Ohio History Journal

JOHN SMITH, FIRST SENATOR FROM OHIO AND HIS

CONNECTIONS WITH AARON BURR

 

By M. Avis PITCHER

 

John Smith, United States Senator from Ohio, 1803-1808,

was "a Virginian by birth and education."¹ Because of the double

misfortune of name and locality there is apt to be considerable

uncertainty as to the early career of this gentleman in relation to

all the other "John Smiths" of Virginia.² In 1790, Smith was

definitely located on the Forks of the Cheat River, Monongalia

County, Virginia, as the ordained minister of a Baptist Congrega-

tion of twenty-nine members. The following year he moved to

Columbia, now a part of Cincinnati, Ohio, to take charge of the

little church but recently organized there.3

At this settlement founded at the mouth of the Little Miami

River in November, 1788, by a party of men under Benjamin

Stites, there had been organized the first Evangelical Church in

the Northwest Territory.⁴ When Stephen Gano⁵ declined to re-

1 "Queries Addressed by the Committee, Dec. 9, 1807 to Mr. Smith with His

Answers as Finally Given" (printed by order of the Senate, December 31, 1807), 126.

2 See "Smith, John," in Biographical Directory of the American Congress

(Washington, 1928); also National Cyclopedia of American Biography (New York,

1892) (Cf. "Index to Pickering Papers," in Massachusetts Historical Society Collec-

tions (Boston, 1794-), Ser. 6, VIII (1898), 458). The date and place of his birth

is given as 1735 in Hamilton, County, Ohio, which is obviously erroneous. No check

has been found for the date. There is also an error in the place and date of his

death.

John Asplund (ed.), The Annual Register of the Baptist Denomination to

Nov. 1, 1790 (1790), 25. Asplund has tabulated, state, county, location, affiliation,

ordainment, number of members, and date of information. Smith is listed at the

Forks of the Cheat, in the third week of September, 1790. A footnote indicates

that he moved to the Miami country, April 1791. Anthony Howard Dunlevy in his

History of the Miami Baptist Association (Cincinnati, 1869), 18, agrees in the time

of arrival at Columbia, but says that Smith had been residing in western Pennsyl-

vania and came for a visit. His preaching was acceptable and he agreed to remove

to this country after settling his business at home and so returned May, 1791.

Confusion as to the locality may have arisen from the fact that the Cheat was

a part of the disputed area claimed by both Virginia and Pennsylvania. The church

on the Cheat had been affiliated with the Redstone, Pennsylvania, Association from

which the Baptists of Columbia had come. Asplund, op. cit., 34.

4 Jacob Burnet, Notes on the Early Settlement of the North-western Territory,

(New York and Cincinnati, 1847), 46. Burnet includes Smith among the original

members of the Stites party. Others do not. Cf. Charles Theodore Greve, Cen-

tennial History of Cincinnati (Chicago, 1904), I, 177; Charles Cist, Cincinnati in 1859

(Cincinnati, 1859), 13; James McBride, Pioneer Biography (Cincinnati, 1869), I, 11;

Albert Henry Newman, History of the Baptist Churches (New York, 1898), 838; John

Ewing Bradford, "Centennial Churches of the Miami Valley," in Ohio State Archaeo-

logical and Historical Society Publications (Columbus, 1887-), XXV (1916), 236.

5 Of New York, brother of Major John Gano, an original settler of Columbia.

(68)

• 1
 

JOHN SMITH                                 69

main, Smith was selected.⁶ For a few years he divided his time

between Columbia and Cincinnati, for the latter had no organized

Church, and in 1795 took charge of the Little Miami Island

Church.⁷ Under his direction was effected in 1797 the organiza-

tion of the four Baptist churches at Columbia, Miami Island, Car-

penter's Run and Clear Creek into the Miami Association.⁸ Smith

continued to be actively concerned with the churches of the Asso-

ciation until his political and business affairs absorbed his attention

and took him away from the locality.⁹

There is record of Smith's membership on a committee to

consider the founding of an Academy at Columbia.l⁰ During a

small-pox epidemic his house was selected because of its isola-

tion11 for the inoculation of patients and "Mr. Smith being a

friendly   and benevolent man, great numbers resorted to it."¹²

Francis Baily, later president of the Royal Astronomical Society,

visited Columbia in 1797 and was introduced to Smith and Dr.

Bean, the apothecary, "gentlemen who rank with the first in the

place."   After recording the chill of a night spent in the loft of

Bean's home, Baily continued in his journal:

I went to breakfast with Mr. Smith and here I found things a little

more in order, though far from that degree of refinement and comfort to be

met with in the more civilized parts of this country. This house bore the

marks of industry and cleanliness and we were regaled with tea and coffee

and a boiled chicken for our breakfast, attended with buckwheat cakes

which are common in this part of the country. I have observed13 that

this gentleman supported the character of a merchant, a farmer, and a

parson; the gravity of his countenance seemed to indicate the latter....

 

6 Charles Cist, Cincinnati Miscellany (Cincinnati, 184546), 173; Dunlevy, op. cit.,

18. This information has been based upon the diary of William Goforth, one of

the original settlers. McBride (op. cit., I, 95) finds some anachronisms in the diary

and thinks the memoranda were set down in chronological order some years later.

7 Dunlevy, op. cit., 21. This church was located eight miles northeast of

Columbia.

8 Ibid., 27-30. In 1799 the Association included six churches and 185 members.

9 Ibid., 22, 33. In 1801 he was assisting at Columbia.

10 William Goforth, Diary, November 2, 1792, in Cist, Cincinnati Miscellany, 174.

11 His home has been located as four miles beyond Deer Creek "where the rail-

road now runs." Daniel Drake, Discourses Delivered before the Cincinnati Medical

Library Association, 1852 (Cincinnati, 1852), 31.

12 Ezra Ferris, "The Early Settlement of the Miami Country," in Indiana His-

torical Society Publications (Indianapolis, 1895-), I, 339-41. The family wearing ap-

parel which had been left out over night to air was stolen, but recovered from two

Indians after a day's chase.

13 Smith "is a man of very good property, which he has acquired in several

different ways in this place; he is farmer, merchant, and a parson; all of these occu-

pations, though seemingly so different, he carries on with the greatest regularity and

without confusion."

