[Page]
[Page]
[figure]
[Page]

DESCRIPTION OF THE Georgia Western Territory.

[Page]

A DESCRIPTION OF THE SOIL, PRODUCTIONS, COMMERCIAL, AGRI­CULTURAL AND LOCAL ADVANTAGES OF THE Georgia Western Territory: TOGETHER WITH A summary and impartial View of the Claims of Geor­gia and of the United States to this Territory, and of the principal Arguments ad­duced by the Purchasers against these Claims.

COLLECTED AND STATED FROM VARIOUS AUTHENTIC DOCUMENTS.

Extracted, and published in this Form, (by Permission) FROM Rev. Dr. Morse's AMERICAN GAZETTEER, A NEW WORK.

Illustrated with a new and correct Map.

BOSTON: Printed by THOMAS & ANDREWS. 1797.

[Page]

PREFACE.

THE article GEORGIA WESTERN TERRITORY, compiled with great labour and care, and with a strict regard to truth and impartiality, will, no doubt, be in­teresting to all who are, or may be concerned in the late purchase of a considerable portion of it. The ex­cellency of the soil and climate of this country—its advantageous situation for agriculture and commerce, and the rapidity with which it will probably be settled, render it a fit object of public attention, and very im­portant as a frontier, in an exposed part of the United States. Its settlement, upon regular and proper estab­lishments, by a people friendly to the rights and inte­rests of the Indians, and under the government of the United States, would, at this time, be of immense utility to the union and prosperity of the States.

[Page]

Georgia Western Territory.

UNDER this name is included all that part of the State of Geor­gia which lies west of the head waters of those rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean. This extensive tract of country, which embraces some of the finest land in the United States, is intersected with a great number of noble rivers, which may be seen by an in­spection of the map, and is inhabited (except such parts where­in the Indian title has been extinguished) by three nations of In­dians, viz. the Muskogulge or Creek, the Chactaws, and Chick­asaws. The Cherokees also have a title to a small portion of the northern part of this territory, on the Tennessee river. These nations together can furnish between 8 and 9000 warriors. About 2000 families of white people inhabit those parts of this territory where the Indian title has been extinguished, chiefly at the Natchez, and the Yazoo river, on the banks of the Missisippi, and a considerable number on the Tombigbee river, and scatter­ed among the Creek Indians. This territory, for reasons which will hereafter appear, has lately become an object of much pub­lic attention and inquiry, in Europe, as well as in the United States; and on this account, the following description of it, and statement of facts relative to the sale of certain parts of it, and the claims of the United States, &c. have been collected and ar­ranged with great care from the most authentic sources that can be obtained, and given under this head for the information of the public. *

This Territory, lying between the 31st and 35th degrees of north latitude, is not subject to the extremes of heat or cold; the climate is temperate and delightful through the year; and except in low grounds, and in the neighbourhood of stag­nant [Page 6] waters, is very healthful. White frosts, and sometimes thin ice, have been seen as far south as the 31st degree of latitude; but snow is very uncommon in any part of this territory. A per­son residing at the Natchez writes to his friend, in the eastern part of Georgia, that "this country affords the best spring wa­ter; every person almost is in blooming health." * Others who have visited it, say of that part of the territory which borders on the Missisippi, that "the water is good for 20 miles back from the river, and the country healthy and pleasant, and of all others that they have seen, the most desirable." Mr. Hutchins, speak­ing of the same tract says, "the climate is healthy and temperate, the country delightful and well watered, and the prospect is beau­tiful and extensive; variegated by many inequalities, and fine meadows, separated by innumerable copses, the trees of which are of different kinds, but mostly of walnut and oak. The elevated, open, and airy situation of this country, renders it less liable to fevers and agues (the only disorders ever known in its neighbour­hood) than some other parts bordering on the Missisippi, where the want of a sufficient descent to convey the waters off, occa­sions numbers of stagnant ponds whose exhalations infect the air." Another traveller describes the country between the Tombigbee and the Coosa and Alabama as being healthy, well watered with many pleasant rivulets, affording delightful situations for settle­ments, and the water pure and very good.

To give a just view of the rivers, and to ascertain the advan­tages derived from them to this Territory, it is necessary to trace them from their mouths in the Gulf of Mexico. The Missisippi bounds this Territory on the west. The free navigation of this noble river is now enjoyed by the inhabitants of the United States. It empties, by several mouths of different depths, from 9 to 16 feet, into the Gulf of Mexico, in about lat. 29 N. The bars at the mouth of this river frequently shift; after passing them into the river, there is from 3 to 10 fathoms of water, as far as the south-west pass; and thence to the Missouri, a distance of 1,142 computed miles, from 12, 15, 20, and 30 fathoms is the general depth.

[Page 7]In ascending the Missisippi there are extensive natural meadows, with a prospect of the Gulf of Mexico on each side, the distance of 32 miles, to a place called Detour-aux-Plaquemines, in W. Florida. Thence 20 miles to the settlements, the banks are low and marshy, generally overflowed and covered with thick wood, palmetto bushes, &c. apparently impenetrable by man or beast. Thence to Detour-des-Anglois, at the bend of the river, the banks are well inhabited; as also from hence to New-Orleans 18 miles, which distance there is a good road for carriages. Ves­sels pass from the mouth of this river to New-Orleans 105 miles, in 7 or 8 days, commonly; sometimes in 3 or 4.

From New-Orleans, the capital of Louisiana, there is an easy communication with West-Florida by Bayouk Creek, which is a water of lake Ponchartrain, navigable for vessels drawing four feet water, six miles up from the lake, to a landing-place two miles from New-Orleans. For nearly 50 miles, as you proceed up the river, both its banks are settled and highly cultivated, in part by emigrants from Germany, who furnish the market with indigo of a superior quality, cotton, rice, beans, myrtle wax, and lumber. In 1762, some rich planters attempted the cultivation of canes and the making of sugar, and erected mills for the purpose. This sugar was of an excellent quality, and some of the crops were large; but [...] winters proving so severe as to kill the canes, no dependence can be placed on the culture of that article.

The settlements of the Acadians, which were begun in the year 1763, extend on both sides of the river, from the Germans, to the river Ibberville, which is 99 miles above New-Orleans, and 270 from Pensacola, by way of lakes Ponchartrain and Maurepas.

