The Lost State of Franklin: America's First Secession (review)

In 1784, after North Carolina ceded its trans-Appalachian territory to Congress, local speculators and settlers created the autonomous state of Franklin. Under the leadership of Arthur Campbell and others, Franklinites soon adopted a constitution. When North Carolina later reversed the Cession Act of 1784 and reclaimed authority over the region, the state of Franklin became the setting for a power struggle among settlers, speculators, politicians, and native inhabitants.

Historical assessments of this episode have varied. For pro-Franklin partisans both in the 1780s and ever since, the state of Franklin represented an extension of the heroic principles of the American Revolution: local government and popular sovereignty. For opponents of the "14^th state," Franklin was a cynical move by self-interested and traitorous speculators. Kevin T. Barksdale's new book promises to "find Franklin's historical middle ground," steering clear of partisanship in order to tell a story grounded in sober analysis (5).

Organized chronologically, Barksdale's work is especially strong on politics, and he gives a thorough account of the maneuverings by factions on both sides of the controversy. For instance, Barksdale paints a vivid picture of North Carolina governor Richard Caswell's anti-Franklin "divide and conquer" strategy, whereby Caswell attracted opportunistic Franklinites back to the loyalist fold. Barksdale's narrative is also compelling as he recounts the chaotic period when "old state" and "new state" partisans operated competing "parallel governments" in the disputed territory.

But if the narrative of political events is strong, Barksdale could have done more to explore motivations and ideas. Even as he recalls episodes like William Cocke's defiant speech before the North Carolina legislature in 1786, or Franklin governor John Sevier's personal letters to Caswell, Barksdale gives less attention to these men's thoughts. Was there a sustained ideology, logic, or principle behind the movement? Should the movement be seen in a wider context of political ideas in the early Republic? Although he mentions them, he spends very little time with pamphlets (70) and what he calls a "remarkable propaganda campaign" (82) that might have yielded insights into the ideas and political culture of the Franklin movement.

And if leaders' motives and meanings are not fully explored, the motives of regular people in the controversy are also unclear. Discussing the "radically democratic frame of government" proposed by Rev. Samuel Houston in 1784, Barksdale misses an opportunity to explore the meaning of the Franklin movement to the non-elite Franklinites who supported it (69). As for native people, their motives seem oversimplified. Indians here are easy victims of "cutthroat capitalist competition" and live in a "disastrous dependent relationship with the Europeans" (94). Such broad strokes seem to exaggerate and simplify the contingent and complex motives of Indian action.

This book has many strengths, including smooth writing. Especially valuable are sections on historical memory, particularly Barksdale's discussion of East Tennessee's attempted independence movement in the antebellum period, as well as later memorials to the state of Franklin in the twentieth century. The book will be valuable for regional specialists and students interested in frontier politics, as well as Appalachian history and memory more broadly.