• 2
 

70      OHIO ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

house, which he keeps in high cultivation; chiefly meadow-ground, and from

which he has realized a great deal of money. His warehouse was near

the waterside. It consisted of but one room, where he brings down the

river such articles of European manufactory as are most in demand. There

are but two or three other stores of the same kind in Columbia. The

profits of this trade are generally one hundred percent, and sufficiently

compensate the trader for the trouble of a journey once or twice a year

to Philadelphia.14

One acquaintance speaks of the esteem which was accorded

the Smith family, in this fashion: "Mr. Smith has generally been

viewed as a friendly benevolent and worthy man, and his family

(consisting of an amiable wife and daughter and several very

promising sons) have been considered entitled to and held a place

in the first circles of society in this quarter.^"15 His wife was a

"meek and quiet spirit" of nervous temperament to whom              he was

quite devoted.¹⁶ He had seven children, in all.¹⁷ Aaron Burr

offered to take the two eldest sons under his tutelage, to which the

father consented, thinking it would be greatly to their advantage.¹⁸

Smith was said to make an unusually fine appearance with his

easy and agreeable manners. He was reserved in character, digni-

fied in deportment and commanded great respect and attention. He

was an excellent speaker because of his "flow of language and

peculiarly sweet, yet powerful voice." "Those who heard him and

have given to us the recollections of that day say that he could be

distinctly heard in preaching at the distance of half a mile."19

Smith's "pleasing and popular manner as well as his preach-

ing led to his entrance into public life."²⁰ When, in 1798, it was

 

14 Francis Baily, Journal of a Tour in the Unsettled Parts of North America,

1796-97 (London, 1856), 196-202.

15 Annals of Congress (Washington, 1789-1824), XVII, April 8, 1808, 285, quoting

Colonel James Taylor.

16 Mrs. E. Challen to Mrs. Mary Gano, in Dunlevy, op. cit., 116-17. Smith

is said to have written his wife regularly in lover-like fashion when he was away

and to have saved all her letters to him.

17 John Smith to Timothy Pickering, August 15, 1821, Timothy Pickering MSS.

(in Massachusetts Historical Society). Names of three of the sons were Ambrose D.,

John and Louis. Dunlevy, op cit., 116, 118. The daughter was not considered a

good match by the Findlays because of her father's supposed connection with the

Burr Conspiracy. William Findlay to James Findlay, February 14, 1809, in Isaac

Joslin Cox (ed.), "Selections from the Torrence Papers, V," in Historical and

Philosophical Society of Ohio Quarterly Publication (Cincinnati, 1906-), IV (1909), 127.

18 "Queries," 128.

19 Dunlevy, op. cit., 18, 96, 109-11. "From impressions I [Dunlevy] have received

from many of his early neighbors connected with the church and otherwise." A

statement that Smith was "first in log-rolling, first in the horse race and first in the

pulpit" is retracted by its proponent and vigorously denied by others.  Cf. Emilius

Oviatt Randall and Daniel Joseph Ryan, History of Ohio (New York, 1912), III, 221.

20 Dunlevy, op. cit., 96.

• 3
 

JOHN SMITH                             71

known that the population of the Northwest Territory had

reached 5000 white male inhabitants Governor Arthur St. Clair

issued a proclamation announcing the second stage of territorial

government and the election of representatives for the Assembly.²¹

Jacob Burnet, one of the delegates, said that party influence was

negligible and the people chose "strongminded, sensible men."

Smith was

scarcely excelled by any member in either house, in native talent and mental

energy. Though he felt, very sensibly, the want of an early education yet

the vigor of his intellect was such as enabled him measurably to overcome

that difficulty. His ambition to excel urged him to constant application,

and soon raised him to a fair standing among the talented and influential

leaders of the day.22

The many details of government were decided upon at the

two sessions of the First Territorial Legislature.²³ The contro-

versy between the governor and the members of the Legislature

arose over the erection of counties and county seats.²⁴ The Second

General Assembly of the Territory met at Chillicothe, November

23, 1801, in the new State House.²⁵ The Legislature insisted upon

its right to alter the counties set up by the governor and St. Clair

maintained that he had the sole power. The Republicans took up

the struggle for statehood in opposition to the governor. The

leaders of the State party were Nathaniel Massie, Thomas Worth-

ington, Edward Tiffin and in Hamilton         County, Judge John

Cleves Symmes. Smith, William Goforth, Francis Dunlavy and

Jeremiah Morrow.²⁶ This group finally succeeded and the Con-

stitutional Convention was called for March I, 1802.27

The election of representatives to the Constitutional Conven-

tion excited great interest and returned delegations of the best

thought and character in the community.²⁸     Smith served on some

committees and was recognized as one of the ablest men of the

21 The Palladium (Frankfort, Kentucky), November 13, 1798 (in University of

Chicago, Durrett Collection).

22 Burnet, op. cit., 288-89.

23 Biographical Annals of Ohio (Springfield, Ohio, 1905), II, 147-49; 154-55.

24 Burnet, op. cit., 321-22.

25 Randall and Ryan, op. cit., III, 89.

26 Greve. op. cit., I, 325.

27 For details, see Arthur St. Clair MSS. (in Ohio State Library, Columbus,

Ohio). Agents were sent to Washington to influence the President and charges of

inability and misuse of power were preferred against St. Clair.

28 Randall and Ryan, op. cit., II, 107.

• 4
 

72     OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

State group.²⁹  His position was set forth by Charles Willing

Byrd, one of the leaders, in a letter to Massie. "Mr. John Smith

and the rest of the advocates for a New State who petitioned for

the convening of the Legislature are now satisfied (at least they

express themselves in that manner). . . . The Democratic Societies

of Hamilton are as jealous of Mr. John Smith as they are of

[William] MacMillan and Burnet, and are attempting to preju-

dice me against him; I may be deceived in him but I entertain so

favorable an opinion of his character that I must credit his asser-

tion when he declares he is extremely anxious to go immediately

into State Government."³⁰ That Smith had enemies is evidenced

by an article in the Western Spy and Hamilton Gazette in which

Richard Downes retracts his statement that Smith passed fraudu-

lent bank notes. On the contrary the gentleman had "never heard

anything to the disadvantage of Mr. Smith; there was nothing to

justify the calumny" and the accusation had been "foolishly pub-

lished at the instance of one of Mr. Smith's inveterate enemies."31

Ephraim Cutler's journal of the Convention omits many of the

details of the part taken by "[John] Reily, Smith and Dunlavy

and other men of talent and intelligence which if known would

increase respect for them and whose labors for public interest

should be remembered."³²

The Constitution was ratified November 29, 1802. Massie

ran for governor, and Byrd assured him that Smith and others

had promised their interest in Hamilton County.33 Smith ex-

pressed his pleasure at the election of Massie and remarked upon

the chagrin of Burnet and the opposition. His own plans took

him to New Orleans for the next few months.34 On April 1, 1803,

the newly elected General Assembly chose Smith and Worthington

as United States Senators; "no record of the vote being made, it

 

29 Julia Perkins Cutler, Life and Times of Ephraim Cutler (Cincinnati, 1890), 73.

30 Charles Willing Byrd to Nathaniel Massie, June 20, 1802, in David Meade

Massie, Nathaniel Massie (Cincinnati, 1896), 210. Byrd was closely allied with Massie,

Worthington and Tiffin.

