--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This file was contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by: 
Paul R. Sarrett, Jr. on Aug. 04, 1998                     (prsjr@aol.com)

USGENWEB NOTICE:  In keeping with our policy of providing free information
on the Internet, data may be freely used by non-commercial entities, 
as long as this message remains on all copied material. These electronic 
pages cannot be reproduced in any format for profit or other presentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

		HISTORY of the SOUTH CAROLINA CESSION

				and the

		   NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF TENNESSEE

			By W.R. GARRETT, A.M.
			Nashville, Tenn.
		SOUTHERN METHODIST PUBLISHING HOUSE - 1884

		Page 1	South Carolina Cession.
		(Map 1 of Eastern US.)
		Page 2	South Carolina Cession.

South Carolina Cession
Read Before the Tennessee Historical Society, November 8, 1881.

THERE are some events of history which possess but little historic
importance, but for this very reason are invested with peculiar
historic interest.

Such incidents, either from the brief period of their existence, or
from their failure to produce any marked results upon the general
interests of communities, are soon lost to view amid the great and
pregnant events which stand out as the landmarks of a nation's history. 
When in after years these lesser facts are recalled to our notice
by the researches of the historian or the antiquarian, they strike us with
surprise, and possess all the charms of novelty.

To this class belongs the history of the narrow strip of land touching
the southern boundary of North Carolina and Tennessee, and extending 
from South Carolina to the Mississippi River. This strip is about
12 miles wide and more than 400 miles long, and was ceded by South
Carolina to the United States on the 9th day of August, 1787.

The inquirer, whose attention has never before been especially drawn
to the subject, is surprised to find that immediately touching the 
southern border of our State South Carolina should ever have owned a 
territory of such eccentric dimensions and so peculiarly located. The
circumstances connected with its cession to the United States recall a
train of interesting associations dating from the settlement of the 
Southern States to the years 1802 and 1804, when this strip was finally 
divided between Georgia and Mississippi territory, each receiving the
portion immediately north of its own limits.

To understand clearly the causes which led to the possession by South
Carolina and the cession. to the United States of this singular territory,
it is necessary to glance briefly at that period of our history when
the thirteen States, after the surrender of Yorktown and the treaty
of Paris, having secured their independence, were engaged in constructing 
a general government. One of the questions of the day most difficult of 
solution was the government of their western territory.

		Page 3	South Carolina Cession.

The troubles of North Carolina in controlling her forward and precocious 
daughter, Tennessee, are familiar to us all. Similar difficulties
were experienced by all the other States owning western territory.
These difficulties were caused partly by the natural barriers of 
remoteness, inaccessibility, imperfect communications, and divergent 
interests; and partly by the independent and intractable character 
of the western settlers, who were restive under any restraints which 
appeared to-be imposed by people at a distance. Domestic troubles, 
however, were by no means the only ones. There was a strong pressure 
from without, and especially from the New England and Middle States, 
to induce the great States of Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas to 
surrender their western territory. A glance at the map will show the 
grounds of their jealousy in entering into a union with these four States, 
who then owned more than three-fourths of all the territory ceded by 
Great Britain in the treaty of Paris.

According to Mr. Anderson's History of the United States, only six
States, previous to 1781, bad exactly defined boundaries -- viz., 
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and
Delaware. The disputed claims to western territory, and their final
adjustment, are all that is now important to consider. These claims,
as is well known, were finally ceded to the United States by all 
claimants.

How different might have been the fate of America, weather for better 
or for worse, bad the four great States held to their western lands
with the tenacity usually shown by powerful communities! Virginia
might now be extending from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, and from
North Carolina to the lakes, embracing an area and numbering a 
population far overshadowing her sister States, truly the Old Dominion, 
instead of being shrunken up, as she now is, between the Alleghenies and
the ocean, shorn of her lands, and fallen from the first to the tenth State
of the Union. The Carolinas and Georgia might now be stretching
from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, powerful in lands, population,and
resources. Such might have been their fate had these States pursued
a selfish policy. Such was the fear of the other nine States, who urged
the western cessions, and who looked with just alarm upon, a union
with neighbors who might in a few years acquire, by the settlement of
their western lands, such overpowering influence. Whether such 
un-wieldy States could have held together, whether the same wonderful
growth and the some healthy development could have been attained by
the West under the management of the parent States, it is now idle to
inquire.

