and for the first time look for their creation in legisla-\\ntive enactments. In 1779 we come to the third step. Urged by press-\\ning demands from their western settlers, the legislatures of the two\\nStates found time in the midst of the Revolutionary struggle to appoint\\na joint Commission to extend their boundary. The Commissioners, Col.\\nHenderson and William B. Smith, on the part of North Carolina, and\\nThomas Walker and Daniel Smith on the part of Virginia, met in\\nSeptember, 1779. They failed to find the point at which Fry and Jef-\\nferson and Weldon and Charton ended their line on Steep Rock Creek.\\nOn September 6th memoranda of agreement were entered on the books of\\nboth parties to the effect that the point of observation was in north\\nlatitude 36\u00c2\u00b0 31 25 and in west longitude 81\u00c2\u00b0 12 They ran due\\nsouth one mile to a point supposed to be in latitude 36\u00c2\u00b0 30 to the sat-\\nisfaction of all. From this point they ran a line, which they supposed\\nto be due west, about forty-five miles to Carter s Valley. Here a disa-\\ngreement occurred, and the two Commissions separated, running paral-\\nlel lines about two miles apart, the line of the Carolina Commissioners,\\ngenerally known as Henderson s Line, being north of the line of the\\nVirginia Commissioners, commonly called Walker s Line. The Caro-\\nlina Commissioners continued their line as far as Cumberland Mount-\\nain. At this point they abandoned the work, after sending a letter of", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0023.jp2"}, "24": {"fulltext": "20 Northern Boundary oj Tennessee.\\nprotest against Walker s Line. The Virginia Commissioners continued\\nto Tennessee River, leaving an unsurveyed gap from Deer Fork to the first\\nor east crossing ofCumbsrIand River, a distance which they estimated\\nto be 109 miles. Subsequent surveys place this distance at ninety seven\\nmiles. The total distance of Walker s Line, as given in the report of\\nthe Virginia Commissioners, is: From Steep Rock Creek to Deer Fork\\n123 J miles; unsurveyed gap (estimated), 109 miles; from first or east\\nCumberland crossing, to second or west Cumberland cros:?ing, 131\\nmiles; thence to Tennessee River 9} miles; making a total of 373\\nmiles. This added to Fry and Jefferson s Line, 88 miles, and Byrd s\\nline, 241 miles, makes the total length of the boundary thus far ex-\\ntended from the coast to the Tennessee River, 702 miles. The Com-\\nmissioners, although not authorized to extend the line beyond Ten-\\nnessee River, proceeded to mark its termination on the Mississippi,\\nbut did not survey the intervening distance. In consequence of the\\nfailure to make due allowance for the variation of the needle. Walker s\\nLine deflected continuously to the north. Col. Byrd s error of allow-\\ning too great a variation contributed to the same result, the two lines\\nbeing on opposite sides of the line of no variation. Either on account\\nof the imperfection of their astronomical instruments, or from a failure\\nto test their work by a sufficient number of astronomical observations,\\nthe Commissioners seemed not to detect, or at least did not correct, this\\nconstant northward deflection. Walker s Line first touched Tennessee\\nnear latitude 36\u00c2\u00b0 34 and reached Tennessee River near latitude 36\u00c2\u00b0\\n40 more than twelve miles too far north in a direct line, or about sev-\\nenteen miles by way of the river. This fact has been established by\\nsubsequent surveys with more accurate instruments. Henderson s Line,\\nrunning two miles north of Walker s Line, was of course still further\\nwrong. In consequence of the disagreement of the Commissioners, no\\nimmediate action was taken by the two States. In 1789 a committee\\nof the North Carolina Legislature, of which Gen. Thomas Person was\\nchairman, made a report, recommending the adoption of Walker s Line.\\nThis report was concurred with by both houses. At the same session\\nof the Legislature the act was passed ceding the Western Territory, which\\nis now Tennessee, to the United States. Under the law of North Car-\\nolina all acts related to the first day of the session. Thus the resolution\\nadopting Walker s Line and the Cession Act bore even date. The deed\\nexecuted to Congress by the Senators of North Carolina in pursuance\\nof the Cession Act was dated Feb. 25, 1790, and the deed was accepted\\nby Congress April 2, 1790. On Nov. 2, 1790, Gen. Person, again chair-\\nman of the Carolina Committee on Boundaries, in consequence of doubts", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0024.jp2"}, "25": {"fulltext": "Northern Boundary of Tennessee. 