31 Greve, op. cit., I, 410, quoting from the Western Spy and Hamilton Gazette

of February 11, 1801.

32 Cutler, op. cit., 82.

33 Byrd to Nathaniel Massie, May 20, 1802, in Massie, op. cit., 205-6.

34 Smith to Nathaniel Massie, January 22, 1803, ibid., 222-23.

• 5
 

JOHN SMITH                             73

being by ballot, and each member voting for two persons."35

Smith spoke of his election as being by almost unanimous vote,

against his expressed wishes and when he was a thousand miles

away.³⁶ There is some indication that an understanding had been

reached in the Constitutional Convention, for in a letter of Janu-

ary 15, 1803, Smith assured Worthington that the latter need

expect no opposition but feared his own enemies in Hamilton

County would prejudice his chances.³⁷ Worthington was to be

rewarded for his efforts in the Convention and Smith would

satisfy the demands of the Cincinnati region for recognition.

In the meantime Smith extended his business interests be-

yond the one story warehouse on the Little Miami. His agent,

James Kelly, operated a store across the river at Cythiana, Ken-

tucky.³⁸ Possibly as early as 1798 or 1799 he took an oath of

allegiance to His Catholic Majesty, in order to trade down the

Mississippi in the Spanish dominions.³⁹ Reuben Kemper who had

become acquainted with the merchant in Cincinnati went to New

Feliciana, West Florida, as agent. Smith invested $1500 in mer-

chandise and assumed Kemper's and a part of the brother Na-

than's obligations in Philadelphia. When remittances were not

forthcoming and it was reported that the business was badly

handled, Smith petitioned Don Carlos de Grand Pre, the com-

mandant at Baton Rouge, for an examination of accounts. Reu-

ben Kemper refused to name arbiters, despite repeated orders,

purposely absenting himself in Natchez or New Orleans and so

delayed matters for a year.40 Smith arrived in the spring of 1803

and secured the official appointment of arbiters who settled the

accounts and evaluated the property which Kemper had bought

 

35 William Alexander Taylor, Ohio Statesmen and Annals of Progress (Colum-

bus, Ohio, 1899), 36.

36 "Queries," 112.

37 Smith to Thomas Worthington, January 25, 1803, in William Thomas Utter,

Ohio Politics and Politicians 1802-1815, MS. (University of Chicago Ph. D. disser-

tation), 35.

38 "Queries," 123.

39 From information given by Smith and D. Clarke, the Senate Investigating

Committee believed the oath taken at this time, some years previous to his election to

the Senate. There was no copy of the oath. See Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Mer-

cury, January 30, 1808 (partial file in Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio,

Cincinnati).

40 Don Carlos de Grand Pre to Vicente Folch, July 19, 1804, MSS. (in Legajo

106, Papales de Cuba, Archivo General de las Indias), no. 28.

• 6
 

74     OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

in the company name.⁴¹ It was claimed that Reuben Kemper was

indebted to Smith for $10,533 and half a real. An arrangement

to conclude the matter was drawn up on August 17, 1803. Kem-

per was to be credited with $4,726 and four reals, his half of the

legal valuation of the 750 acres of land on the Bayou Sara be-

longing to the firm. This credit deducted from the indebtedness

was calculated to leave a balance of $5,756 and four and one-half

reals due Smith.42 After making some adjustments for a piece

of land that had already been sold and providing for a negro slave

the agreement bound the two parties to mutually discharge and

release all claims, including the balance owed to Smith. Reuben

Kemper, however, refused to sign the agreement.⁴³ The property

was legally transferred to Smith, and Kemper was allowed six to

eight months to locate in another place.⁴⁴ Nathan Kemper, the

brother, refused to obey the order of evacuation, issued at the end

of this time, and resisted arrest. The expulsion of the Kempers

from this property caused what is known as the Kemper rebellion

in New Feliciana.⁴⁵

Grand Pre estimated that Smith had about $25,000 involved,

but received at the most only a quarter of that amount. Smith

when called to the special session of Congress in the fall of 1803

told the commandant that he had only 200 pesos for the expenses

of the trip.⁴⁶  The merchant claimed the capital of the business

was $18,000. The property in question had been bought by Smith

and Reuben Kemper of Armand Duplantier, but Smith had to

pay the purchase price and assume a mortgage before he could

take possession.47 After the transfer of the mortgage from Du-

plantier, through several other hands, to Smith in about 1805, the

 

41 Smith to James Brown, July 14, 1808, in Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Mercury,

July 16, 1808.

42 This seems to be an error in subtraction and should be $5,806 and four and

one-half reals.

43 Agreement between Reuben Kemper and John Smith, August 17, 1808, en-

closed in Kemper to James Brown, April 7, 1806, James Brown MSS. (in Library of

Congress).

44 Grand Pre to Casa Calvo, July 19, 1804. Cf. James Alexander Robert-

son, List of Documents in Spanish Archives (Washington, 1910). no. 4982.

45 Isaac Joslin Cox, West Florida Controversy (Baltimore, Maryland, 1918), and

"Kemper, Reuben," in Dictionary of American Biography (New York, 1928-).

46 Grand Pre to Casa Calvo, July 19, 1804, Robertson, op. cit., no. 4982.

47 Smith to James Brown, July 14, 1808, in Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Mercury,

July 16, 1808.

