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)
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-------------------------------- _ -- .~~~~~~
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~~~~~
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 -
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
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.
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.