21\\nas to the formality and sufficiency of the previous action of the Caro-\\nlina Legislature, made a second report, recommending as follows That\\nthe boundary line between the States of North Carolina and Virginia\\nbe confirmed agreeable to a report of a committee, concurred with by\\nboth houses last session of assembly, and that a law be passed confirm-\\ning the line commonly called Walker s Line as the boundary between\\nthe States of N. Carolina and Virginia, and reserving the rights of the\\noldest patents, grants, or entries made in either of the States. On\\nDec. 11, 1790, this report was read and concurred with by both\\nhouses. It will be observed that in the first report, made in 1789,\\nwhich was concurred with and made the basis of the second report,\\nand thus for the second time concurred with, the following fact is\\ndistinctly set forth. I quote the language: Mr. Walker and the other\\nCommissioners from Virginia extended the line to Tennessee River, and\\nmarked its termination on the Mississippi from observations, leaving the\\nline from the Tennessee to that place unsurveyed. The action thus\\nadopting Walker s Line as clearly extended it to the Mississippi as if\\nposts had been placed every five miles between. This action was sat-\\nisfactory to Virginia, and on Dec. 7, 1791, Walker s Line was confirmed\\nby the Legislature of Virginia. Thus the boundary was regarded by\\nboth States as finally settled.\\nThis brings us to the second period of our history, which opens with\\na curious complication. In 1792, William Blount, Territorial Governor\\nof Tennessee, insisted that the first resolution of the Carolina Legisla-\\nture in 1789 was not a legal confirmation of Walker s Line; and that\\nthe second resolution of 1790, passed many months after the acceptance\\nof the Cession by Congress, was invalid as to the United States, of which\\nTennessee was then a territory. He further urged that North Caro-\\nlina had for ten years before the Cession exercised jurisdiction to Hen-\\nderson s Line, and announced his intention of maintaining the same.\\nA correspondence ensued between him and Governor Lee, of Virginia,\\nwhich resulted in a proclamation from Governor Blount asserting juris-\\ndiction to Henderson s Line, and a counter proclamation from Governor V\\nLee asserting jurisdiction to Walker s Line. Matters remained in this\\nconfused and somewhat hostile shape until 1801, when the two States\\nappointed a joint Commission to determine the true boundary. On\\nDec. 18, 1802, Joseph Martin, Creed Taylor, and Peter Johnson, on\\nthe part of Virginia, and John Sevier, George Rutledge, and Moses\\nFisk, on the part of Tennessee, met at Cumberland Gap. Failing to\\nunite in the result of their astronomical observations, they entered\\ninto a compromise, and unanimously agreed to run the boundary par-", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0025.jp2"}, "26": {"fulltext": "22 Northern Boundary of Tennessee.\\nallel to the two lines in dispute and midway between them, about one\\nmile from each. The surveyors, Brice Martin and Nathan B. Mark-\\nhind, surveyed this line, and marked it with live chops in the shape of\\na diamond. In 1803 the acts of the Commissioners were confirmed by\\nappropriate legislation in both States. The boundary between Virginia\\nand Tennessee was thus fiually established. Although subsequent ne-\\ngotiations have occurred, no change has been made. Ou Marcli 1, 1858,\\nTennessee passed enactments, and on March 18, 1858, Virginia passed\\nsimilar enactments, creating a joint Commission to re-mark, by perma-\\nnent landmarks, the line as agreed on in 1803. Samuel Milligan and\\nGeorge R. McClellan, Commissioners for Tennessee, and Leonid as\\nBaugh and James C. Black, Commissioners for Virginia, re-marked\\nthis line in 1859. Their acts were rejected by Virginia on March 9,\\n18()0, and were never confirmed by Tennessee. In consequence of the\\nwar, the proposition of Virginia in 1860 to appoint another Commis-\\nsion was not acted on by Tennessee. In 1870 Virginia proposed a re-\\nadjustment of her boundaries with Maryland, North Carolina, and\\nTennessee, and appointed a Commission consisting of Henry A. Wise,\\nWilliam Watts, and D. C. De Jarnette. The proposal of Tennessee\\nwas transmitted to the Legislature by Governor Senter in his message\\nof Dec. 13, 1870, inclosing a communication from Governor Gilbert\\nC. Walker of Virginia, together with the Virginia enactment. Vir-\\nginia proposed to refer the line for reiidjustment to a joint Commission\\nof the two States, assisted by a corps of skillful engineers in the serv-\\nice of the United States. A resolution was passed in the Tennessee\\nSenate to authorize the appointment of three Commissioners, but failed\\nto pass the House. In the following year Governor John C. Brown called\\nthe attention of the Legislature to the subject. A joint committee of\\nthe two houses was appointed, consisting of Henry R. Gibson, F. W.\\nEarnest, Wm. Greene, V. C. Allen, J. H. Cross, W. S. McGaughey,\\nL. M. Wester, and W. H. Anderson. This committee gave the sub-\\nject a thorough investigation. Their report, although it contains an\\nerror in argument, is an excellent history of this yrnvt of the line, and\\na State pa])er of marked ability. After reviewing the whole (juestion,\\nthey recommended a joint resolution, which was adopted March 28,\\n1872. I quote the following portion That the Governor of this State\\nbe instructed to inform the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia\\nthat Tennessee declines to do any act, or to entertain any negotiation,\\nlooking to a reopening of the question of boundary between the two\\nStates, but regards said boundary as fixed and established bey(md dis-\\npute and forever. This act of Tennessee was certainly right, and due", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0026.jp2"}, "27": {"fulltext": "Northern Boundary of Tennessee. 23\\nto her citizens. The language above quoted is firm, dignified, and suf-\\nficient. The same cannot be said for the following clause of her reso-\\nlution: That any move on our part tending to unsettle and disestab-\\nlish said boundary, or even awaken a doubt as to its perfect validity\\nand inviolable uualterability, is mischievous and xoanton, and not only\\nuncalled for, but to be utterly discountenanced and condemned. This\\nlanguage is not only sophomoric, but it contains a plainly implied and\\nsharp rebuke, which the circumstances connected with the history of this\\nline rendered it peculiarly ungracious in Tennessee to administer. In\\nfact, both States abated somewhat of their dignity Virginia in request-\\ning the reopening of a question settled by her own act in 1803, and ac-\\nquiesced in for sixty-seven years; Tennessee, in using uuamiable lan-\\nguage and rebuking her older sister. This negotiation, then, produced\\nno effect. Tennessee refused to reopen the matter, and held on to her\\nacquisition. The compromise of 1803 may, therefore, be regarded, as\\nthe final settlement.\\nAfter this final adjustment of her boundary Avith Virginia in 1803,\\nTennessee found an unexpected and troublesome controversy on her\\nhands, growing out of the same questions. Kentucky had discovered\\nthat Walker s Line was several miles north of 36\u00c2\u00b0 30 In the repu-\\ndiation of the Carolina and Virginia compact by Tennessee, Kentucky\\nsaw her opportunity. Her argument now came with great force Since\\nby your own showing the confirmation of Walker s Line by Virginia\\nand North Carolina is invalid as to us, then we have no dividing line\\nexcept the old imaginary line of 36\u00c2\u00b0 30 Let us move down south,\\nand locate it. This threat was the more ominous when Kentucky re-\\nfused to make any convention on the basis of Walker s Line, though\\nrepeatedly urged by Tennessee enactments in 1803, 1815, and 1817.\\nIn 1813, by an act approved Feb. 13, she gives the following intima-\\ntion: Whereas Tennessee proposes to depart from the true line of sep-\\naration to be ascertained by correct and scientific observa-\\ntion, etc., the Governor is directed to inform the Governor of Ten-\\nnessee that the disagreeable necessity is imposed upon Kentucky\\nof having the long-contested question finally settled by the means\\npointed out by the Constitution of the United States.