• 7
 

JOHN SMITH                               75

land was laid out in town lots and offered for sale. Reuben Kem-

per even at this time had not relinquished his claim and asked

James Brown, counsellor-at-law in New Orleans, to advise him as

to the proper procedure to maintain his rights. He said that Smith

owed as much or more money than would satisfy the mortgage.⁴⁸

Evidently Smith managed to keep the property, for among the

land claims presented to the United States after the acquisition of

Florida was that of Ambrose D. Smith (the son) for 750 acres

of land in Feliciana.⁴⁹

When Smith was under indictment for participation in the

Burr Conspiracy, J. F. Watson of Philadelphia who visited West

Florida in 1805 as an agent for Smith, charged inaccuracy in the

accounts and unlawful seizure of Reuben Kemper's land. The

discrepancy of $9000 in the accounts was supposed to have been

reported and two years allowed for restitution.50 Smith defended

himself against these charges by pointing out that Kemper and his

clerk had kept the books and should have exposed any error during

the investigation. The case had been decided in Smith's favor

with a judgment of $5000 against Kemper which still remained

unsatisfied in 1808 although confirmed by a decree of Grand Pre

dated August, 1807. Watson was accused of altering and forging

vouchers in the War Department in support of his father's ac-

counts. Moreover his transactions with Smith were not above

suspicion of dishonesty.51

The first session of the eighth Congress convened October 17,

1803. The newly elected Senator, Smith, appeared on the twenty-

fifth, presented his credentials and took the oath. On December

15, the Senators from Ohio drew lots for length of term: Worth-

48 Reuben Kemper to James Brown, April 7, 1806, James Brown MSS.

49 American State Papers: Public Lands (Washington, 1832), III, 35. There are

other land claims by John Smiths that cannot be identified. A John Smith petitioned

Grand Pre in 1801 for a grant of land in the Natchez district. The fact that the

petitioner stated that he had resided in Spanish dominions for more than twenty years

makes it unlikely that he could be John Smith of Ohio. Grand Pre to Salcedo,

September 4, 1801, MSS. (in Legajo 106, Papales de Cuba, Archivo General de las

Indias). Travelers speak of this plantation and locate the property rather exactly

in the Natchez district. Philip Buckner, "Diary," in William and Mary College

Quarterly Historical Magasine (Williamsburg, Virginia, 1892-), Ser. 2, VI, 186-87;

Fortescue Cuming, "Tour of the Western Country," in Reuben Gold Thwaites, Early

Western Travels (Cleveland, 1904-07), IV, 312.

50 J. F. Watson to G. W. Morgan, August 20, 1807, in Liberty Hall and Cin-

cinnati Mercury, July 16, 1808, "published at the request of several subscribers."

51 Smith to James Brown, July 14, 1808, in Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Mercury,

July 16, 1808.

• 8
 

76     OHIO ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

ington drew the four year and Smith the six year term.⁵² Smith

does not seem to have been particularly prominent, but served on

minor committees relating to affairs of the Ohio Valley and the

petitions of his constituents that he presented. In spite of his

local reputation as an orator of merit he appears to have been

content merely to listen to the superior "longwindedness" of his

colleagues. His one recorded speech closed one of the debates

on British aggressions.53 During the Samuel Chase trial the vice-

president was observed to cultivate close social relations with

Smith and it was feared that the blandishments of Burr would

draw away his vote.54 Burr was said to have "paid a very studied

attention and professed a peculiar respect to Smith."55

Thomas Jefferson had a use for a party man who, according

to Burnet, had been one of the four individuals in the Northwest

Territory to advocate Jefferson in the election of 1796 and a con-

sistent Republican since that time.56 In the winter of 1803-04 the

President conferred with the Senator from Ohio about the

Floridas and expressed the view that the territory rightfully be-

longed to the United States and possession should be taken of it.

David Bradford⁵⁷ was suggested as a possible leader of an insur-

rection to accomplish this end. When Smith was in New Orleans

and West Florida the following winter he kept this object in view.

At St. Louis General James Wilkinson told him that the Presi-

dent had given orders for the exploration of the country in prepa-

ration for an invasion against Mexico. In December, 1805, when

Smith again interviewed Jefferson, the President was planning to

secure the Floridas by purchase through the negotiations of Gen-

eral John Armstrong, the minister to France.⁵⁸

Several of the prominent men of the West were interested

in a project to build a canal around the Falls of the Ohio on the

 

52 Annals, XIII, 25, 216-17; cf. John Quincy Adams, Memoirs (Philadelphia,

1874-1877) I, 279.

53 Annals, XV, February 14, 1806, 110.

54 Henry Adams, History of the United States (New York 1921), 11, 210; John

Bach McMaster, History of the People of the United States (New York, 1883-1913),

III, 175. Smith voted "not guilty" on all the counts. Annals, XIV, 665-69.

55 Annals, XVII, 249. Adams had to grind the ax of Smith's alliance with Burr.

56 Burnet, op. cit., 294.

57 He had been the leader in the insurrection in western Pennsylvania, now in

West Florida.

58 Smith deposition, Pickering MSS. Armstrong's intrigues were exposed and

nothing came of this.

• 9
 

JOHN SMITH                              77

Indiana side. Smith had suggested that an appropriation might

be secured from Congress for this purpose.59 Benjamin Hovey,

a land speculator from New York, took the lead and petitioned

in January, 1805,  for a grant of 25,000 acres of land or some

other encouragement. The petition was referred to Jonathan

Dayton of New Jersey, Smith of Ohio and John Brown of Ken-

tucky.⁶⁰ The committee, all the members of which were in some

way connected with the enterprise, reported favorably, but action

was deferred until the formation of a company.⁶1 The Indiana

Canal Company was incorporated by the Territorial Legislature

of Indiana in August of that year.⁶² Brown, Dayton, Burr and

Hovey were among the directors. Smith was not included al-

though associated with those who were.⁶³

It was at this time that Burr turned westward, seeking to

regain prestige and fortune. Several possible means were avail-

able; the canal around the Falls of the Ohio, colonization in

Louisiana, the invasion of Mexico or some form of empire. On

May 11, 1805, he visited Smith at Cincinnati and conferred with

Dayton and others interested in the canal company.⁶4 The master

politician was enthusiastically received by the westerners as he

journeyed down the Mississippi to New Orleans. On his return

he stopped at St. Louis to make plans with Wilkinson.⁶⁵ Once

again in Washington, Burr expanded his schemes, explaining

them to Wilkinson in the incriminating dispatch⁶⁶ which gave

that latter trickster the evidence upon which to denounce Burr

to the President and secure his removal from the western scene

where Wilkinson proposed to be chief operator.

On his second trip southward Burr accepted the hospitality

 

59 Smith to James Findlay December 24, 1803, in Isaac Joslin Cox, "Burr in

Indiana," in Indiana Quarterly Magazine of History, (Indianapolis, 1905-), XXV, 260.

60 Annals, XIV, January 18, 1805, 38.

61  The Palladium, December 23, 1805.

62 Albert Jeremiah Beveridge, Life of John Marshall (Boston, 1919), III, 291.

63 Cox, "Burr in Indiana," loc. cit., 265. James Wilkinson's Memoirs of My

Own Times (Philadelphia, 1816), (App. LXVIII) show that he also was concerned.

