Bill Providing for Kentucky Statehood, [15 December] 1786
Bill Providing for Kentucky Statehood
[15 December 1786]
Whereas it appears that the Representatives elected in pursuance of the Act, entitled “An act concerning the erection of the District of Kentucky into an independent State,”1 have been hindered by unforeseen events from meeting at the time proposed, and determining the question referred to them; and it is considered that no such determination can now take place within the time necessary for its receiving the assent of Congress prior to the first day of June next, as required by the Act under which the said Representatives were elected: And Whereas it continues to be the purpose of the General assembly that the said District shall become an independent State, on the terms and Conditions specified in the Act aforesaid, whenever the good people thereof shall so determine, and the U. S. in Congress shall thereof approve: Be it enacted by the General Assembly that in the Month of August next, and on the respective days and places of holding Courts in the several Counties within the said district, five representatives for each County, to continue in appointment for one year, and to compose a Convention with the powers and for the purposes hereinafter mentioned, shall be elected by the free male inhabitants of the County.2 The elections shall be conducted in like manner, with the like promulgation of this Act to the electors, and with the like penalties for neglect of duty in the officers, as were prescribed for the elections held under the act above recited.
The Convention shall be held at Danville on the [4th:] ⟨third⟩ monday in September ensuing, or whenever thereafter, a sufficient number shall be assembled; ⟨Five⟩ members assembled shall be a sufficient number to adjourn from day to day, and to issue writs for supplying vacancies which may happen from deaths, resignations or refusals to act. A majority of the whole shall be a sufficient number to chuse a president and other proper officers, to settle the proper rules of proceeding, to authorize any number of members to summon a Convention, during a recess, and to act in all other instances; where a greater number is not expressly required. Two thirds of the whole shall be a sufficient number to determine whether it be expedient for, and be the will of the good people of the said District that the same be erected into an independent State, on the terms & conditions specified in the act above recited: provided that no vote shall be considered as deciding this question either in the Affirmative or negative, unless a majority of the whole number to be elected shall concur therein: [unless two thirds of the whole shall not have assembled within days after the day appointed for the meeting of the Convention, in which a decision in which a majority of the whole shall concur, shall be valid, although the number present be less than two thirds.
And Be it further enacted that in case the said Convention shall approve]3 And provided that in case two thirds of the whole shall not assemble within ⟨fifteen⟩ days after the day appointed for the meeting; a decision in which a majority of the whole shall concur, shall be valid although the number present [may] be less than two thirds of the whole.
And be it further enacted that in case the said Convention shall approve of an erection of the said District into an independent State on the terms and Conditions above referred to, they shall & may proceed to fix a day not later than the ⟨first⟩ day of ⟨January one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine,⟩ on which the authority of this Commonwealth and of its laws, under the exceptions specified in the Act above recited, shall cease & determine for ever over the said District; and the articles specified in the said Act shall become a solemn compact, mutually binding on the parties, and unalterable by either without the consent of the other: Provided however that prior to the ⟨fourth⟩ day of ⟨July one thousand seven hundred and eighty eight,⟩ the U. S. in Congress shall assent to the erection of the said district into an independent State, shall release this Commonwealth from all its federal obligations arising from the said district, as being part thereof, and shall agree that the proposed State shall immediately after the day [to be] fixed as aforesaid, or at some convenient time future thereto, be admitted into the federal Union. And to the end that no interval of anarchy may happen to the good people of the proposed State; It is to be understood that the said Convention shall have authority to take the necessary provisional measures for the election & meeting of a Convention at some time prior to the day fixed for the determination of the authority of this Commonwealth & of its laws and subsequent to the notified assent of Congress to the proposed erection of the said district into an independent State, with full power & authority to frame and establish a fundamental Constitution of Government for the proposed State, and to declare what laws shall be in force therein; untill the same shall be abrogated or altered by the Legislative authority acting under such Constitution.
This Act shall be transmitted by the Executive to the Delegates representing this State in Congress, who are hereby instructed to use their endeavors to obtain from Congress a speedy concurrence in the measure proposed by this Act, and the Act heretofore passed, entitled “An Act Concerning the erection of the District of Kentucky into an Independent State.”
Ms (Vi). In JM’s hand and docketed by him, “A Bill Making further provision for the erection of the District of Kentucky into an Independent State.” Endorsed by Beckley. Words added in the blank spaces when the bill was passed are indicated by angle brackets; words in square brackets were omitted in the final act. See
, XII, 240–43, for the printed act.1. Enacted during the October 1785 session of the legislature; printed in , XII, 37–40.
2. On 15 Nov. 1786, “a petition of sundry members of the Convention elected by virtue of the act. ‘concerning the erection of the district of Kentucky into an independent State,’ was presented to the House, and read; setting forth, that from the frequent invasions of the Indians it has been impossible to carry into effect the said recited act; and praying that further time may be allowed to Congress for their decision upon the matters referred to their consideration by the said act; that some mode may be pointed out for filling up such vacancies as may happen in the said Convention; and that it may be lawful for a certain number of members to call a meeting thereof, whenever it shall be deemed expedient” ( , Oct. 1786, p. 41). This clearly was the petition which Caleb Wallace mentioned was being forwarded by members of the Kentucky convention to the assembly (Wallace to JM. 30 Sept. 1786). A few members met from day to day, but the convention failed to attain the required two-thirds representation until January 1787 (George Muter to JM, 23 Sept. 1786 and n. 3). Lacking a quorum, the few representatives present had sent this petition for an extension of time to the Virginia legislature. At the same time Samuel Taylor carried to Richmond a petition in opposition to that of the fourth convention. Signed by about seventy people, this petition apparently attacked “the members elected, and the manner of conducting the elections in the District” (“A Farmer” [Harry Innes], Kentucke Gazette, 18 Oct. 1788; Watlington, The Partisan Spirit, p. 117; , Oct. 1786. p. 41; Ms of neither petition has been found). Taylor accused the advocates of separation of being aristocrats and of ignoring the will of the majority of Kentuckians, who were opposed to separation (“A Real Friend to the People,” Kentucke Gazette, 25 Apr. 1789). The petition which he carried to Richmond must have claimed that the convention then pending was unrepresentative of the true sentiments of the people of Kentucky, and requested “that an act may pass, to empower the inhabitants of that [Kentucky] district to elect a new Convention for carrying into effect the act, entitled ‘an act, concerning the erection of the district of Kentucky into an independent State’” ( , Oct. 1786, p. 97).
On 9 Dec. George Nicholas reported out of the Committee of Propositions and Grievances a resolution recommending favorable action on this petition as well as a resolution that the memorial of members of the Kentucky convention praying for an extension of time was reasonable, but that part of the petition for filling vacancies and for authorizing “any number of the said Convention, not less than seven … to call a meeting of the body” be rejected (ibid., pp. 96–97). JM was chairman of a committee ordered to bring a bill in pursuant to the above resolutions (ibid., p. 97). JM presented the bill on 15 Dec.; on 18 Dec. the bill was read the third time, passed, and carried to the Senate by Mathews. The Senate agreed to the bill 21 Dec. and the Speaker signed it 11 Jan. 1787 (ibid., pp. 103, 106, 114, 156).
JM accommodated the requests of both petitions in the bill; however, back in Kentucky the act precipitated a heated debate between the factions for and against separation. The “aristocrats.” who controlled the 1786 convention and favored separation, believed that Taylor had lobbied “among the members of the Assembly in the October Session 1786. gained such credit as to make them really doubt that our leading men were designing, and had petitioned for a separation contrary to the general wish of the people: and the Assembly, (ever attentive to. and desirous to promote our interests) were induced to pass a Law for electing another Convention to meet in September 1787, to determine the said question. This Gentleman arrived at Danville with this new Act, just as the Convention had determined in favor of a Separation [in late January 1787], and perceiving that the conduct which had occasioned it [the act] was much reprobated, and knowing himself to be suspected; HE, struck with the disingenuity of such proceedings, declared in Convention ‘That he had no hand in the matter, but merely to be the bearer of the petition at the particular request of his constituents.’ The Convention, not knowing where to lay the blame, and fearing their proceedings might be thought illegal or unjustifiable, broke up and proceeded no further” (“A Farmer,” Kentucke Gazette, 18 Oct. 1788). George Muter wrote to JM that the members of the convention believed it to be dissolved by the passing of the act. Those who opposed separation were exultant and thought that they had “gained a victory & plume themselves upon it, highly indeed. The friends to a separation, are rather displeased, they think the petition signed by about 70. obscure persons, had more influence, than it ought to have had;” and they feared that “disagreeable consequences” (a rejection by Kentuckians of a legal separation) might arise from the delay. Muter, however, had originally doubted that the new act dissolved the then-sitting convention, which impression, he wrote JM, had been confirmed by receipt of JM’s letter of 7 Jan. 1787 (Muter to JM, 20 Feb. 1787). JM made it clear that the Virginia legislature’s intent was not to bypass the 1786 convention, but to enable Kentucky to effect a legal separation. Thus the 1786 convention was to be in effect until 1 June 1787, the deadline established for a decision by Congress under the 1785 act (JM to Muter, 7 Jan. 1787).
3. The words enclosed here in brackets were crossed through in the Ms and omitted from the final act.