\\nHer act of Feb. 10, 1816, offers a compromise, provided the same is\\naccepted by Tennessee at the next session of her Legislature. She offers\\nto adopt Walker s Line from Obed s alias Aba s River to the Tennes-\\nsee River, the remaining portions of the line, both east and west, to\\nbe on latitude 36\u00c2\u00b0 30 this line to be located by a joint Commission.\\nThis offer proposed to place about 180 miles, a little over half the total", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0027.jp2"}, "28": {"fulltext": "24 Northern Boundary of Tennessee.\\nboundary, on latitude 36\u00c2\u00b0 30 The action of the Tennessee Legisla-\\nture in 1817, failing to accept this compromise, and again proposing\\na joint Commission on the basis of Walker s Line, seemed to irritate\\nher neighbor. Kentucky replied by the following spicy enactment of\\nJanuary 30, 1818: That all laws heretofore enacted by the General\\nAssembly of this Comniouwealth relative to the boundary line of this\\nState and the State of Tennessee shall be, and the same are hereby,\\nrepealed Be it further enacted that the southern boundary\\nline shall be and remain on a line running west from the top of Cum-\\nberland Mountain to the Mississippi River in 36\u00c2\u00b0 30 north latitude,\\nany thing in any former law passed by this State to the contrary not-\\nwithstanding. In the following year, 1819, she sent her surveyors,\\nAlexander and Munsell, to run and mark a Hue on 36\u00c2\u00b0 30 between\\nthe Tennessee and Mississippi Rivers, and declared this to be the true\\nboundary. This line struck Tennessee River about seventeen miles\\nsouth of Walker s Line by way of the river, and if continued would\\nhave passed south of the town of Clarksville. Tennessee now required\\nthe utmost skill of her diplomatists to extricate her from the false po-\\nsition of claiming jurisdiction by virtue of a line, the validity of which\\nshe had solemnly repudiated. Her authorities were thoroughly alarmed.\\nKentucky had now taken an aggressive step, and seemed ready to fol-\\nlow it up by vigorous measures. Tennessee could no longer rest quiet\\nin possession, and rely on the inertia of republican institutions. Some\\nplea must be found of avoidance without confession. This plea\\nGovernor Joseph IMcMinn supplies in his message of Oct. 6, 1819. It\\nwas the only argunient which Tennessee had left, but it was an argu-\\nment logical and potent in America the ^vishes of the people. He\\nsays: The citizens of both States, who live in the neighborhood of\\nWalker s Line, seem to be perfectly satisfied with that boundary, and\\nwould be opposed to any alteration There is no proper\\nalternative left to the authorities of the two States, if they consult the\\ninterests of their citizens, but to establish Walker s Line as far as the\\neastern bank of Tennessee River. He points to the necessity of a\\ncompromise: I submit to your consideration the necessity of employ-\\ning some mathematician of known skill, to ascertain the lat-\\nitude of 36\u00c2\u00b0 30 on the western bank of Tennessee River. If\\nthe line recently run by the State of Kentucky between the rivers\\nTennessee and Mississippi should be in the latitude called for by the\\ncharter of this State, it must and ought in justice to stand. This com-\\npromise losing more in the west than had been gained in the east, need\\nnever have been offered had not Tennessee been estopped from plead-", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0028.jp2"}, "29": {"fulltext": "StdtoTt j/c\u00c2\u00abgb cr^\\n6f^ aB\u00c2\u00bb\\nTENNESSEE.", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0029.jp2"}, "30": {"fulltext": "26 Northern Boundary of Tennessee.\\ning the Virginia and Carolina compact confirming Walker s Line. It\\nwill be remembered that this confirmation extended to the termination\\nmarked on the Mississippi.\\nSince legislative invituticms and enactments had failed to draw a\\nsettlement from Kentucky, the Legislature of Tennessee determined\\nto send Commissioners to visit the Kentucky Legislature. For this\\ndelicate task they selected, by joint ballot, Felix Grundy and William\\nL. Brown, and clothed them with absolute powers to conclude a treaty.