64 Walter Flavius McCaleb, The Aaron Burr Conspiracy (New York, 1903), 25.

Burr had asked his daughter to address him in care of Smith. Leslie Henshaw,

"The Burr Conspiracy in the Ohio Valley," in Ohio State Archaeological and His-

torical Society Publications, XXIV (1915), 122.

65 Wilkinson maintained communication with Smith and also stopped over in

Cincinnati to see the Senator. McCaleb, op. cit., 26.

66 Ibid., 73. The dispatch as sent on to Jefferson bore marks of alteration.

• 10
 

78     OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

of Smith at Cincinnati from              September 4 to 10, 1805.67     Accord-

ing to the Senator, a sum                 of money from $500 to $700 was left

by Burr to be paid on request. Other than the payment of two

insignificant sums incident to Burr's visit no money is supposed

to have been advanced or promised.⁶⁸ Alarming rumors concern-

ing designs to separate the western states from the Union had

been spread by James Hamilton Daveiss and John Wood⁶⁹ in the

Western World (Frankfort, Kentucky, 1806-1808) and forced

upon the attention of the President.⁷⁰ These reports caused Mrs.

Harman Blennerhassett to send Peter Taylor, the gardner, to

warn her husband who had gone on to Kentucky with Burr.

Taylor went to Smith's store in Cincinnati to inquire the where-

abouts of his master and was given a letter to carry to Burr.71

Smith warned his friend of the rumors and asked for a definite

statement of Burr's purpose.      He received an ingratiating reply

expressing distress at the imputation. Burr said, "If there exists

any design to separate the Western from the Eastern States, I am

totally ignorant of it. I never harbored or expressed any such

intention to anyone, nor did any person ever intimate such a

design to me."72

The Frankfort court, in which proceedings had been initiated

by Daveiss, discharged Burr "to the tumultuous delight of the

people."73 While his friend was standing trial Smith appeared

at Frankfort and put up at the same house for one night.          The

merchant had come to sell a draft to a Lexington banker attend-

ing the trial in order to be able to take advantage of some offers

made at the Cythiana store.      He called upon Burr who said a

man had been directed to call for the money entrusted to Smith.

 

67 Ibid., 81; Annals, XVII, 252. It was said that Burr sent a pencilled note

inviting himself.

68 "Queries," 121-22.

69 Daveiss was U. S. district attorney for Kentucky and Wood an "irresponsible

pamphleteer" who had published a "scandalous diatribe" against John Adams, the

suppression of which by Burr was the occasion of Wood's animosity.

70 Paul Leicester Ford (ed.), Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Philadelphia, 1892-

99), VIII, 424, 467.

71 Testimony of Peter Taylor at Burr trial, in American State Papers: Miscel-

laneous (Washington, 1834), I, 499.

72 Smith to Aaron Burr, October 23, 1806; Aaron Burr to John Smith, Lexington,

October 26, 1806. There were notes on the margin of the letter made by Smith to

the effect that he had heard Burr say that in fifty or 100 years there would be two dis-

tinct governments in the U. S. Annals, XVII, 290-92.

73 Beveridge, op. cit.. III. 318.

• 11
 

JOHN SMITH                             79

As Burr's counsels were expected to arrive at any moment to

go over the case, there was no opportunity for further conversa-

tion. Smith left the city the next morning.⁷⁴ It was later charged

that he hurried away to avoid being subpoened as a witness at the

trial.⁷⁵

On the strength of Wilkinson's declarations Jefferson issued

the "Proclamation against Burr's Plot," November 27, 1806, for

the apprehension and punishment of all persons engaged in the

criminal enterprise.⁷⁶  The State militia of Ohio was called out

and Smith readily offered to furnish provisions, secure quarters

and render any other assistance that might be needed.⁷⁷ When

Major Thomas Martin of the arsenal refused to give up arms

and ammunition without an order from the Federal Government

the Senator made himself personally responsible to the sum of

$10,000.78  Wilkinson put New      Orleans under martial law and

seized all persons known to be connected with Burr.⁷⁹ Smith,

according to his own statement, went immediately to New Orleans

to secure the provisions demanded by the general for the army.⁸⁰

When the Senator learned that an indictment had been found

against him he withdrew to West Florida and there surrendered

himself to Governor Robert Williams of Mississippi who allowed

him to go to Richmond by way of Cincinnati with an escort.⁸¹

Burr was acquitted at that dramatic fiasco before Chief Justice

John Marshall and the district attorney entered a nolle prosequi

on the bills against the associates.⁸²

In the meantime the Ohio Legislature considered the confi-

dential message of the governor on the Burr Conspiracy for sev-

eral days in secret session and adopted a joint resolution demand-

ing the resignation of Smith from the Senate.⁸³

74 "Queries," 123-25. Smith declared that nothing else was said.

75 Annals, XVII, 261.

76  Jefferson, op. cit., VIII, 81.

77 Deposition of John Gano, in Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio

Quarterly Publication, IX, 64. After his election to the Senate Smith had secured a

contract for supplying the provisions to the army west of the mountains.

78 "Queries," 129, Smith deposition, Pickering M,S.

79 McCaleb, op. cit., 131.

80 "Queries," 99.

81 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Mercury, November 10, 1807, August 20, 1807.

Smith he would put in irons. August 15, 1807, Robert Williams MSS. (in Mississippi

Territorial Archives), 7.

82 John Quincy Adams, op. cit., 1, 481.

83 Taylor, of. cit., 49.

• 12
 

80     OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

Whereas--it is the opinion of this General Assembly, that in the

present interesting crisis, it is necessary that every public officer should

be at his post, and all public functionaries should possess the confidence

of their constituents.

And Whereas it appears that John Smith, Esquire, Senator in the

Congress of the United States from this state, has not attended to the

duties of that important office; therefore

Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, that it be

hereby recommended to John Smith, Esquire, that he resign his seat in

the Senate of the United States.84

Smith's friends in Cincinnati held a meeting to protest this

action. Their resolves expressed "entire confidence in the patriot-

ism and integrity of John Smith" and the belief that he had been

"traduced by those who implicated him in the designs of Aaron

Burr."⁸⁵ Elias Glover, a local politician of doubtful reputation,

and Judge Daniel Symmes gathered the enemies of the Senator

together in a private meeting to censure Smith and represented

the action of this group as the true sentiments of the people of

Cincinnati. A second meeting of Smith's friends, organized with

John Sellman as chairman, resolved to "view with contempt--

the pitiful attempts of a few individuals in private caucus as-

sembled for the purpose of disapprobating the resolutions of the

general meeting." Sellman and some others went first to Symmes

and then to Glover and demanded the proceedings of the secret

meeting for publication.     Glover, fearing violence, confronted

his callers with loaded pistols and refused their request.⁸⁶ Contra-

dictory reports were published in the newspapers concerning the

actions of the two groups. Glover and Sellman who were bitter

enemies conducted a newspaper war over Smith.⁸⁷

When Smith arrived in Washington, January, 1807, he called

upon Jefferson to clear him of the charges which he knew had

been preferred against him by the members of this opposition

group in Ohio and Glover in particular. The President maintained

that he was ignorant of any such communications implicating

Smith as an accomplice of Burr. "A high and very respectable offi-

84 Acts of the State of Ohio Passed at the First Session of the Fifth General

Assembly. Smith did not resign at this time for he desired an investigation to prove

his innocence.

85 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Mercury, January 20, 1807.

86 Ibid., February 8, 1807.

87 James Taylor to James Madison, March 13, 1808, in Madison MSS. (in Library

of Congress), XXXII.

• 13
 

JOHN SMITH                             8I

cer of the government" asserted that such declarations had been

made to Jefferson.⁸⁸

John Quincy Adams wrote on November 27, I809, "When I

entered the Senate chamber this morning, Mr. Moore of Virginia

told me that John Smith, the Senator from Ohio, was here and

was going to take his seat. . . . As the members came in,

the circumstances of his arrival and the intention to take his seat

was mentioned and produced considerable agitation among

them."⁸⁹ The Senate voted to appoint a committee

to enquire whether it be compatible with the honor and privilege of the

house that John Smith, a Senator from Ohio, against whom bills of in-

dictment were found at the Circuit Court of Virginia, held at Richmond in

August last, for treason and misdemeanor should be permitted any longer to

have a seat therein and to enquire into all the facts regarding the conduct

of Mr. Smith as an alleged associate of Aaron Burr."90

Smith expressed his pleasure at the opportunity offered to

"vindicate his innocence" by a public investigation of charges.91

The committee addressed six questions to the defendant con-

cerning (I) the testimony of Peter Taylor, (2) Glover's affidavit,

(3) $500 drawn on Smith by Burr in favor of Morris Belknap,

(4) $500 drawn by Burr, January 4, 1807, in favor of Lieutenant

Jacob Jackson, (5) the visit to Frankfort, (6) Smith's silence

with regard to the explanatory letter sent him by Burr.⁹²

Smith, in a long reply, denied the implications of the evi-

dence as presented. (I) The statements of Taylor, Blennerhas-

sett's gardener, were declared to be contradictory and false.⁹3

Taylor had testified at the Burr trial concerning the suspicious

actions of Smith who had at first pretended ignorance when asked

for information about Blennerhassett. The Senator was supposed

to have ordered Taylor to stay away from the taverns, lest he

talk too much, but later to have sent him to such a place to secure

provisions for his horse. The letter to Burr was enclosed in an

88 Smith deposition, Pickering MSS. The officer might have been the secretary

of war.

89 John Quincy Adams, op. cit., I, 481.

90 Annals, XVII, 40. The committee was composed of John Quincy Adams of

Massachusetts, Samuel Maclay of Pennsylvania, Jesse Franklin of North Carolina,

Samuel Smith of Maryland, John Pope and Buckner Thruston of Kentucky and Joseph

Anderson of Tennessee.

91 Smith to Edward Tiffin, November 27, 1807, in Annals, XVII, 40.

92 "Queries," 97.

93 Ibid., 108.

• 14
 

82     OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

envelope addressed to Blennerhassett.94 Smith said he really had

not known of Blennerhassett's plans. Further it was obvious

that the ignorant gardener was confused from the two statements

about keeping away and being sent to the tavern.⁹⁵

Glover, who stirred up the attack on Smith in Cincinnati, was

found to be a reprehensible creature devoid of morals and "desti-

tute of truth," bribed to make the affidavit. On another occasion

that invidious character had declared that he believed Smith inno-

cent and ignorant of Burr's views.96 Glover's letter to Jefferson

complained that Smith had not been consistently Republican, but

had suggested Federalists for lucrative offices and entertained 400

people to help elect a Federalist to the Ohio Legislature. Sneer-

ing remarks were made about Smith's ministerial professions.⁹⁷

Smith's paper was supposed to have been taken at the Receiver's

Office in Steubenville, Ohio, for $1O,OOO or $15,000 furnished to

Burr.⁹⁸

Smith denied advancing any money to Burr. The sum which

had been left in his care was paid over to Belknap. Burr was

not authorized to draw upon Smith and may have forgotten the

earlier request when sending the order in favor of Jackson.

Smith's staying at the same hotel with Burr in Frankfort was

purely coincidence. He was looking for Major Morrison, a

bank director from Lexington, who was known to put up at this

particular place. The substance of the letter referred to had been

previously communicated to the secretary of war and there was

no need to repeat it to the President.⁹⁹ In addition the reply

included four other points. (I) Smith's late attendance¹⁰⁰ at

the session was due to his trip to New Orleans to secure the pro-

visions for the army. (2) He had retired to Spanish territory

 

94 American State Papers: Miscellaneous, I, 499.

95 "Queries," 103-15.

96 Ibid., 118-15.

97 Unsigned letter dated Cincinnati, February 23, 1807, and referred to by Elias

Glover, April 13, 1807, Jefferson MSS. (in Library of Congress).

98 Elias Glover to Thomas Jefferson, March 12, 1808, Jefferson MSS. Glover

said he had the information from Briggs, the receiver.

99 "Queries," 121-25.

100 Smith never appeared at the opening of the sessions. Cf. Annals, XIII,

October 26, 1803, 25; XIV, November 30, 1804, 18; XV, December 16, 180, 20: XVI,

January 27, 1807, 46. It is possible that he made an annual trip to New Orleans in

the fall.

• 15
 

JOHN SMITH                            83

because he was determined not to be sent to Richmond in irons.101

(3) The oath of allegiance to Spain was taken for trading pur-

poses previous to his election to the Senate.¹⁰² (4) It was charged

that the son had carried a letter to Blennerhassett's Island and as-

sociated with persons opposed to the prosecution at Richmond.