At Point Coupee, 35 miles above the Ibberville, are settlements extending 20 miles on the W. side of the river, which, 30 years ago, had 2,000 white inhabitants, and 7,000 slaves, who were employed in the cultivation of tobacco, indigo, Indian corn, &c. for the New-Orleans market, which they furnished also with poul­try, and abundance of squared timber, staves, &c.

Mr. Hutchins, from his personal knowledge, describes the country on both sides of the Missisippi, between the latitudes 30 and 31, bordering on Georgia, as follows:

Although this country might produce all the valuable articles raised in other parts of the globe, situated in the same latitudes, yet the inhabitants principally cultivate indigo, rice, tobacco, In­dian corn, and some wheat; and they raise large stocks of black cattle, horses, mules, hogs, sheep, and poultry. The sheep are said to make the sweetest mutton in the world. The black cattle, when fat enough for sale, which they commonly are the year round, are driven across the country to New-Orleans, where there is always a good market.

This country is principally timbered with all the different kinds of oak, but mostly with live-oak, of the largest and best quality, [Page 8] uncommonly large cypress, black walnut, hickory, white ash, cher­ry, plum, poplar trees, and grape vines; here is found also a great variety of shrubs and medicinal roots. The lands border­ing the rivers and lakes, are generally well wooded, but at a small distance from them are very extensive natural meadows, or sa­vannas, of the most luxuriant soil, composed of a black mould, about one and a half feet deep, very loose and rich, occasioned in part, by the frequent burning of the savannas; below the black mould is a stiff clay of different colours. It is said, this clay, after being exposed some time to the sun, becomes so hard, that it is difficult either to break or bend, but when wet by a light shower of rain, it slackens in the same manner as lime does when exposed to moisture, and becomes loose and moulders away, after which it is found excellent for vegetation."

After passing at 31st degree of N. lat. from W. Florida into Georgia, you enter what is called the Natchez Country, bordering on the Missisippi. Fort Rosailie, in this country, is in lat. 31 40, 243 miles above New-Orleans.

"The soil of this country is superior to any of the lands on the borders of the river Missisippi, for the production of many ar­ticles. Its situation being higher, affords a greater variety of soil, and is in a more favourable climate for the growth of wheat, rye, barley, oats, &c. than the country lower down, and nearer to the sea. The soil also produces in equal abundance, Indian corn, rice, hemp, flax, indigo, cotton, pot-herbs, pulse of every kind, and pasturage; and the tobacco made here, is esteemed preferable to any cultivated in other parts of America. Hops grow wild; all kinds of European fruits arrive to great perfection, and no part of the known world is more favourable for the raising of every kind of stock. The rising grounds, which are cloathed with grass and other herbs of the finest verdure, are well adapted to the culture of vines: the mulberry trees are very numerous, and the winters sufficiently moderate for the breed of silk worms. Clay of different colours, fit for glass works and pottery, is found here in great abundance; and also a variety of stately timber, fit for house and ship building, &c."

Another gentleman, well informed, * says, "The lands on the Missisippi, extending eastward about 20 miles, are hilly, without stones or sand, extremely rich, of a deep black soil, covered thick with canes, white and black oak, walnut, hickory, ash, some sugar maple, beech, and dogwood; that there are very few streams or springs of water; that the water is not good, and tastes as if im­pregnated with sulphur; that the country is much infested with insects; that the land is high and bluff three-fourths of the dis­tance along the river Missisippi, and a part overflowed and drown­ed." But it is apprehended that this description is not perfectly just, so far as it applies to the scarcity and badness of the water; as a gentleman of respectable character, who resided 9 months [Page 9] at the Natchez, says, "The lands on the Missisippi are more level, and better watered, than is above represented; and that the water is good, and the country healthy and remarkably pleasant."

This country was once famous for its inhabitants, the Natchez Indians; who, from their great numbers, and the improved state of society among them, were considered as the most civilized Indians on the continent of America. Nothing now remains of this nation but their name, by which their country continues to be called. The district of the Natchez, as well as all along the eastern bank of the Missisippi to the river Ibberville, was set­tling very fast by emigrations from the northern States, till the capture of the British troops on the Missisippi, 1779, put an entire stop to it.

"From fort Rosailie to the Petit Goufre is 31 ½ miles. There is a firm rock on the east side of the Missisippi for near a mile, which seems to be of the nature of lime-stone. The land near the river is much broken and very high, with a good soil, and sev­eral plantations on it. From the Petit Goufre to Stoney river, is 4 ¼ miles. From the mouth to what is called the Fork of this riv­er, is computed to be 21 miles. In this distance there are sev­eral quarries of stone, and the land has a clay soil, with gravel on the surface of the ground. On the north side of this river, the land in general is low and rich; that on the south side is much higher, but broken into hills and vales; but here the low lands are not often overflowed; both sides are shaded with a variety of useful timber. At the Fork, the river parts almost at right angles, and the lands between and on each side of them are said to be clay and marl soil, not so uneven as the lands on this river lower down. From Stoney river to Lousa Chitto, (or Big Black river) is 10 miles. This river, at the mouth, is about 30 yards wide, but within, from 30 to 50 yards, and is said to be navigable for canoes 30 or 40 leagues. About a mile and a half up this river, the high lands are close on the right, and are much broken. A mile and a half further, the high lands ap­pear again on the right, where there are several springs of water, but none as yet have been discovered on the left. At about 8 miles further, the high lands are near the river, on the left, and appear to be the same range that comes from the Yazoo cliffs. At six miles further, the high lands are near the river on both sides, and continue for two or three miles, but broken and full of springs of water. This land on the left was chosen by Gen. Putnam, Capt. Enos, Mr. Lyman, and other New-England adventurers, as a proper place for a town; and, by order of the governor and council of West-Florida, in 1773, it was reserved for the capital. The country round is very fit for settlements. For four or five miles above this place, on both sides of the river, the land is rich, and not so much drown­ed, nor so uneven, as some parts lower down. About six miles and a half further, there is a rapid water, stones and gravel bot­tom, [Page 10] 160 yards in length; and in one place a firm rock almost across the river, and as much of it bare, when the water is at a moderate height, as confines the stream to nearly 20 feet; and the channel is about four feet deep.

From the Lousa Chitto to the Yazoo Cliffs, is 40 miles. From this cliff the high lands lie north-eastward and south-south-westward, bearing off from the river, full of cane and rich soil, even on the very highest ridges. Just at the south end of the cliffs, the bank is low, where the water of the Missisippi, when high, flows back and runs between the bank and high land, which ranges nearly northerly and south-south-easterly to the Lousa Chitto, occasioning much wet ground, cypress swamp, and stag­nant ponds. From the cliffs, is seven miles and a half to the river Yazoo. The mouth of this river is upwards of 100 yards in width, and was found by Mr. Gaul to be in lat. 32 37, and by Mr. Purcell in 32 28 N. The water of the Missisippi, when the river is high, runs up the Yazoo several miles, and empties itself again by a number of channels, which direct their course across the country, and fall in above the Walnut Hills. The Yazoo runs from the N. E. and glides through a healthy, fertile and pleasant country, greatly resembling that about the Natchez, particular­ly in the luxuriancy and diversity of its soil, variety of timber, temperature of climate, and delightful situation. It is remarkably well watered by springs and brooks; many of the latter afford convenient seats for mills. Further up this river the canes are less frequent, and smaller in size, and at the distance of 20 miles there are scarcely any. Here the country is clear of under-wood, and well watered, and the soil very rich, which continues to the Chactaw and Chickasaw towns, on the eastern and north-western branches of Yazoo river. These branches unite 50 miles from the Missisippi, following the course of the river; the navigation to their junction, commonly called the Fork, is practicable with very large boats in the spring season, and with smaller ones a considerable way further, with the interruption of but one fall, where they are obliged to make a short portage, 20 miles up the north-west branch, and 70 miles from the Missisippi. The coun­try in which the Chactaw and Chickasaw towns are situated, is said to be as healthy as any part of the continent, the natives scarcely ever being sick. Such of them as frequent the Missisippi, leave its banks as the summer approaches, lest they might partake of the fevers that sometimes visit the low, swampy lands border­ing upon that river. Wheat, it is said, yields better at the Yazoo than at the Natchez, owing probably to its more northern situa­tion. One very considerable advantage will attend the settlers on the river Yazoo, which those at the Natchez will be deprived of, without going to a great expense; that is, the building with stone, there being great plenty near the Yazoo, but none has yet been discovered nearer to the Natchez than the Petit Goufre, or Little Whirlpool, a distance of about 31 miles. Between this [Page 11] place and the Balize, there is not a stone to be seen any where near the river. Though the quantity of good land on the Mis­sisippi and its branches, from the Bay of Mexico to the river Ohio, a distance of nearly 1000 miles, is vastly great, and the conveniences attending it; so likewise we may esteem that in the neighbourhood of the Natchez, and of the river Yazoo, the flower of it all.

About a mile and a half up the Yazoo river, on the north side, there is a large creek, which communicates with the Missisippi above the river St. Francis, about 100 leagues higher up, by the course of the river. It passes through several lakes by the way. At the distance of 12 miles from the mouth of the river Yazoo, on the south side, are the Yazoo hills. There is a cliff of solid rock at the landing-place, on which are a variety of broken pieces of sea-shells, and some entire. Four miles further up, is the place called the Ball Ground, near which a church, fort St. Peter, and a French settlement, formerly stood. They were destroyed by the Yazoo Indians in 1729. That nation is now entirely ex­tinct." Hutchins.

From about 20 miles eastward of the Missisippi, to Half Way or Pearl river, the distance of about 60 miles, (some say less) is "a fine, level country, very fertile, and better watered than near­er the Missisippi. There is some mixture of sand with loam, the timber the same, with the addition of black-jack, and post-oak. This tract is interspersed with what the French call Prairies or Savannas, which are extensive intervales of 1000 and 2000 acres of excellent land, of a deep black soil, free of all timber and trees. It is this kind of land which the Indians cultivate. From the Mis­sisippi to this river, there are no Indians. To a tract of this coun­try, extending along the Missisippi from the 31st degree of latitude to the Yazoo river, at the south end, 30 miles wide, and narrow­ing as you proceed northerly to the width of 15 miles, the Indian title has been extinguished. It was at first purchased by the English; but they, not having completed the payment for it, be­fore it fell into the hands of the Spaniards, they, (the Spaniards) in the year 1792, paid the balance. At Walnut Hills, the Span­iards have a fort, which, according to treaty, is to be given up (if not already done) to the United States. To the country north of the Yazoo, the Indian title is not yet extinguished. About one half of the southern part, a distance of about 50 miles up the Yazoo, is owned by the Chactaws, the northern half by the Chickasaws." The gentleman who gives the above information, and who was in this country in the year 1792, says, "that the Yazoo is about 90 yards wide; is boatable 100 miles; that he crossed the country by different routes, 3 or 4 times from the Missisippi to the Tombigbee: passed over the Yazoo several times; went up and down the river on the shore, and says that the lands to the east of the Yazoo (the distance of about 100 miles) are very excellent."

[Page 12]Pearl river is about 40 yards wide; a branch of it passing east of the Natchez and nearest, in Coxe's map, bears the name of Buffaloe river. On the east side of Pearl river, commence the Chactaw settlements, and extend thick to the Chickasaw Hay river; thence, about 40 miles eastward, the settlements are sparse, and extend near to the Tombigbee. This is a numerous nation, containing about 3000 hunters, a peaceable and friendly people. The country inhabited by these Indians is noted in Coxe's map, to be "poor and barren land, covered generally with long-leafed pine." Other accounts represent it as much the same as that be­tween the Missisippi and Pearl rivers, with the addition of some pine land, and better watered. The streams on which the Chac­taws are settled, as laid down on Coxe's map, are, proceeding from west to east, the Homachitta, (called by Purcell Hostaphat­cha) Chactaw, and Souhawtee, which unite, and the main stream retains the name of Homachitta till it empties into the Gulf of Mexico. This is probably the same river that Hutchins calls Pascagoula. The head branches of this river spread exten­sively through the northern part of this Territory, chiefly westward of the Chactaw nation. White, or Bluff river, on Coxe's map, appears to rise in about lat. 33 N. takes a course to the east of the Chactaws, and empties into the Tombigbee, some distance below the head of the tide water, and is laid down as about the size of Pearl river.

From the compact settlements of the Chactaws eastward to the western branches of the Tombigbee, the land is tolerably good; the timber generally oak and pine, with some hickory, well wa­tered and level. Of this kind is the country a distance of about 40 miles west of the western branches of the Tombigbee; thence to the Tombigbee the land is more uneven, interspersed with large savannas, and the whole generally good land, and pretty well watered; the water, however, has a limy taste. The nat­ural growth much the same as on the Missisippi. The intervale, or as they call it in this country, the bottom lands, are generally about a mile wide on the river, extremely rich, and thickly over­grown with canes. This general description will apply to the whole tract belonging to the "Georgia Missisippi Company." Mr. Coxe, on his map, remarks, that "On the Tombigbee and Alabama rivers there are bodies of fine rich land; but low down, towards Mobile Bay, it is unhealthy."

We have now arrived eastward to the Mobile, the principal river in this Territory. "On the bar at the entrance of the bay of Mobile, there is only 15 or 16 feet water; two-thirds of the way through the bay, towards the town of Mobile, there is from 2 to 3 fathoms; and the deepest water to be depended on in the upper part of the bay is only 10 or 12 feet, and in many places not so much. Large vessels cannot go within 7 miles of the town." [ Hutchins.] "This bay is about 30 miles long, and from 10 to 12 wide. The tide flows 60 or 70 miles above this bay, and [Page 13] is so far navigable for sea vessels. Thence 150 or 200 miles north, is good boat navigation, smooth water, generally 100 to 150 yards wide, and 8 to 10 feet deep." [ M. S. Minutes from Mr. Perry.] "The bay of Mobile terminates a little to the north-eastward of the town, in a number of marshes and lagoons; which subject the people to fevers and agues, in the hot season. * The river Mobile, as you ascend it, divides into two principal branches, about 40 miles above the town; one of which, called the Tawsaw, falls into the east part of the bay; the other emp­ties itself close by the town, where it has a bar of 7 feet; but there is a branch a little to the eastward of this, called Spanish river, where there is a channel of 9 or 10 feet, when the water is high; but this joins Mobile river about 2 leagues above the town. Two or three leagues above the Tansaw branch, the Ala­bama river falls into Mobile river, after running from the north-east a course of about 130 miles; that is, from Alabama fort, sit­uated at the confluence of the Coosa, and Tilapoosee, both very considerable rivers; on which and their branches are the chief settlements of the Upper Creek Indians. The French fort at Alabama was evacuated 1763, and has not since been garrisoned. Above the confluence of Alabama and Mobile, the latter is called the Tombigbee river, from the fort of Tombigbee, situated on the west side of it, about 96 leagues above the town of Mobile. The source of this river is reckoned to be about 40 leagues higher up, in the country of the Chickasaws. The fort of Tombigbee was taken possession of by the English, but abandoned again in 1767, by order of the commandant of Pensacola. The river is navigable for sloops and schooners about 35 leagues above the town of Mobile. The banks, where low, are partly overflowed in the rainy seasons, which adds greatly to the soil, and adapts it particularly for the cultivation of rice. The sides of the river are covered in many places with large canes, so thick that they are almost impenetrable; there is also plenty of remarkable large red and white cedar, cypress, elm, ash, hickory, and various kinds of oak. Several people have settled on this river, who find the soil to answer beyond expectation. The lands near the mouth of the Mobile river are generally low; as you proceed upwards, the land grows higher, and may with propriety be di­vided into three stages. First, low rice lands, on or near the banks of the river, of a most excellent quality. Secondly, what are called by the people of the country, second low lands, or level flat cane lands, about 4 or 5 feet higher than the low rice lands. And, thirdly, the high upland or open country. The first, or low lands, extend about an half or three-quarters of a mile from the river, and may almost every where be easily drain­ed and turned into most excellent rice fields, and are capable of [Page 14] being laid under water at almost all seasons of the year. They are a deep black mud or slime, which have in succession of time been accumulated, or formed by the overflowing of the river. The second low grounds being, in general, formed by a regular rising of about 4 or 5 feet higher than the low lands, appear to have been originally the edge of the river. The second class or kind of land is in general extremely rich, and covered with large timber and thick strong canes, extending in width upon an av­erage three-quarters of a mile, and in general a perfect level. It is excellent for all kinds of grain, and well calculated for the cul­ture of indigo, hemp, flax, or tobacco. At the extremity of these second grounds, you come to what is called the high or up­lands, which is covered with pine, oak, and hickory, and other kinds of large timber. The soil is of a good quality, but much inferior to the second or low land. It answers well for raising Indian corn, potatoes, and every thing else that delights in a dry soil. Further out in the country again, on the west side of the river, you come to a pine barren, with extensive reed swamps and natural meadows or savannas, which afford excellent ranges for innumerable herds of cattle. On the east of the river Mobile, to­wards the river Alabama, is one entire extended rich cane coun­try, not inferior, perhaps, to any in America. Whenever por­tages are made between the Mobile and Tennessee river, or their branches, which are probably but a few miles apart, the Mobile will be the first river for commerce (the Missisippi excepted) in this part of the world, as it affords the shortest and most direct communication with the sea." [ Hutchins.]

In addition to, and confirmation of, the above account of Capt. Hutchins, several other gentlemen of intelligence who have been in this country, say that "the Tombigbee is navigable for sea vessels 60 miles into the State of Georgia;" * others, that "it is navigable in boats of 20 tons up to the junction of 10 and 20 Mile Creek. The Alabama and Coosa are navigable for boats of 40 tons, as high as the big shoals of Coosa river. The principal riv­ers which meander through this tract of country, are Seprey's and Cane Brake rivers, both which fall into the Tombigbee, and are navigable for boats as high as the 33d degree of latitude; and the Cawhawbon river, which falls into Alabama river, below the junction of Coosa and Oakfuskee, are boatable as far north as the rivers last mentioned. The soil on the east side of Tombigbee, is of a reddish cast, producing naturally oak, hickory, and abun­dance of very high grass. The country appears well calculated for the culture of wheat, corn, rye, oats, and barley. The bot­toms or intervales on the rivers are not subject to inundations, and are exceedingly rich. The country is well watered with good wholesome water. Further north, the country becomes uneven and somewhat hilly, that part particularly which divides the waters of Tombigbee from Tennessee river, but as you descend to [Page 15] a lower latitude, the country is more level; and down about the mouth of Cane Brake river, and thence across to the Alabama, is almost one entire cane brake."

"The ridge which divides the Tombigbee and Alabama riv­ers is stony, and the soil inferior to that on the rivers; of this description also is the country lying between the Cawhawbon and Alabama rivers; but the bottom lands on the water courses are exceedingly rich. The country is pleasant and healthy, being generally overgrown with high grass, well calculated for farm­ing, particularly for raising cattle. There are many extensive and rich bottoms of cane land on the Alabama. The river which falls into the Tombigbee next above Seprey's river, has much rich land on its banks, and is boatable some distance in small boats, and spreads into many branches, through a pleasant, healthy, and well watered country." [ Coxe's M. S. Letter.] As you advance eastward of the Alabama, in the Territory we are describing, you come first to the Escambia river, and then to the Chatta Hat­cha, or Pea river, which Capt. Hutchins thus describes—"The river Escambia is the most considerable that falls into the Bay of Pensacola. See Escambia River. The Chatta Hatcha or Pea riv­er, which also heads in the Georgia Western Territory, empties from the N. E. into Rose Bay, which is 30 miles long and from 4 to 6 broad. The bar at the entrance into the bay has only 7 or 8 feet water, at deepest; but, after crossing the bar, has 16 or 17 feet. The mouths of the river (for almost all the southern rivers have several mouths) are so shoal, that only a small boat or canoe can pass them. Mr. Hutchins ascended this river about 75 miles, and found that its banks very much resembled those of Escambia. Further east are the Appalachicola, Flint, and Alabaha rivers, which are described under their respective heads.

The northern parts of this Territory are watered by the great bend of the Tennessee, and its tributary streams. This noble riv­er bends southward as far as lat. 34 15, according to Capt. Hutchins' map, and divides, into nearly equal parts, the purchase of the Tennessee Company. North of the Tennessee, in this pur­chase, there is not an Indian inhabitant. From the S. the Ten­nessee, in its course through Georgia, receives, besides smaller streams, the Hiwasset, Chiccamauga, and Occochappo or Bear Creek, which are described under their respective heads. Trav­ellers speak of the lands on the bend of the Tennessee, in terms of the highest commendation.

Of the territory described above, the State of Georgia, by act of their legislature, passed Jan. 7, 1795, sold about twenty-two millions of acres to four different companies, whose names and the limits of their respective purchases, as defined by the act, follow.

1. "All that tract or parcel of land including islands, begin­ning on Mobile Bay, where the lat. 31 N. of the equator inter­sects the same, running thence up the said bay to the mouth of [Page 16] the lake Tensaw; thence up the said lake Tensaw, to the Alaba­ma river, including Curreys and all other islands therein; thence up the said river Alabama, to the junction of the Coosa and Oak­fuskee rivers; thence up the Coosa river, above the Big Shoals, to where it intersects the lat. of 34 N. of the equator; thence a due W. course to the Missisippi river; thence down the middle of the said river, to the latitude of 32 40; thence a due E. course to the Dan or Tombigbee river; thence down the middle of the said river to its junction with the Alabama river; thence down the middle of the said river, to Mobile Bay; thence down the said Mobile Bay, to the place of beginning, shall be sold unto James Gunn, Matthew M cAllister, and George Walker, and their asso­ciates, called The Georgia Company."

2. "All that tract of country, including islands, within the following boundaries, viz. beginning on the river Missisippi, at 31 18 N. lat. thence a due E. course to the middle of Dan or Tombigbee river; thence up the middle of the said river to N. lat. 32 40; thence a due W. course along the Georgia Company line, to the river Missisippi; thence down the middle of the same, to the place of beginning, shall be sold to Nicholas Long, Thom­as Glasscock, Ambrose Gordon, and Thomas Cummings, and their associates, called The Georgia Missisippi Company."

3. "All that tract of country, includings islands, within the following boundaries, viz. beginning at the Missisippi river, where the northern boundary line of the State strikes the same; thence along the said northern boundary line, due E. to the Tennessee river; thence along the said Tennessee river, to the mouth of Bear Creek, thence up Bear Creek, to where the parallel of lat. 25 British statute miles S. of the northern boundary line of the State intersects the same; thence along the last mentioned par­allel of lat. across Tombigbee or Twenty Mile Creek, due W. to the Missisippi river; thence up the middle of the said river to the beginning, shall be sold to John B. Scott, John C. Nightin­gale, and Wade Hampton, called The Upper Missisippi Company."

4. "All that tract of land, including islands, within the follow­ing boundaries, viz. beginning at the mouth of Bear Creek, on the S. side of Tennessee river; thence up the said creek to the most southern source thereof; thence due S. to lat. 34 10 N. thence due E. 120 miles; thence a due N. course to the Great Tennessee river; thence up the middle of the said river to the northern boundary line of the State; thence a due W. course a­long the said line to where it intersects the Great Tennessee river, below the Muscle Shoals; thence up the said river to the place of beginning, shall be sold to Zachariah Cox, Mathias Maher, and their associates, called The Tennessee Company."

The same law enacts also, "that all lands lying westward and southward of the eastern boundary of the several Companies' pur­chases, and not included therein, estimated at one-fourth of the whole lands lying westward and southward of the eastern boun­dary [Page 17] of the said purchases, and supposed to contain 7,250,000 acres, shall be, and the same is hereby declared to be reserved and set apart to, and for the use and benefit of this State, to be grant­ed out, or otherwise disposed of, as future legislatures may direct." [ Act of Georgia Legislature of Jan. 7 th, 1795.]

The purchase-money, amounting to 500,000 dollars, was duly paid by the respective Companies, into the State treasury of Georgia, agreeably to the terms of the act. This land was soon after sold by the original Companies, to various gentlemen, prin­cipally in the middle and eastern States. The sale of this territo­ry excited a warm and violent opposition in Georgia. The act authorising this sale, was by certain leading men in the State, de­clared to be "an usurped act—repugnant to the principles of the Federal Constitution, and of the Constitution of Georgia— opposed to the good of the State, and obtained by fraud, atro­cious speculation, corruption and collusion." In consequence of these representations, a determination was formed by a powerful party, to set aside and annul, at the succeeding session of the le­gislature, this offensive, "usurped act." Efforts were according­ly made, and with success, to obtain a legislature suited to the accomplishment of their designs. Accordingly, on the 13th of Feb. 1796, an act was passed declaring the above-mentioned "usurped act" null and avoid; and all the grants, rights, and claims arising therefrom, of no validity or effect; and that the said territory was the sole property of the State." To complete the utter annihilation of this odious act, as far as possible, the le­gislature ordered, that, in their presence, and that of the public officers of the State, the several records, documents and deeds, in the several public offices, should be "expunged from the faces and indexes of the books of record of the State; and the enroll­ed law, or usurped act, publickly burnt." All this was accom­plished 3 days after the passing of the act. These unprecedent­ed proceedings were attended and followed with most disagreea­ble and tumultuary effects. The original purchasers of these lands, the then holders, and all those who had been intermediate­ly concerned, who had by this time become a numerous and re­spectable body, scattered through the United States, were, for a moment, thrown into an unpleasant dilemma, and for a time, this business was the general topic of conversation. The title to the lands purchased by the above-named companies, has been still further embarrassed by a claim brought forward in behalf of the United States. As it may be matter of curiosity to the reader, and perhaps of interest, to examine into the title of the several companies to their respective purchases, under existing circum­stances, a summary statement of the claims, and of the facts and arguments in their support, follow.

[Page 18]

A SUMMARY STATEMENT of the CLAIMS upon the GEOR­GIA WESTERN TERRITORY.

I. THE State of Georgia say, that "the unappropriated territory," usually considered as within the limits of the State of Georgia, or the tract of country now distinguished by the name of the Georgia Western Territory, is their property, and that they have "not only the right of pre-emption, but also of exercising all territorial rights." 1. Be­cause, by the 2d and 9th articles of the confederation of 1781, the territory within the limits of each of the United States is confirmed and guaranteed to each of them respectively. 2. Because, the boun­daries of Georgia, as established by the treaty of Paris, of 1783, and by the convention at Beaufort of 1787, include this territory; and the 6th article of the Federal Constitution, by the spirit and meaning of it, confirms these limits. And, 3dly, Because the United States, by accepting a cession from N. Carolina, of her Western Territory, did in fact acknowledge and recognize the right of Georgia to her West­ern Territory. * To this claim of Georgia the purchasers accede; upon this ground the sales were made to the respective companies in 1795, and on this ground the purchasers rested the validity of their claim.

But the State of Georgia now reclaims that part of her Western Territory sold according to the act of her legislature, of Jan. 7, 1795, alleging that the act authorising the sale, is contrary to the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States; repugnant to the 16th and 17th sections of the first article of the constitution of Geor­gia, and was moreover obtained by means of "fraud, atrocious spec­ulation, corruption, and collusion." Hence, by an act passed Feb. 13, 1796, the above act of Jan. 7, 1795, was "declared null and void, and the grants, rights, and claims, deduced from it, annulled, and rendered void and of no effect.

In answer to the above stated claim of Georgia, it is contended by the purchasers, 1. That the repealing law of Georgia is merely void, and leaves the title of the purchasers where it found it. If corruption, they say, did exist in the legislature which made the sale, (which is however strenuously denied) it is very questionable whether it can ever be alleged, as a contract cannot be repealed, like other acts of legislation; and as the supreme power of a State, as such, cannot be accountable to any other constituted authority; for that implies a su­perior tribunal. By this, however, is not meant that the wrong done cannot be individually prosecuted for corruption, though the State may be bound by the sales. If the allegation were, say they, that the legislature were deceived by the purchasers, the grant, like that of an individual, unfairly obtained, would be void on proof of the fraud: but for a legislature to allege its own criminality and corrup­tion, to avoid its own grant, is truly novel; and, in point of princi­ple, there is no difference between the same and a preceding legisla­ture. [Page 19] But if corruption of this kind can make void the grant, at least it ought to be proved; and that too in a court competent to weigh the evidence, and decide on the fact; in other words, it is a judiciary question, triable only in a judiciary court, and being a question of fact, must be tried by a jury. The legislature, therefore, having no au­thority in this case, this examination and decision can be considered no otherwise than as mere usurpation, and void. And perhaps in justice to the purchasers, it ought to be added, that the depo­sitions taken by the committee of the legislature, (though taken ex parte, and under a strong bias of party) do not contain much clear evidence of fraud.

It is also said by the purchasers that even if there had been fraud, and that fraud might be alleged to destroy the title of the original purchasers who were privy to it; yet that innocent persons having purchased, utterly unacquainted with the facts, and living in remote parts of the United States, their title could never be controverted;— that it was enough for them to know that a legislative act, granting the lands, had passed; and that they were ignorant of any fraudulent practices.

With regard to the allegation in the repealing act of Georgia, that the sales were against the constitution of the United States, and that of Georgia, it does not appear to have been treated as having any solid foundation; it has been called a naked assertion without any reasoning to support it. It has been said that every State in the Union, having unappropriated lands, has disposed of them through the medium of legislative acts, and their validity has never been ques­tioned; though there is no peculiar difference in this respect between the constitution of Georgia and those of the other States. In short, it seems to be generally agreed among the informed part of the com­munity, that, whether Georgia had cause of complaint on account of unfairness in the sales, or not, the repealing law must be considered as a "contravention of the first principles of natural justice and social policy," * and void.

II. The claim of the United States deserves more particular atten­tion. Various grounds have been taken to support this. It has been intimated, rather than asserted, in a Report of the Committee of the Senate of the United States, that by the proclamation of the British King, of Oct. 7, 1763, all lands lying west of the heads of the rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, were taken from the colonies, and so remained until American Independence, and then became the property of the aggregate body politic of the United States, as they were not within the limits of any particular States.

