land River, and on the road to Kentucky. Some of the streets are steep and encumbered with sharp pieces of limestone, that punish the feet severely in walking. There is an excellent spacious building in the vicinity called the Penitentiary, and another is erected for a hospital. Coming from the wilderness where we have been leading rather a rude life for some time, Nashville with its airy salubrious position, and its active bustling population, is quite what an oasis in the desert would. be; and when the improvements are made in the navigation of the Cumberland River, and in the public roads, it cannot fail to become a populous town.

"One of my first movements was a walk to the college to see Professor Troost, who is a great enthusiast in geology. It is to be mentioned to the honour of the State of Tennessee, that it has been one of the first of the American States to patronize science, by allowing him five hundred dollars a year as geologist to the State, in addition to his appointment at the college as professor of chemistry and natural history, to which a salary of one thousand dollars is attached."

Featherstonhaugh visited Daniel Ridley, then 95 years old, who had come to Nashville in 1790, and whose fort or blockhouse was still standing and shown to the Englishman. This old gentleman told him he had but recently undertaken to count his descendants, but had given it up as a troublesome job after getting as far as three hundred.

The blockhouse is described as being about twenty feet square, made of logs, with a projection of four feet for the second story, from which, the occupants "could fire perpendicularly down upon their besiegers if they should attempt to run up to the blockhouse to set fire to it."

After packing his geological specimens into casks for shipment via New Orleans to New York, Featherstonhaugh left Nashville acknowledging he had received very pleasing impressions of the place and its inhabitants. On his way to Louisville he "met the Tennessee race horses on their return from the Louisville races, where they had triumphed over the Kentucky horses to the great mortification of the Kentuckians."

GENESIS OF THE JACKSON--SEVIER FEUD.

BY A. V. GOODPASTURE.

The origin of the Jackson-Sevier feud is rather obscure. The letters here published for the first time, it is believed will throw some light on the subject. Parton* traces the trouble to a chance discovery by Jackson, while on his way to Philadelphia, in 1796, that frauds were being perpetrated in North Carolina warrants for lands in Tennessee, which fact he communicated to the Governor of North Carolina. A legislative investigation followed, which established the truth of Jackson's information. "Among those who had unsuspectingly bought and sold the lands said to have been fraudulently obtained," he continues, "was no less a personage than John Sevier, Governor of the State. And among the quarrels that grew out of the business was a most fierce one between him and the innocent cause of all the trouble, Judge Jackson."

The charges of fraudulent land transactions preferred by Jackson against Sevier, which are fully set out in his circular letter. to Mr. Bradford, No. 281 of the Robertson correspondence, at pp. 374--381, of the present volume of the AMERICAN HISTORICAL MAGAZINE, was an incident to the antagonism between the two great Tennesseans, rather than the occasion of it. The real ground of trouble seems to have been a rivalry-especially in martial affairs, though Jackson had not then held any military office. Governor Sevier refers bitterly to Jackson's want of military experience when he was elected Major General in the following

"CIRCULAR."

"Knoxville, November 1803

It is well known to the executive that no act he can do will give a certain party satisfaction.

* Parton's Jackson, Vol. I., p. 231.

I hope I shall be believed when I take the liberty to assure my fellow citizens that I am as much disposed to favor and indulge every officer agreeably to his rank, grade and past services as any gentleman that appears as much the sticklers for routine, nor have I ever given a vote to promote any inexperienced person in the ranks, to the command of Major General and other militia officer in the State, and that done too in the face of the law and constitution, see 2nd sec. of the Militia law, nor will I ever do so, let me or others conjecture his talents and qualifications to be what they may.

JOHN SEVIER.*

But, notwithstanding Jackson's inexperience, he seems to have had a consciousness of military genius, that kept him constantly in the closest touch with all military matters in the State, and produced in him a feeling of rivalry with the famous Indian fighter, Sevier, which would have been ridiculous if events had not shown his merits to justify his pretensions. This is the view that seems to be sustained by these letters, which antedate by several years the charges of fraudulent land transactions, which, indeed, Jackson's Bradford circular shows to have been introduced for the purpose of promoting his election as Major General in 1802.