Smith explained that the son's indiscreet and imprudent conduct

was the result of inexperience and against the advice of the

father.103

On December 31, Adams, the chairman of the committee, re-

ported that

it was incompatible not only with the honor and privileges of the House,

but with the deepest interests of this nation, that any person engaged in it

[Burr Conspiracy] should be permitted to hold a seat in the Senate of the

United States. ... A grand jury, comprised of characters as respectable

as this nation can boast, upon the solemnity of their oaths charged John

Smith with being an accomplice.

It was resolved that Smith "by his participation in the con-

spiracy of Aaron Burr against the peace, union and liberties of

the people of the United States has been guilty of conduct in-

compatible with his duty and station as Senator of the United

States and that he be therefore and hereby is expelled from the

Senate."104

Francis Scott Key and Robert Goodloe Harper were admitted

as counsel.'⁰⁵  After the case had been argued on the merits of

the above questions, time to prepare the case and collect the testi-

mony was requested and granted.¹⁰⁶ Smith went to Ohio to get

depositions in proof of his assertions. Advance notices had to be

sent to all the witnesses against whom testimony was to be taken

and this caused some delay.¹⁰⁷ The hearing began April 1, 1808.

Smith's connections with Burr were based upon: (I) the con-

versation stated by Glover and his friend William McFarland, (2)

 

101 "Queries," 99-101.

102 Ibid., 131. This explanation was accepted and the matter dropped by the

committee. Annals, XVII, 62; Palladium, February 4, 1908.

103 "Queries," 101-2.

104 Worthington Chauncey Ford (ed.), Writings of John Quincy Adams (New

York, 1917), III, 173-84.

105 Annals, XVII, January 13, 1808, 81. Luther Martin had not been accepted

and Harper was substituted.

106 Ibid., 83.

107 Smith asked in a letter of February 12, 1808, for an extension of time and

was granted until April 1. Annals, XVII, March 16, 1808, 164.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------                                 _    -- .~~~~~~

• 16
 

84    OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

the facts stated by Peter Taylor, (3) the declaration to a Major

John Riddle that he (Smith) knew more about Burr's business

than any other man but one, (4) the statement of Smith in con-

versation with Colonel James Taylor that the interests of the

East and West were different and that separation was the solu-

tion, (5) the journey to Frankfort in 1806, (6) the bill drawn

by Burr in favor of Jackson, (7) the bill drawn in favor of

Belknap, (8) the supposed contradiction between Smith's state-

ment about selling Washita lands and the evidence at Richmond,

(9) the supposed similarity between the style of conversation as

stated by Glover and that in Smith's own deposition.¹⁰⁸

Glover was quite thoroughly discredited and may be disre-

garded. The testimony of Colonel James Taylor was considered

important. It seemed to Taylor that Smith would welcome sepa-

ration.'⁰⁹ Sellman who had also been present when the possibility

of separation was discussed said that the general tone had been

that such an event would be dreaded and deplored.¹¹⁰ Another

significant factor was Smith's engagement of his two sons to go

with Burr. Ambrose D. Smith said in his deposition, "the papers

which daily teemed with the treason of Colonel Burr's designs;

the frequent solicitations and injunctions of my father, to re-

linquish the idea of descending the Mississippi as an accomplice

of Col. Burr; and General [William] Eaton's deposition alone

induced me to abandon him and his projects." Smith's defense

was weak on this point for he evaded and made some confusing

statements, which did not deny the engagement of the sons.1ll

Adams made the principal speech in proof of Smith's alliance

with Burr. It seemed to Adams "incredible in view of the friend-

ship and communication between the two that Smith could have

been ignorant of the plans of his partner." In conclusion the

Senator from Massachusetts expressed his great reluctance in

participating in the proceedings for "until these transactions oc-

curred there was perhaps not another member of the Senate in

lA Annals, XVII, April 6, 1808, 214.

109 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Mercury, February 29, 1808.

110Annals, XVII, 278-79; cf. John Sellman deposition, June 9, 1808, Madison

MSS., XXXII. There was considerable dispute between James Taylor, John Sellman

and a James Carberry over what was really said and meant in this conversation.

¹ Annals, XVII, 816-17.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-  ~  ~~~~- - 1~~~~~

• 17
 

JOHN SMITH                       85

whose integrity I more confided; and but for this, there is none

whom I would more readily take by the hand as friend and

brother."¹¹²

Senator James Hillhouse explained that Burr's position easily

accounted for the courtesy and confidence extended him by Smith.

Moreover the latter's services in securing arms for the Ohio

militia should not be overlooked.  Senator Joseph Anderson

came to the rescue of the committee by stressing the questionable

statements that Smith had made in conversation. John Pope

of Kentucky discussed the implications of the statements made by

Ambrose D. Smith and concluded that the father had known more

than he cared to tell, for his knowledge would have been enough

to convict Burr.lls Senator William B. Giles "in one of the most

animated and eloquent speeches" declared himself against ex-

pulsion.¹⁴ Adams summarized the arguments to prove that

Smith had participated in and engaged his two sons for the pro-

jected Mexican invasion. The testimony of Colonel James Tay-

lor showed that the Senator had made a systematic attempt to

instigate the people of that pait of the country to separation and

Peter Taylor's deposition demonstrated that Smith had been

conscious of the unlawfulness of this enterprise. The vote was

taken and failed by one vote of the two-thirds necessary for ex-

pulsion.¹

Smith sent his resignation to Thomas Kirker, acting gov-

ernor of Ohio, on April 25, i808, but remained in Congress until

the close of the session. The purpose of this form of resignation

rather than through the regular Senate channels was to explain

his motives and refute the accusations which had been made.

He complained about the conduct of the committee in the Senate

and the restrictions which had hindered him in the collection of

evidence. Glover and other enemies were attacked. He tried to

make it very clear that neither the Senate investigation nor the

 

11 Ibid., 253, 265.

ll Ibid., 277-78; 301-6; 316-17.

¹¹John Quincy Adams, op. cit., I, 628.

' Annals, XVII, 318, 824. The vote was 19-10.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..---------_          __-T        -

• 18
 

86     OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

action of the Ohio Legislature had been the cause of his resigna-

tion. He said:

I had long before seen enough of the political world, the bitterness of its

contests, the malignity of its persecutions, the overbearing arrogance of

some and disgraceful compliance and base arts of others to excite my

disappointment to aversion. ... I willingly retire with the hope that my

place may be filled by one who possesses more ability (more zeal he

cannot) to support the honor and interests of the nation."116

Various reasons have been assigned for this attack on Smith.