		South Carolina Cession Page 4

Let us trace briefly the pressure of public opinion, the political 
artifices, and the domestic difficulties which finally impelled the 
four great States to the voluntary surrender of the largest tract of 
land ever alienated in the history of the world by powerful communities 
without bloodshed.

The first public movement in this direction Was made in Congress in
1777, in the debates and preliminaries to the adoption of’ the Articles
of Confederation. This contest was for the time ended by the refusal
of Virginia to cede her western lands, and the refusal of Maryland to
enter the confederation without it. Virginia claimed all of the vast
territory north-west of the Ohio River, from her charter, from actual
possession, and from the fact that the British were expelled from it by
the expedition under George Rogers Clarke, entirely composed of Virginia 
troops, and under Virginia authority, and after the refusal or failure 
of the United States to assist. It will be remembered that the 
Parliament of Great Britain had, in the beginning of the contest with her
colonies, passed an act annexing all the territory north-west of the Ohio
River to Canada. The expedition of George Rogers Clarke prevented
the policy of Great Britain from being successful in limiting the 
territory of. the United States to the Ohio River. The claim of Virginia,
however, was not undisputed. Massachusetts and Connecticut claimed
that their original charter extended across the belt of this territory, 
respectively within the latitude of their northern and southern 
boundaries; and that although they had never exercised any jurisdiction, 
their rights had not been extinguished by the grants of the Crown which 
deprived that of the intervening country. New York also claimed from
the lakes to the Cumberland Mountains, under certain alleged grants
from the Indians. It is evident that these claims of New York were
urged for the sole purpose of using theta as a lever to compel the other
States to abandon their claims to the north-western territory. It is
probable, moreover, that Massachusetts and Connecticut entertained no
serious thought of acquiring possession of any portion of this territory,
but used their claims as a lever to effect a cession from Virginia, the
Carolinas, and Georgia, and for other political purposes. Hildreth,
who cannot be accused of partiality to Virginia, says, in this connection: 
 "New York, whose claim was the vaguest and most shadowy, led
 the way by giving a discretionary power to her delegates in Congress
 to cede that portion of her claims west of a line drawn through the
 westernmost extremity of Lake Ontario." This was in February,
1780, when the second effort was made to force a cession from the
claimant States. Connecticut offered to cede her claims in October

Page 6	South Carolina Cession.

of the same year, retaining that portion since known as the Connecticut
Reserve. The Virginia Legislature, on Dec. 30, 1780, made a cession
of all claims north-west of the Ohio, but requiring as a condition a
guarantee from the United States to the possession of Kentucky. The
delegates from New York, who had been vested with discretionary
power, made a deed on March 1, 1781, and on the same day the delegates 
of Maryland, who were authorized to do so, ratified the articles
of confederation, and the union of the States was begun.

This cession of Virginia, the only State who resigned any territory
really occupied; and whose claims were undisputed, as far north as the
forty-first parallel, except by the shadowy claim of New York, is 
attributed by Hildreth to the tenor of invasion upon the approach of 
Arnold. Bancroft alludes to this cession in the following words:
 Virginia did more, a-vowing her regard for a federal union, and preferring
 the general good to every object of smaller importance, she resolved to
 yield her title to the lands north-west of the Ohio, on condition that
 they should be formed into distinct republican States, and admitted
 members of the Union; and Jefferson, who from the first had pledged
 himself to the measure, announced to Congress this great act of his 
 administration in a letter full of hope for the completion of the American
 Union, and the establishment of free republics in the vast country to
 which Virginia quitted her claim."

