The Lost State of Franklin: America’s First Secession by Kevin T. Barksdale (review)

94 OHIO VALLEY HISTORY The rise and fall of the state of Franklin has been an under-examined aspect of the Revolutionary frontier experience. What treatment it has received since the early twentieth century has tended to fall into two categories : either a romanticized version of its revolutionary legacy or a condemnation of it as little more than the experiment of land-hungry speculators. Kevin Barksdale wants to rectify this imbalance , arguing that neither the romantics nor scholars such as Thomas Perkins Abernethy have appropriately identified the essence of the movement. For Barksdale, Franklin stems from “a fundamental divergence of opinion over the policy decisions that best served the collective fiscal and political interests of the region’s inhabitants” (53). This divergence launched the Tennessee Valley into a period of tension and institutional chaos that Barksdale seeks to reconstruct. Tennessee Valley residents emerged out of the Revolutionary crisis largely united, and with tremendous opportunities for building local and regional economies. Even so, the area remained isolated and under constant threat of violence because of Anglo-American encroachment into Indian territory. Book Reviews Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2009. 296 pp. ISBN: 9780813125213 (cloth), $50.00. Kevin T. Barksdale The Lost State of Franklin: America’s First Secession BOOK REVIEWS SUMMER 2009 95 Perhaps most ominously, the valley suffered from a lack of financial or institutional support from the mother state of North Carolina. That state’s 1784 land cession to the new United States set in motion a process through which divisions rapidly emerged over the nature and future of the region. As Barksdale explains, many area elite used the cession to justify a break from North Carolina, noting three advantages : First, it would remove political barriers blocking a more aggressive Indian policy, which could only help as the “Franklinite” leadership looked to speculate in massive amounts of land. Second, it would allow for the use of taxes for internal improvements. Finally, it would permit this ruling elite to solidify its influence over the region. “Anti-Franklinites,” by contrast, opposed separation in an abrupt fashion , particularly after North Carolina rescinded the land cession in the fall of 1784. Their ranks swelled when influential men such as John Tipton grew frustrated by the Franklinites’ rejection of a proposed constitution offering more democratic (and religious ) elements than the alternative, North Carolina–based constitution. Combined, this counter-movement proved more than willing to channel the opposition that by 1785 was emanating from the unhappy mother state. Indeed, North Carolina’s leadership strongly rejected separatism. In effect, they employed what Barksdale calls a “divide and conquer strategy” intended to erode the movement from within through regional elections for legislative representation, greater institutional oversight, and by offering positions of importance to various Franklinleaders(onconditionofswearing loyalty to North Carolina). AntiFranklinites , meanwhile, employed the strategy on the ground by using judges and sheriffs both to enforce North Carolina law and to attack the legitimacy of Franklin’s leadership and government. A chaotic and dangerous situation resulted, wherein two political entities claimed sovereignty, established judicial and civil authority , and pursued different strategies of Indian diplomacy. By 1788, North Carolina’s strategy had accentuated hyper-partisanship in the Tennessee Valley, culminating in violent confrontation that pushed Franklin to the brink of collapse. Further undermining the movement was the fact that over the course of its existence both the Confederation and key national political figures rejected it. A brief alliance with Georgia (to solidify control of the Muscle Shoals area and confront Creek hostilities) seemed to offer a glimmer of hope, as did intrigue with the Spanish, but in neither case did any meaningful support pan out. By 1789, Franklin had ceased to exist. Barksdale conveys well the complexity of the Franklin movement, and offers a particularly strong reconstruction of the critically important AngloIndian relations. As he notes, Franklin’s BOOK REVIEWS 96 OHIO VALLEY HISTORY leaders believed that the Cherokees represented the single greatest obstacle to efforts to consolidate the frontier, strengthen the region’s economy, and maintain political and economic hegemony . Thus, they challenged Indian sovereignty through misleading diplomacy and outright encroachment. Their actions reinforce Barksdale’s broader contention that Franklin was a conservative movement committed to preserving...