Adams seemed to be aiming at presidential favor through his at-

tack on the judiciary and its decision at the Burr trial.¹¹⁷ It is

quite plausible that Smith's seat was wanted by others and the

Burr incident offered the opportunity. The plan to unseat him

was supposed to have developed in the Ohio Legislature with

the resolution that he be asked to resign and then was transferred

to the Senate. The President acquiesced because the promoters

of the opposition to Smith were Republican partisans. The Fed-

eralists sided with Smith.ll⁸ Tiffin, one of the leaders of the Re-

publican party of Ohio and who had once been friendly to Smith,

took no part in the discussion, but voted for expulsion. This last

is perhaps the strongest evidence that local politics had brought

its machinery to bear upon Smith to remove him from office.

The prosecution caused Smith serious financial difficulties.

About 1805 he had secured a contract for supplying provisions

to the United States Army west of the mountains.¹¹⁹ At the time

of the Senate investigation it was estimated that he had about

$30,000 due from the War Department on unpaid accounts.l²⁰

The Senate passed a motion to settle the account, but the matter

was not then concluded.l²¹ Samuel Hodgdon and Harris of Phila-

delphia, who were deeply involved in this contract business, were

considerably embarrassed by the demands made upon them as

 

116 Annals, XVII, 824-31.

117 Timothy Pickering to John Smith, September 28, 1821, in "Index to the

Pickering Papers," in Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, Ser. 6, VIII, 459.

1118 Randall and Ryan, op. cit., 249-53.

119 Pickering to C. F. Mercer, March 6, 1822, Pickering MSS, Senator William

B. Giles speaks of Smith's becoming a contractor while serving as Senator. Annals,

XVII, 299.

120 Samuel Hodgdon to Timothy Pickering, January 24, 1808, Pickering MSS.

121 Annals, XVII, April 22, 1808, 878.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-  T

• 19
 

JOHN SMITH                                8₇

 

Smith's security.¹²² In 1813 they were threatened with forfeiture

of the 15,000 acres of land in the Symmes Purchase in Ohio

which had been turned over to them. Smith was so harassed by

law suits that he could not return to the United States from         West

Florida to transact any business.¹²³ The son appealed to Wilkin-

son to send certificates for the provisions that had been supplied.

These unsettled bills had been largely responsible for the general

bankruptcy which led to the seizure and sale of Smith's esfate.¹²⁴

Several years later Smith presented a memorial to Congress ask-

ing for an adjustment of his claims and permission to collect

in any state.¹25 Whatever action was taken was so delayed as to

be of no benefit to him.

Ex-Senator John Smith and his family moved to St. Fran-

cisville, Louisiana, where he had property. A few details of his

later life are made known through his correspondence with Tim-

othy Pickering. Neither of the men had any use for Adams nor

any good words for Jefferson. In I812 Smith wrote his friend

that he had been obliged "by misfortune and the persecutions of

Mr. Jefferson" to retire from the territory of the United States

to Pensacola.¹²⁶ At this place he joined in a scheme to secure

title to some property along the Pearl River. This transaction

was carried on in secrecy and the claims appear to have been of

doubtful authenticity.¹²⁷ In 1813 Smith enlisted in the United

States Army at Mobile which action was attributed to a hope of

reconciliation with the Government.¹²⁸

Sometime after this Smith returned to St. Francisville. A

 

¹²² Hodgdon to Timothy Pickering, December 14, 1807, Pickering MSS. Hodgdon

had been in partnership with Pickering and went in with Harris in 1802. "Index to

the Pickering Papers," in Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, Ser. 6, VIII, 210.

123 Hodgdon to Timothy Pickering, December 18, 1813, Pickering MSS.

124 Ambrose D. Smith to James Wilkinson, March 24, 1812, Wilkinson MSS. (in

Chicago Historical Society), III, 26.

125 Pickering to C. F. Mercer, March 6, 1822, Pickering MSS. Pickering says

Hodgdon had been sued and confessed judgment with a stay of execution for $22,000.

This had been done in Smith's absence and was probably wrong. Smith claimed that

his agents withheld the abstracts that would prove the accounts.

126 Smith to Pickering, June 6, 1812, in "Index to the Pickering Papers," loc.

cit., 458.

127 American State Papers: Public Lands, III, 24-29. Secret agreement between

Harry Toulmin, Smith and Francis Hevia, October 21, 1813. Toulmin and Smith

guaranteed to secure title in return for two-thirds of the property. James Innerarrity

charged fraud.

128 Hodgdon to Pickering, March 8, 1815, "Index to the Pickering Papers," loc.

cit., 210.

• 20
 

88     OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

Mrs. E. Challen, whose early home was in that place, tells of

Smith's living with her family and teaching her geography, astron-

omy and chemistry. He learned Spanish and resumed his preach-

ing.¹²⁹ In addition to other troubles he lost his wife and six

children within a very few years. The one remaining son may

have been Ambrose.¹³⁰ In 1821 he wrote that his age and the

distance from Louisiana to Massachusetts prevented him from

making a visit to Pickering. These two continued to express their

hostility to Jefferson's administration with a good deal of

fervor.¹³¹ Smith was taken ill on his return from a preaching trip

and died at St. Francisville in 1824.132

As politician, preacher, merchant, contractor and land spec-

ulator Smith displayed the usual versatility of a frontiersman of

his day. He was evidently attracted to Burr as were many

others. How involved and what he knew about Burr's schemes

is more difficult to say. Certainly his prosecution was carried

out in the same feeling of alarm and excitement that attended

the other phases of the Burr Conspiracy. The guilt was in the

minds of the few and not proven to the many.

129 Mrs. E. Challen to Mrs. Mary Gano, in Dunlevy, op. cit., 115-16.

130 Smith to Timothy Pickering, August 15, 1821, Pickering MSS. The land claim

of Ambrose D. Smith, in American State Papers: Public Lands, III, 35.

131 Smith to Pickering, August 16, 1821, Pickering MSS.

132 Mrs. E. Challen to Mrs. Mary Gano, in Dunlevy, op. cit., 115-19.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 Mrs. E. Challen to Mrs. Mary Gano, in Dunlevy, op. cit., 115-16.

1o Smith to Timothy Pickering, August 15, 1821, Pickering MSS. The land claim

of Ambrose D. Smith, in American State Papers: Public Lands, III, 856.

18 Smith to Pickering, August 16, 1821, Pickering MSS.

" Mrs. E. Challen to Mrs. Mary Gano, in Dunlevy, op. cit., 115-19.

• 21