Although these cessions had produced the effect of allaying the jealousy
of Maryland, and thus completing the confederation, yet the western lands 
continued for many years to be a source of disquietude and contention. 
The following extract from Hildreth, presents the condition of affairs 
in 1782: 
 With the increasing power of the treasury, the western lands were 
 earnestly looked to as a financial resource. Unwillingness to guarantee 
 to Virginia the possession of Kentucky, and the influence of certain 
 land companies, not without their weight in Congress, on whose behalf 
 a claim was set up to large tracts "west of the mountains," had 
 hitherto prevented the acceptance of the Virginia cession.
 A committee, the appointment of which the delegates from Virginia
 vainly opposed, having gone into a full examination of all the claims
 to western lands, whether on the part of States, companies, or 
 individuals, had made a report upholding the title of New York against
 all claimants. That report gave rise to many warm debates, which 
 resulted, however, at the close of the cession in the formal acceptance of
 the deed of New York conveying all her title to Congress -- an acceptance 
 intended to compel the other States to make satisfactory cessions.
 Massachusetts and Virginia voted against it; the Carolinas were divided;

South Carolina Cession Page 7

all the other States in the affirmative." Thus matters remained until
after the close of the war.

After the disbandment of the army, Congress was very thinly 
attended. The first business of importance was the acceptance of the
cession of Virginia, March, 1784, that State having modified its 
cession by the omission of the guarantee of Kentucky, and conditioned it
with a reservation of the title to land to be sold to repay the soldiers
engaged in the expedition of George Rogers Clarke in the conquest of
the north-western territory.

"Simultaneously with this acceptance," Jefferson submitted his 
famous plan for the subdivision and government of the north-west 
territory, and such other western territory as might be obtained 
by cessions expected from the other States. The adoption of this 
report and the subsequent acts of Congress show that the main cause 
of jealousy was removed, and the title of the United States to the 
north-west territory was considered substantially assured by this 
cession of Virginia and its acceptance. As yet, however, the cession 
of Connecticut had not been accepted, and Massachusetts was sleeping 
on her claim.

An irresistible public opinion was now brought to bear upon these
States and upon the claimants of the territory south of the Ohio River.
North Carolina vacillated, her Legislature passing an act in June, 1784,
to cede Tennessee, and repealing the same in November, before Congress 
could accept it. In March, 1785, Massachusetts authorized her
delegates to cede her claims, and her cession was accepted on April 19,
the anniversary of Lexington. This cession was free from reservations
or conditions of a selfish character, and bore on its face the evidence of
its patriotic purpose. On Sept. 11, 1786, Congress, in order to complete 
the title of the United States to the north-west territory, accepted
the cession of Connecticut, notwithstanding the sinister reservation by
which that shrewd State sought to convert the nominal surrender of her
abstract claims into a real establishment of possession of proprietary
title. Ceding all claims to jurisdiction, she reserved the proprietary
title to the large tract of land known as the "Connecticut Reserve;"
the proceeds from the sale of which went into the treasury of the State,
and now constitutes a large portion of her magnificent school fund, thus
rewarding her own patriotism with a pecuniary compensation.

The title to the north-western territory being now freed from all
claimants, the pressure was directed against the Carolinas and Georgia.
It is not surprising that Georgia should cling to her western territory
with more tenacity and yield it with more reluctance than any of her
sister States. Separated from it by no mountain barriers, and lying

Page 8 South Carolina Cession.

in immediate contact, her western possessions seemed more a part of
herself, and no adverse interests urged her western settlers to demand a
separation. Besides all this, a new complication had now arisen, which
disposed the southern claimants of western territory to look with less
favor upon a cession of their claims to the United States. This was
the spirit manifested by the Northern States to concede to the claims
of Spain the temporary control of the Mississippi River as high as
Natches, which was then occupied by Spanish troops. In August,
1786, panting for the revival of trade on any terms, seven Northern
States, by their delegates in Congress, approved a plan submitted by
Jay to yield to the claims of Spain temporary control of the Mississippi
River, and the possession of the disputed territory. The five Southern
States violently opposed it, and it was only defeated by lacking the 
constitutional majority of nine States. Georgia especially resented this 
disposition to abandon her territory to Spain, and refused to listen to any
proposition to cede her territory to the United States.

These events occurring in 1785, and the sectional spirit which they
aroused, put an end for the time to any cessions of south-western 
territory. In 1787, after the excitement and sectional jealousy had been
somewhat allayed, although the affairs with Spain were still unsettled,
the pressure upon North Carolina and Georgia was revived by the first
cession of any south-western territory to the United States. This was
the cession by South Carolina of the strip of land which forms the 
subject of this paper. As far as we can judge of the motives of men, when
left to find them with no guide but their acts, it would seem that South
Carolina desired to bring to bear on North Carolina and Georgia the
same pressure which New York had so successfully exercised on Virginia, 
with this difference, however, that South Carolina ceded valid,
though useless, claims, while New York enjoyed the doubtful honor of
attempting to give away what did not belong to her. There may have
been also some feeling of pique against Georgia in the action of the
Hotspur State, caused by the suit then pending between the two States.
The following are the circumstances of the cession-- and I will here
acknowledge my indebtedness to the courtesy of Mr. Chas. Warren,
Acting Commissioner of Education, and to Mr. Spofford, Librarian of
Congress, for supplying me with extracts from the records of the 
Congress of the Confederation, furnishing information that can be found in
no work on United Stats History with which I am acquainted. I present 
these extracts to the Society in behalf of Mr. Warren, and being too
voluminous to read in full, although very interesting. I give a synopsis
of their contents, accompanied by such reflections as the subject suggests.

South Carolina Cession Page 9

In the year 1785 South Carolina instituted suit against Georgia, 
before Congress, under the ninth article of the confederation. On June
1st of this year Georgia was summoned to appear on the second Monday
of May, 1786.

The following is a portion of the petition of South Carolinas
   "To the United States of America in Congress assembled: The petition
   of the Legislature of South Carolina she with that a dispute and 
   difference bath arisen and subsists between the State of Georgia 
   and this State concerning boundaries. That the case and claim of 
   this State is as follows, viz.:
   
   "Charles II., King of Great Britain, by. charter, dated the 24th
   March, in the fifteenth year of his reign, granted, etc That on 
   the 30th day of June, in the seventeenth year of his reign, the said
   king granted to the said Lords Proprietors a second charter, enlarging
   the bounds of Carolina, etc That Carolina was afterward divided into 
   two provinces called North and South Carolina, That by a charter dated 
   the 9th day of June, 1732, George II., King of Great Britain, granted 
   to certain persons therein named all the lands lying between the rivers 
   Savannah and Altamaha, and lines to be drawn from the heads of those 
   rivers respectively to the South Seas, and styled the said colony 
   Georgia ..... That South Carolina claims the lands lying between the 
   North Carolina line and a line to be run due west from the mouth of 
   the Tugaloo River to the Mississippi, because, as the State contends, 
   the River Savannah loses that name at the confluence of Tugaloo and 
   Keowee rivers, consequently that spot is the bead of Savannah River; 
   the State of Georgia, on the other hand, contends that the source of 
   Keowee is to be considered at the head of Savannah River."

The petition recites other disputed points of boundary, and concludes 
with a prayer to Congress to take jurisdiction and try the case under
the Articles of Confederation.

The case was adjourned from time to time, until Sept. 4, 1786, when
both States appeared by their agents. Proceedings were then instituted,
and a court appointed to try the case, which was to sit in New York.
No judgment was ever rendered by this court in consequence of the
compromise of the suit between the parties. Both States appointed
Commissioners, who met at Beaufort, S. C., clothed with full powers to
make a final settlement. And now comes a singular part of the history 
and the origin of the twelve-mile strip. These Commissioners --
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Andrew Pickens, and Pierce Butler, on
the part of South Carolina; and John Habersham, Lacklan McIntosh,

Page 10	South Caroline Cession.

a majority of the Commissioners on the part of Georgia-- signed an
agreement and convention establishing the line as it now exists 
between the two States, running along the Savannah River and its most,
northern branch, the Tugaloo, and the most northern branch of the
Tugaino, the Chatuga, to the point where it intersects the North 
Carolina line. This would have granted all our twelve-mile strip to 
Georgia, along with the other territory ceded by South Carolina to 
Georgia an that convention. It so happened, however, that the 
Legislature of South Carolina was at the same time in session.

On March 8 of the same year, just one month and twenty days before 
the completion and signature of the convention at Beaufort, the
South Carolina Legislature passed a bill conveying to the United States
the territory bounded by the Mississippi River, the North Carolina line,
and a line drawn along the crest of the mountains, which divide the
waters of the East from the waters of the West from the point where
these mountains intersect the North Carolina line to the head-waters of
the most southern branch of Tugaloo River, and thence west to the 
Mississippi River, thus mapping out our twelve-mile strip. The delegates 
of South Carolina were directed to make a deed conveying the same. These
two apparently inconsistent acts of South Carolina both needed the 
confirmation of Congress. They were accordingly presented to Congress on
the same day, accompanied by the deed of cession, Aug. 9. 1787. The
action of Congress bears marks of worldly wisdom. The cession to the
United States was accepted on the same day. The motion to confirm
the convention of Beaufort was referred to a committee, who, as far as
I can find, never reported. This report was perhaps prevented by the
absorbing interest in the constitutional convention then in session, and
which completed its labors in the following month by adopting the
present constitution, and the Congress of the Confederation soon after
passed out of existence, and with it the ninth article, under which the
suit of South Carolina was instituted.

I must here notice an error into which Hildreth has fallen. What-ever 
may be thought of the bias of his politics, or the justice of his 
reflections, he is certainly reliable in points of fact, and his work 
might well be styled a Cyclopedia of United States History. He evidently
wrote it seated by the journal of Congress following in chronological
order each event as it transpired. He thus brings to light many curious 
and interesting details which the more rhetorical or philosophical
historians neglect. I have relied much on his statements in the present 
sketch. He seems however, to have fallen into an error in regard
to the South Carolina cession, as proved by the extracts from the 

South Carolina cession.	 Page 11

journal of Congress, which I have followed in recounting the South 
Carolina suit and cession. He says: 
   "The geography of this region was not yet well understood, and 
    after this ample cession to the United States of all her remaining 
    western territory, a cession which might as well have been spared, 
   since the lines described by it included nothing."

We have just seen that the cession to the United States was made
before the action of the Beaufort Convention, that the two acts were
reported to Congress on the same day, and that the Beaufort Convention
was never confirmed by Congress. The lines described did, therefore,
include something, and did convey a real title.

Thus the twelve-mile strip became the territory of the United States.
and intervened as a wedge between Georgia and North Carolina, and
afforded for several years a suggestive invitation to cede their western
lands. The example was followed by North Carolina in 1790, when,
after her patience was exhausted by the attempt to establish the State
of Frankland, she ceded her western lands to the United States. 
Kentucky anticipated the expected second cession of Virginia, and became
a State in 1792, without undergoing the territorial apprenticeship.

This left the full pressure of the demand for western cessions to fall
on Georgia. This sturdy State resisted until 1802, when her unwilling
cession, by no means a free gift, proved to be a shrewd bargain. She
then ceded the Territory of Mississippi, nearly all of which was covered
by Indian titles, and received in return that portion of the South 
Carolina cession immediately north of her boundary, $1,250,000 in money
from the proceeds of the sale of public lands, and what ultimately
proved very costly to the United States, a guarantee for the extinction
of all Indian claims in her present limits. The remaining portion of
our twelve-mile strip, all of which, after the admission of Tennessee,
was styled in legislation the territory of the United States south of the
State of Tennessee, was, in 1804, added by Congress to Mississippi 
Territory, and now constitutes the northern portion of the, States of 
Alabama and Mississippi.

End of Page 11

See "Northern Boundary of Tennessee" for Continuation!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This file was contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by: 
Paul R. Sarrett, Jr. on Aug. 04, 1998                     (prsjr@aol.com)

USGENWEB NOTICE:  In keeping with our policy of providing free information
on the Internet, data may be freely used by non-commercial entities, 
as long as this message remains on all copied material. These electronic 
pages cannot be reproduced in any format for profit or other presentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------