In the postscript, he defends Gov. Roane against the charge of appointing Sevier as one of the Commissioners to adjust the boundary line with Virginia, after having knowledge of the charges against him in relation to forgery and fraudulent warrants. His statement is as follows:

"I will answer the objection by stating a few facts-Maj. Carter's affidavit bears date 16th of February, 1802, the Secretary of State (William Maclin) certificate of counting out the votes for Major-general bears date of 16th February, 1802. The official letter of Gov. Roane, announcing to the Governor of Virginia the appointment of Messrs. Fisk, Sevier, and Rutledge commissioners to run the line, is dated the 5th February, 1802, *Archives in the Secretary of State's office.

which is ten days previous to Carter's affidavit, this letter is recorded in the Secretary's office, and open to the eye of every person, hence it follows that the appointment of Sevier was made before Governor Roane had any documents before him." In defending Gov. Roane, Jackson shows that the affidavit of Carter, the basis of the charges against Sevier, was filed with Gov. Roane on the very day that the votes for Major-general were counted, and when the Governor was called on to give the casting vote.

The office of Major-general was one much coveted among the pioneers of Tennessee. The first Legislature that met in the State required the brigadier-generals and field officers of the three districts of the State to meet at Jonesboro, Knoxville and Nashville, on the second Thursday in November, 1796, and vote for one Major-general of the State. When they met at Nashville, Andrew Jackson was present as a "private citizen," and became involved in a violent controversy with Joel Lewis, who claimed some sort of power under the authority of Governor Sevier. There was much feeling over the election. This is shown not only by the dramatic incident at Nashville, but by the fact that a notice of contest was filed against General Conway's election. The following letter is from the archives in the Secretary of State's office:

Sir

Knoxville 8 Mch. 1797.

Your election like a number of the others is contested, and the complaint, principally is, that Gen., Winchester contrary to law, voted for Major-general at Knoxville in the District of Hamilton, at the same time he was Brigadier of the District of Miro, and they contend was only entitled to have given his vote in his own district; as I have no power to determine.contested and disputed elections, it must of course be laid before the next General Assembly for their determination.

Geo. Conway, Esq.,

Greene County.

I have the honor to be &c.

JOHN SEVIER

Our whole knowledge of the Nashville election is contained in the following letter from the State Historical Society collections, Book J 1, No. 3:

* Roulstone's Laws of the State of Tennessee, p. 84.

Sir

Nashville May 8th 1797.

From your friendly communications to me whilst I was in Philadelphia, I was convinced you had been rightly informed of the expressions made use of by me at the election of the General and field officers of the malitia for this District, with respect to your official conduct in communicating your constitutional power as the executive of the State to another, and had truly construed it to be the right of every citizen to take notice. of the official conduct of any officer of government and express their sentiments thereon;

But, Sir, behold my surprise when I returned and found that amidst those friendly communications to me, you had wrote a letter to General James Robertson and another to Mr. Joel Lewis, in which you had made use of the following language respecting me: "that you did not regard the scurrilous expressions of a poor pitiful pettyfogging lawyer, and you treated them with contempt." These, Sir, are expressions that my feelings are not accustomed to, and which my conduct through life by no means merits, and which, Sir, I will not tamely submit to.

With respect to the scurrility mentioned in your letters as having been made use of by me, it is necessary here to state facts and from them enquire whether the expressions deserve the epithet "scurrilous."

I was present at the election as a private citizen, and conceived I had no right to interfere, as the representatives of the citizens (the officers elected by them) were convened for the purpose of electing the officers, pointed out by the constitution to be elected by them, and who alone were legally and constitutionally authorized to conduct and debate upon any question at the election, and when I heard your constitutional powers to transfer any of your official duties to another questioned and brought under debate, was still determined to be silent; But seeing Mr. Joel Lewis rise upon the question, and to enforce his reasoning, produce a private letter wrote him by you, and viewing him in the same situation of every other private citizen, without just right of debate; Viewing, