French government haughtily refused to receive him. An extra session of congress was called which assembled June 15, 1797. The president in his message referring to the speech of the president of the French directory on the departure of Mr. Monroe, said: "Sentiments are disclosed more alarming than the refusal of a minister, because more dangerous to our independence and union, and, at the same time studiously marked with indignities towards the government of the United States."

President Adams knew the meaning of war. Though not serving actively in the field during the Revolution, he had rendered service in the Continental congress which was of great value to the struggling soldiery following Washington through the sternest privations and sufferings ever known to an army of that day, and only equalled afterwards by those which were so cheerfully endured by the ragged soldiers who starved and fought in the armies of the Confederacy. The president, earnestly desirous of peace with France, as with all the world, sent a commission composed of Messrs. Pinckney, Marshall and Gerry to France, with instructions to use all proper efforts towards peace. The French cabinet was yet in an inflamed state and refused to receive them. War seemed to be imminent. Only the greatest forbearance could prevent it. The country was in no condition for war, neither was it then, nor will it ever be, in a condition to avoid a war when insult and injury are heaped upon it.

The French were committing depredations upon American shipping; decrees from the French directory, subjected to seizure all American vessels carrying British goods or sailing from British ports. This decree was tantamount to a declaration of war by France. Congress passed an act suspending all commercial intercourse between the United States and France and the latter's possessions; merchant vessels were ordered to be armed; the

president was authorized to increase the army and navy, placing each on a war footing.

Kentucky was divided upon this vital question. The Republicans, or Democrats as they were now coming to be called, sympathized with the French and opposed the administration of President Adams to whose election they had never become reconciled. The Federalists, of course, supported Mr. Adams, who was of their number.

The following resolutions were adopted at a meeting held at Lexington:

"Resolved, That the present war with France is impolitic, unnecessary and unjust, inasmuch as the means of reconciliation have not been unremittingly and sincerely pursued, hostilities having been unauthorized against France by law, while a negotiation was pending.

"Resolved, That a war with France will only be necessary and proper when engaged in for the defense of our territory, and to take any part in the present political commotions in Europe will endanger our liberty and independence. Any intimate connection with the corrupt and sinking monarchy of England ought to be abhorred and avoided.”

The people of Mason county in a far different vein, presented an address to the president which brought grateful recognition. From that address these words are quoted: "We have seen with the anxiety inseparable from the love of our country, the situation of the United States under the aggressions of the French nation on our commerce, our rights and our sovereignty. As freemen, we do not hesitate; we will rally around the standard of our country and support the constituted authorities. An insidious enemy shall in vain attempt to divide us from the Government of the United States, to the support of which against any foreign enemy we pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor." Many other addresses of like character accompanied that above quoted. However bitter might be political prejudice, one cannot conceive of a public meeting in the Lexington of today, failing to resent in the most forcible

manner, an insult to our accredited minister or the unwarranted search of our merchant vessels by any foreign government under the

sun.

In this gloomy hour when war with a people who had sympathized with and aided us, appeared no longer to be avoided, the eyes of the country turned with one accord to the shades of Mount Vernon, and the sturdy old soldier, under whose leadership the people had won their freedom, was forced from the ease and retirement his years of service had justified him in claiming. His country called him and George Washington answering the call which from his earliest years he had had never failed to hear, rode once more at the head of an American army as its commander-in-chief. France was expected to attempt an invasion of our country. True there had been no formal declaration of war upon the part of either government.

While what might be termed the polite preliminaries to action had been omitted, the stern actualities had not been. February 19,

1799, the United States frigate "Constitution" of thirty-eight guns, met and engaged the French frigate, "La Insurgent," of forty guns, capturing her after a spirited engagement in one hour. February 1. 1800, the "Constitution" met the French ship, "La Vengeance," of fifty-four guns, and after an action of five hours, the latter hastily withdrew having lost 160 of her men killed and wounded. Three hundred American merchant vessels were afloat and all were armed. The French had done much damage to our shipping, the war having been confined to the

sea.

Napoleon's star now appeared. Becoming first consul, it was intimated to the United States that commissioners would now be received. Accordingly, Messrs. Murray, Ellsworth and Davis were appointed, proceeding in November, 1799, to France, but it was not until near the close of 1800 that a treaty between the two countries was ratified and hostilities ceased.

A history of Kentucky must needs be also a history, in part, of African slavery, the greatest curse that a free people ever imposed upon themselves. It is too late now to inveigh against the people of New England who first introduced human slavery into the colonies and later embroiled the sections in a tremendous struggle for its abolishment. Say what statesmen may as to the causes for the war between the states, every one must, in the final analysis, admit that, had there been no slaves there would have been no war. The right of the states to regulate their own internal affairs without the interference of the Federal government, was, of course, involved, but the discussion of that right grew out of slavery and but for slavery would never have been. Other questions were involved, but the great central question, about which discussion revolved, was that of slavery disguise the facts as we may. The southern states withdrew from the Union and fought gallantly for the right to regulate their own affairs; a right which they believed then and now believe, was guaranteed them by the constitution.

A gentleman from Kentucky crossing the Atlantic to England was approached by an English gentleman who asked: "Why were the north and the south fighting each other in your great war?" "The answer is easy," replied the Kentuckian. "The New England states sent their slave vessels to Africa where they captured many unsuspecting natives, bringing them to America and enslaving them. The inhospitable climate of the eastern states was fatal to these people from the African shores, and many of them died from its sinister influences. The thrifty New Englanders, observing this, made haste to sell their slaves to the people of the warmer southern states, and later came down and made war upon those same people for buying them." The English gentleman appeared to be satisfied with the explanation offered and there are not lacking those today who accept it as correct.

It is useful to remember that not until the eastern states had relieved themselves of an undesirable holding and filled the pockets of their people with southern gold in return for their slaves, did it appear to them that slavery

was an unmixed evil, to be stamped out at any cost of blood and treasure. It is not intended here to make a plea for the enslavement of human beings, for the writer of these words never saw the day when he was an advocate of that "peculiar institution." He is a mere chronicler of facts as he sees them, setting them down as he believes correctly. In later pages, reference may be again made to this subject matter.

For the present it is desired to refer more particularly to slavery as it existed in Kentucky in the early as well as the later periods, anterior to the war. This chapter and others which may follow, is largely made up as to statistics from a careful study of an article entitled "Slavery in Kentucky," published in the Lexington (Ky.) Herald and written by an accomplished journalist, Mr. Anderson Chenault Quisenberry, now, and for many years, connected with the inspector general's office of the war department at Washington. Mr. Quisenberry, a native of Kentucky, a trained newspaper man, has given much thought to matters connected with the earlier history of the state, and the writer of this history has no hesitancy in accepting and quoting many of his conclusions as his own.

When the first permanent settlement of Kentucky was made at Boonesborough in 1775, slavery existed in every one of the colonies which shortly after combined to form the United States of America. The first settlers at Boonesborough, as at other of the transient settlements, had negroes as slaves. The colonists who founded Boonesborough, while en route thereto, had an encounter with Indians in which William Twetty and his negro slave were killed. Thus slavery began at the very beginning of Kentucky, then a part of Virginia, and continued until the close of the war of 1861-5. Its increase is shown by the census returns for 1860, the last of such returns in which slavery was shown to exist as, when the census of 1870 was taken,

there were no longer any negro slaves in the United States, the proclamation of President Lincoln and the results of the war having combined to free the white people of the southern states of the dark incubus which had so long weighed them down and made them, as a matter of fact, the slaves of their own slaves. That this incubus in another form, is still upon them, it is not proposed to touch upon here. The census returns from 1790 to 1860, as above referred to, were as follows:

During the period above noted the white population of Kentucky ranged from 61,193 in 1790 to 919,484 in 1860, and a general average of colored to white population during all this period, was approximately about one to five. In this period of seventy years the slave population had increased eighteen-fold and the free colored population had increased nearly one hundred fold, thus indicating that many people in Kentucky were freeing their slaves. It is an established fact that free negroes had very little natural increase since; having no longer the paternal care of their former masters and mistresses, their children the more readily succumbed to the diseases incident to childhood and found early graves. This being true, it may be assumed that a great majority of the 18,684 free negroes in Kentucky in 1860, have been manumitted by their former owners. Kentucky did not await statehood, but began the freeing of her slaves while still a part of Virginia west of the mountains.

It is probable that the first negro ever

made a free man in Kentucky was Monk Estill, a slave of Col. James Estill of Madison county. In 1782, in the battle known as "Estill's Defeat," which occurred on the ground where Mount Sterling is now situated, Colonel Estill, with twenty-five men, attacked a party of Wyandotte Indians by whom the slave, Monk Estill, was taken prisoner. In the thickest of the fight, Monk called out in a loud voice: "Don't give way, Marse Jim; there's only twenty-five of the Injuns and you can whip them." Colonel Estill was killed and his men retreated. The brave Monk escaped from the Indians, joined his white comrades and, on his stalwart shoulders, carried a wounded man twenty-five miles to Estill station. His young master promptly gave him his freedom and supported him in comfort during the remainder of his life.

It has been well said that in the solitudes of the wilderness and the isolation of the early settlements, the innate longings for the society of human-kind made the companionship of the masters and their households with the colored slaves an essential condition to the contentment and happiness of both. The white and colored elements were thus pleasantly blended in the household unit; and, hence, while the relations were civilly and socially so distinct, they were mutually confiding and affectionate. The pleasant relations thus early established in pioneer days, continued, as a rule, until slavery was happily no more, and to great extent, lingers yet among the descendants of those people-fifty years after slavery has ceased to be.

Of course, there were some in Kentucky who were cruel to their slaves but these were the exception, not the rule. Irresponsible Irresponsible power over others develops whatever meanness there may be in the nature of those who possess that power. In many asylums for the insane; for the orphan; the almshouses, and similar institutions, flourishing in the centers of our civilization today, may be found more

cruelty and tyranny than was ever practiced by the most conscienceless master in Kentucky upon his slaves. The cruel and inhuman master was ostracized and taught by the silent contempt of his neighbors a lesson which he seldom failed to heed.

There is not lacking the testimony of former slaves, to the conditions of their servitude in Kentucky. George Brown, a colored man, long a slave, was in the years following the freedom of his people, the senior member of a firm known as "George and Dan," the latter being also a former slave, who conducted a noted restaurant in Louisville frequented by the best people of the city and the state. Some years before his death, Brown published in the Winchester (Ky.) Democrat an extended sketch entitled "Recollections of an Ex-Slave." In this sketch, he commented lovingly upon the kindness of his former owner, Mr. Allen, and his family, to their slaves, and adds: "I would not have the reader suppose that this kindness and humanity was peculiar to the Allen family for it was not; for a constant endeavor to make slaves happy and comfortable was a feature common to many slave owners about Winchester." The same may be truthfully said about every town and county in Kentucky.

Custom and usage invariably blunt the senses so that venerable wrongs are not recognized as such. In what one is born to and accustomed to, and has accepted as a matter of course, one cannot, as a rule, see any wrong. So a great majority of Kentuckians in times past, could see no wrong in slavery. But there was always, from the beginning, an element in Kentucky respectable in number and in every way, which recognized the wrong of slavery. Perhaps the most prominent of these was the elder Humphrey Marshall, Henry Clay, his fiery kinsman, Cassius M. Clay, James G. Birney, and Robert J. Breckinridge.

Before Kentucky became a state, a political