\\nThe ability and address of Judge Grundy and his colleague were never\\nmore needed and never more conspicuously shown. Kentucky was in\\nearnest in her claim to this whole strip of territory. She saw that a\\njoint Commission could not advance her claims, and her Legislature\\nwas in no compromising mood. It is due to the persuasive influence and\\ndiplomatic skill of Judge Grundy and his colleague that Kentucky\\nwas finally induced to appoint a Commission. Her Commissioners\\nwere two of her ablest men, John J. Crittenden and Robert Trimble,\\nand her argument as to abstract title was unanswerable. Yet, handi-\\ncapped and estopped as they were, the Tennessee Commissioners suc-\\ncessfully urged actual possession, the wishes of the people, and\\nthe many annoyances and hardships which would result from a change^\\nand offered as a liberal compromise to let all lines stand as they were,\\nacknowledging Alexander and Munsell s Line. Finally the sober sec-\\nond thought of Kentucky yielded her abstract claims to the general\\ngood, and bowed to the will of the people. A compromise was effected\\nFeb. 2, 1820, which is so well known that I need not rehearse it. The\\ntreaty contained ten articles. The boundary was to be Walker s Line\\nto the Tennessee River; thence up and with said river to Alexander\\nand Munsell s Line; thence with said line to the ]\\\\Iississippi this line\\nto be hereafter marked when demanded by either State legislation to\\nbe enacted with regard to land-titles, in accordance with certain stip-\\nulations; the treaty to be valid, if ratified by the Legislature of Ken-\\ntucky at the session then pending. This ratification was duly given.\\nPending this negotiation, however, on Nov. 27, 1819, the Legislature\\nof Tennessee, either fearful of the result or rdstive about the matter,\\npassed an act directing the Governor, in case of the failure of the Com-\\nmissioners to make a treaty with Kentucky, to appoint surveyors, and\\nhave a line run and marked from the termination of AValker s Line on\\nTennessee River to the point marked by Walker in 1780 on the east\\nbank of the Mississippi. This act was rendered inoperative by the con-\\nclusion of the treaty. Haywood remarks As is the fate of every treaty,\\ngood or bad, this treaty, as soon as it saw the light, was en-", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0030.jp2"}, "31": {"fulltext": "Jw-eT\\nS.", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0031.jp2"}, "32": {"fulltext": "28 Northern Boundary of Tennessee.\\ncountered by an exceedingly animated opposition. It, however, finally\\ntriumphed the Legislature recognized its validity and provided for its\\nexecution. The line thus agreed on became the established boundary\\nfrom the date of its confirmation by Kentucky in 1820. Many incon-\\nveniences, however, continued to result from the loss of some of the land-\\nmarks of Walker s Line and the uncertainty with regard to others, and\\nthe unsurvcyed gap left by Dr. Walker between Deer Fork and Cum-\\nberland River. Although the main points were finally settled, trouble-\\nsome minor questions were raised, which required for their adjustment\\nseveral negotiations and joint commissions between the two States. The\\nlimits of this paper will not permit a history of the legislation in ref-\\nerence to the adjustment of laud claims, although it is intimately con-\\nnected with the history of the boundary.\\nIn 1821 a joint Commission, consisting of Wm. Steele, on the part\\nof Kentucky, and Absalom Loouey, on the part of Tennessee, surveyed\\nand marked the gap in AValker s Line, extending their survey from the\\neast crossing of Cumberland River to Cumberland Gap. Their acts\\nwere confirmed by Tennessee Nov. 13, 1821, and by Kentucky Nov.\\n22, of the same year. A line was also run by Mr. Henderson in 1821\\nbetween the Tennessee and Mississippi rivei S, coinciding .very nearly\\nwith Alexander and Munsell s Line.\\nOn Sept. 19, 1831, the message of Governor Carroll announced to\\nthe Legislature of Tennessee that in accordance with their act of the\\nprevious session, he had appointed James Bright Commissioner for\\nTennessee; that Mr. Bright, in conjunction with Dr. Munsell, the\\nCommissioner for Kentucky, had run and marked Walker s Line\\nalong the southern borders of Allen, Simpson, and Trigg counties.\\nHe recommends the confirmation of their acts. This line is shown, in\\npart, in Map No. 8, accompanying this paper. It continues Walker s\\nLine straight from the point near the west crossing of Cumberland\\nRiver to the Tennessee. It would, if adopted, have thrown into Ken-\\ntucky a strip of land which is now a portion of Tennessee.\\nIn 1845 Governor James C. Jones alludes in his message to difficul-\\nties arising with Kentucky in relation to the boundary line; and an-\\nnounces that in accordance with the act of the previous session he had\\nappointed C. W. Nance and William P. McLain as Commissioners on\\nthe part of Tennessee. These Commissioners in Oct., 1845, met the\\nCommissioners of Kentucky, Messrs. Wilson and Duncan, and marked\\na line along the borders of Trigg and Christian counties, and along\\nthat portion of the border of Fulton county west of Reel-foot Lake.\\nA portion of their line is shown in Map No. 8. These different lines,", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0032.jp2"}, "33": {"fulltext": "Northern Boundary of Tennessee. 29\\nhowever, patching up portions of the boundary, were all readjusted in\\n1859.\\nAs disputes continued to arise, both States saw the necessity of a\\nfinal and permanent adjustment and marking of their common bound-\\nary throughout its whole extent. The necessary enactments were\\npassed by both States in 1858 creating a joint Commission, who were\\nrequired to place stone posts on the line, five miles apart, to use other\\npermanent landmarks, to make duplicate written reports, to be filed\\nin the archives of the respective States, accompanied by topographical\\nmaps, and such geographical information as they should be able to col-\\nlect.\\nIn 1859 this joint Commission, consisting of Benjamin Peeples and\\nO. R. Watkins, Commissioners; O. H. P. Bennett, Engineer; J. Traf-\\nton, L. Burnett, AssistJlnt Engineers; and J. M. Nicholson, Surveyor,\\non the part of Tennessee: Austin P. Cox and C. M. Briggs, Commis-\\nsioners; J. Pillsburg, Engineer; G. Trafton, G. Stealey, and A. Heus-\\nley, Assistant Engineers, on the part of Kentucky, met at a place which\\nthey named Compromise, on the Mississippi River. Having improved\\ninstruments and superior facilities, they made an accurate and satis-\\nfactory survey, placing the stone posts as required, and marking the\\nline on permanent trees with four chops fore and aft. They also cleared\\na distance of five feet on each side of the line, and marked permanent\\ntrees facing the line with the initial letters of their respective States,\\nK. and T.\\nFrom Compromise, latitude 36\u00c2\u00b0 29 55.7 they followed very nearly\\nalong Alexander and Munsell s Line to its termination on the Tennes-\\nsee in latitude 36\u00c2\u00b0 29 54 This line frequently crosses the parallel\\n36\u00c2\u00b0 30 very nearly coinciding with it. Thence they ran down the\\nTennessee to Walker s Line, the latitude of which they failed to mark,\\nbut which is not far from 36\u00c2\u00b0 40 45 at the point where it touches the\\nTennessee River. Thence they followed Walker s Line to the south-\\neast corner of Kentucky, in latitude 36\u00c2\u00b0 34 53.48 Thence they ran\\nto the end of their line, the south-west corner of Virginia, in latitude\\n86\u00c2\u00b0 36 0.92 Their report made in duplicate to Governor Isham G.\\nHarris, of Tennessee, and Governor Magoffin, of Kentucky, on Nov. 11,\\n1859 discusses the questions connected with the running of the various\\nlines in 1821 1830, and 1845, and gives twenty-seven section-maps tracing\\nthese lines. I present to the Society accurate copies of three of these\\nmaps, taken from the originals on tracing-cloth, and prepared for me\\nby Engineer E. F. Batte. These will serve to show the salient points\\nof these lines. The Commissioners state that they found no landmarks", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0033.jp2"}, "34": {"fulltext": "so Northern Boundary of Tennessee.\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2of Walker s Line west of the first or eastern crossing of Cumberland\\nRiver, and they do not believe that their predecessors ever found any.\\nThey therefore ran the line in accordance with the language of the stat-\\nute creating their powers, which followed the phraseology of the con-\\nvention of 1820: Walker s Line, as the same is reputed, understood,\\nand acted upon by the two States, their respective authorities and cit-\\nizens. This survey cost Tennessee $25,357, and cost Kentucky $22,-\\n630.07. The stone posts cost $1,265. The acts of the Commissioners\\nwere confirmed by Kentucky on Feb. 28, 1860, and by Tennessee on\\nMarch 21, 1860.