This, it is said by the purchasers, is bold ground, and is opposed not only to all the measures and opinions in Britain and America, while we were colonies, but also to the whole course of arrangements since our independence. It proves too much to prove any thing. The argument destroys itself; for if this be true, all the lands ceded to the United States by Carolina, Virginia, and every other State ceding west­ern lands, belonged to the United States without cession. Some of [Page 20] the best counties of Virginia now belong to them; the Connecticut Reserved Land, is theirs; the whole States of Kentucky and Tennes­see are theirs: The consequences, say they, are too wild to suffer the principle to be admitted. Nor do the words of the proclamation warrant the construction. The Governors of the colonies are there­by only forbidden, " for the present, and until the King's further pleasure should be known, to grant warrants of survey, or pass patents for those lands." * —And the reason is given in the Proclamation, viz. That the several tribes of Indians living under the king's protection, "should not be molested or disturbed in the possession of their hunting grounds." Instead of a permanent alteration of the boundaries of the colonies, a temporary prohibition to the Governors to grant those western lands, is alone to be found in the Proclamation; and the object, viz. peace with, and justice towards, the Indians, required no more. And another fact seems to put this matter past all doubt; the boundaries of the colonies, as expressed in the commissions of the several Governors, were uniformly the same after the proclamation as before.

Others, in support of the claim of the United States, have said, that the original charter of Georgia did not include the lands lying south of a line projected due west from the head of the most southern stream of the Alatamaha river;—that this stream is the Oakmulgee river, and that its most southern head is probably about lat. 33 30 N. It is further said that no act of the British government ever enlarged the colony beyond its original chartered limits, except the Proclama­tion of 7th Oct. 1763; and that this annexes the lands between the Alatamaha and St. Mary, no further west than their heads;—there­fore it is concluded that the whole western country claimed by Geor­gia, except so much thereof as lies north of a due west line from the head of the Oakmulgee, never was within the colony of Georgia.

To this it is answered, by the advocates for the title of Georgia, that the charter of Carolina, granted in 1662, extended that colony as far south as the 31st degree of N. lat. and as far west as the Western Ocean.—That after the division of Carolina into two colonies, South-Carolina had the same southern and western limits —That the surren­der of the charter by the proprietors of Carolina, only restored the property to the crown, but did not annihilate the colony, which is evi­dent from a royal Governor being immediately appointed, who, by his commission, is made "Governor of our colony of S. Carolina," with­out any specific boundaries; which meant a tract of country bounded as under the proprietary government, or it meant nothing.—That on the 9th of June, 1732. the colony of Georgia was carved out of South-Carolina; but all lands belonging to S. Carolina, still continued to be­long there, except that which was contained in the charter of Georgia; and of course the land lying south of the south line of Georgia, as far as the 31st degree of lat. still belonged to S. Carolina, which is evident from common sense, as well as from the fact that the Governor of S. Carolina made grants of land south of the colony of Georgia in 1763; which, though highly offensive to the board of trade, were at length admitted to be legitimate. It is further said, that the State of S. Car­olina, in 1788, by solemn legislative act, ceded to Georgia all her [Page 21] right to the lands in question, by ratifying the articles of the Conven­tion of Beaufort, agreed upon between the States of S. Carolina and Georgia; and that the lands became thereby unquestionably the property of Georgia.

Other answers have been made to this ground of claim by the United States; such as that the true intent and meaning of the Proc­lamation of 1763, was to annex the land in question to Georgia, and that this was considered as the fact by the British government; and if the communication from Mr. George Chalmers, the certifying officer of the board of trade, to the Attorney-General of the United States, is to be relied on as an authority, this is true. It has also been answered that the Oakmulgee is not the most southern stream of the Alatamaha, but Phenhalloway's Creek, which heads in lat. 31 north; * so that the whole of this land was strictly within the original chartered limits of Georgia.

Other advocates for the claim of the United States, have said, that at least this claim is good from the 31st degree of lat. as far north as a line projected due east from the confluence of the Missisippi and Yazoo rivers.

The foundation of this assertion is this. The board of trade, in 1764, represented to the king that it was expedient to extend West-Florida as far northward as the above mentioned line, and advised that a proclamation might issue for that purpose. No such procla­mation, however, was made; but several subsequent commissions to the Governors of West-Florida, bounded the colony of West-Florida northward by that line; and in this state the matter rested until the independence of the United States. Hence it is argued that this land, being a part of W. Florida in 1783, when the bounds of the United States were settled by treaty with Great-Britain, could not belong to Georgia; but being within no particular State, it became the prop­erty of the United States.

To this the purchasers have answered, That the proclamation of 7th of Oct. 1763, was a solemn public act, and established the south­ern boundary of W. Florida at the 31st deg. of lat. and that the com­mission of a Governor, being inferior in solemnity and publicity, could not abrogate it.—That the reason why no proclamation was made, probably was, that the supposed fact on which the expediency of the alteration was predicated, was not known to exist; and that in the commissions themselves are words leading to a belief that it was con­sidered only as a temporary arrangement. The fact is, say they, that this matter was wholly founded on a gross misrepresentation of the Governor of Florida, who represented to the board of trade, and they to the King, that the 31st deg. of lat. was south of the town of Mobille. It is nearly certain that the British government did not consider this as a permanent alteration on the northern boundary of W. Florida; for no reason can be given why, in the peace of 1783, they should code to the United States, without any equivalent, so great and valuable a part [Page 22] of W. Florida, which had never joined in the revolution; especially considering that on the same day on which our treaty with Britain bears date, she ceded W. Florida, without bounds, to Spain: thus on the same day ceding the same territory to two different nations, if it was then a part of W. Florida.

Other objections have been urged against the claim of the United States, which apply to all the grounds of claim above mentioned. It has been said by the purchasers and their agents, that the most solemn acts of the three nations who have been immediately interested in the question, have, for a long course of years, recognized the title of Georgia, viz. Britain, Spain, and the United States.

Britain, as has been mentioned, recognized this title, by the peace of 1783. The general principle on which the boundaries of the United States were then established, was, that the former thirteen colonies were to be acknowledged as Independent States by Britain; and consequently the bounds of the colonies were to be the bounds of the States. It cannot be pretended that the land in question was within any other colony than that of Georgia or South-Carolina; and, as has been mentioned, South-Carolina has ceded all her right to Georgia by the convention of Beaufort, in 1787; and it is incred­ible that Britain should then consider the land as part of West-Flor­ida; for then, without motive or reason, she gave to the United States the best part of a colony which had chosen to remain under her allegiance.