\\nThus after a controversy of sixty-eight years, extending from 1792\\nto 1860, was finally established the title of Tennessee to the strip of\\nterritory north of 36\u00c2\u00b0 30 This strip extends from White Top Mount-\\nain to Tennessee River, a distance of about 355 miles. The portion\\nadjoining Virginia is about 110 miles long and averages about 7 miles\\nwide. The portion adjoining Kentucky is about 245 miles long, and\\nabout 51 miles wide at its eastern extremity, gradually increasing in width\\ntoward the west till it reaches the Tennessee River about 122 miles wide.\\nFor this acquisition Tennessee is indebted, in the first place, to the fail-\\nure of the Virginia and Carolina Commissioners to make due allowance\\nfor the variation of the needle, thus causing their lines to swerve con-\\ntinuously to the north; in the second place, to the fidelity and ability\\nof her public servants and finally, to the preference of the people along\\nthe border to live within her jurisdiction, and to the conservatism and\\nliberal spirit of her sister States, which led them to respect the wishes\\nof the people.\\nHer boundary lines now skirt her borders, visible in permanent land-\\nmarks, and appear on her statute-books described by natural bounds.\\nYet, strange to say, her Constitution of 1870 still adheres to the old im-\\naginary lines, and describes her northern boundary as 36\u00c2\u00b0 30 copying\\nthe language of the Cession Act, and of the State Constitutions adopted\\nprior to the final adjustment and location of the boundaries. This\\nloose description is guarded by the following saving clause: Provided\\nthat the limits and jurisdiction of this State shall extend to any other\\nland and territory now actjuired by compact or agreement with other\\nStates, or otherwise, although such land and territory are not included\\nwithin the boundaries hereinbefore designated. This ingenuous sav-\\ning clause was truly necessary but as a description it is certainly more\\nelastic than instructive. The distinguished statesmen who constituted\\nthe Committee on the Bill of Rights, and framed this description, may\\nJiave been induced by a desire of preserving the time-honored phrase-", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0034.jp2"}, "35": {"fulltext": "fdtpSi^aviMp^tn^* Vi7\\nKKXITCraxv*\\nCw-^JS^tTAO\\nA\u00c2\u00abrrv Mr\u00c2\u00ab\u00c2\u00abn M sMb", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0035.jp2"}, "36": {"fulltext": "32 Northern Boundary oj Tennessee.\\nology which a long-continued reverence for former Constitutions had\\nrendered tuneful to their ears. Possibly other portions of constitutional\\nframe-work, more congenial to the legislator, may have so occupied their\\ntime as to prevent a reference to the statutes, or a visit to the archives.\\nIt may have been that this method of description was adopted for rea-\\nsons of political wisdom, apparent to the constitutional lawyer, but which\\nfail to reveal themselves to the historian.\\nIn preparing the History of the Northern Boundary of Tennessee,\\nI have consulted the following authorities:\\nByrd s History of the Dividing Line.\\nThomas Jefferson s Works.\\nCooke s History of Virginia.\\nWheeler s History of North Carolina.\\nRamsay s History of South Carolina.\\nMarshall s History of Kentucky.\\nHaywood s History of Tennessee.\\nBarasey s Annals of Tennessee.\\nRid path s History of the United States.\\nCharters and Constitutions of the United States, by Ben Perley\\nPoore.\\nStatutes, Journals, Revisals, etc., of Virginia, North Carolina, Ten-\\nnessee, and Kentucky.\\nThe Manuscript Report of the Joint Commission of Tennessee and\\nKentucky, submitted to Governor Isham G. Harris, Nov. 11, 1859,\\nwith accompanying maps on file in the office of the Secretary of State\\nof Tennessee.\\n570 3- 1^", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0036.jp2"}, "37": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0037.jp2"}, "38": {"fulltext": "o^J^^/ V\\n-a?\\nv^\\nJ N", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0038.jp2"}, "39": {"fulltext": "0^\\nV^ ^n/", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0039.jp2"}, "40": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3234", "width": "1947", "jp2-path": "historyofsouthca00garr_0040.jp2"}}