Spain has recognized the title of Georgia by the late treaty made between her and the United States; for if the land was, in 1783, a part of Florida, Spain had an equal right to it with the United States; Great-Britain having ceded it to both nations on the same day. But Spain has given up all claim to the United States without any equiva­lent. This was done on the explicit representation on the part of our government, first by Messis. Carmichael and Short, and after­wards by Mr. Pinckney, under express instructions from the Supreme Executive of the United States, to claim the land as a part of Geor­gia; and these instructions were the result of an elaborate inquiry by Mr. Jefferson, then Secretary of State, as appears by his report to the Executive on the subject. Indeed, Spain never claimed the land as a part of West-Florida, but set up a frivolous claim by conquest. And it has been added, that as the cession of this country from Spain by the late treaty, was obtained by a representation from the United States, that it was a part of Georgia, Spain is not in honour bound by this article of the treaty, if the fact was not so, if the land did indeed belong to her own province of West-Florida.

The Government of the United States, it is said, has for a long course of years acquiesced in, and by many public acts acknowledged the title of Georgia, so as to bar all claim, even if the title of the United States were otherwise valid. As a principle to govern in this case it is stated, that in courts of equity it has been established, "that the true owner of land shall be bound by a sale of a stranger who has no title, if the owner suffer the sale to go on by an innocent purchaser, without giving notice of his title when he has it in his power; and that the case is much stronger against the owner when he has given a colour of title to the seller, and thus helped to deceive [Page 23] the purchaser." As facts falling within this principle it has been stated, 1. That the government of the United States instructed their commissioners for making the peace of 1783, to claim this land as belonging to Georgia, and this appears by the journals of Congress, in the fullest manner. 2. That attempts were made by the United States to obtain a cession of this land from Georgia, and a considera­tion offered for it, without any intimation that the United States had a claim. 3. That the convention of Beaufort, by which the conflicting claims of S. Carolina and Georgia were amicably settled, was conducted under the auspices of the United States; the question having been submitted to a court appointed by Congress to try it, according to a provision in the former confederation of the United States. 4. That in 1789 the government of the United States stated to Spain, as the ground of the claim of the American government, that this territory belonged to Georgia by virtue of her charter and the proclamation of 1763. 5. That in the negociation which pre­ceded the late treaty between the United States and Spain, Messrs. Carmichael and Short, American commissioners, by express instructions from the Supreme Executive of the United States, asserted the same thing as the ground of the claim of the American government; and that even after the existing sales of this territory, and after the same had been officially communicated by the government of Georgia to the President of the United States, and by him laid before Congress, Mr. Pinckney, our late envoy to the court of Spain, who negociated the late treaty, expressly declared, in his official communication, that the claim of the United States was founded on the fact, that this country was a part of Georgia, and this too pursuant to express instructions from the American Executive.

These have been urged as public acts of the American govern­ment, giving strong colour of title to Georgia. Others of acquies­cence in her title by the United States have been added. Such as the silence of the general government when, in 1783, Georgia passed a legislative act, declaring her title to this country, and taking meas­ures to settle it. Also, when, in 1785, Georgia erected part of this territory into a county by the name of Bourbon, and appointed magistrate there, and provided for the further settlement of it; and also, when, in 1789, Georgia passed an act for the sale of the now con­troverted lands to certain companies, who after failed of complying with the terms of payment.

It has been said by the purchasers and their agents, That it would be indelicate, at least, for the government of the United States to hold such language as this: "It is true, we represented to Great-Britain that this land belonged to Georgia, and obtained a cession from her on this ground.—It is true, that we claimed it of Spain on the same ground for years together▪ and at last on that ground obtained a relinquishment of her claim; but we falsified, and they were cheat­ed.—It is true, we claimed it in behalf of Georgia, and as a part of Georgia; but having obtained it, we will keep it ourselves.—It is true, we declared by many public and solemn acts that the title of Geor­gia was good, and thereby induced a great number of American citi­zens to purchase and risk all their property in the enterprize; but we will now assert our claim, and destroy them for being weak [Page 24] enough to believe us: and it is true, it has long been settled that the principles of justice forbid individuals from doing thus; but we are above the rules of justice."

The foregoing is as clear and impartial a view of the conflicting claims to the Georgia Western Territory, as the author could collect from the various documents in his possession. These documents do not furnish an answer to the foregoing reasoning against the claim of the United States; nothing, except what has been alleged, having appeared on that side of the question.

MR. HAMILTON'S OPINION.

NEVER having examined the title of the State of Georgia to the lands in question, I have no knowledge whether that State was itself entitled to them and in capacity to make a valid grant. I can there­fore have no opinion on this point. But assuming it in the argument as a fact, that the State of Georgia had at the time of the grant a good title to the land, I hold that the revocation of it is void, and that the grant is still in force.

Without pretending to judge of the original merits or demerits of the purchasers, it may be safely said to be a contravention of the first principles of natural justice and social policy, without any judicial decision of facts, by a positive act of the legislature, to revoke a grant of property regularly made for valuable consideration, under legisla­tive authority, to the prejudice even of third persons on every suppo­sition innocent of the alleged fraud or corruption: and it may be added, that the precedent is new of revoking a grant on the suggestion of corruption of a legislative body. Nor do I perceive sufficient ground for the suggestion of unconstitutionality in the first act.

In addition to these general considerations, placing the revocation in a very unfavourable light, the constitution of the United States, article first, section tenth, declares that no State shall pass a law im­pairing the obligations of contract. This must be equivalent to saying no State shall pass a law revoking, invalidating, or altering a contract. Every grant from one to another, whether the grantor be a State or an individual, is virtually a contract that the grantee shall hold and enjoy the thing granted against the grantor, and his representatives. It therefore appears to me that taking the terms of the constitution, in their large sense, and giving them effect according to the general spirit and policy of the provisions: the revocation of the grant by the act of the legislature of Georgia, may justly be considered as contrary to the constitution of the United States, and therefore null. And that the courts of the United States, in cases within their jurisdiction, will be likely to pronounce it so.

(Signed) ALEX. HAMILTON.
March 25, 1795.
THE END.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.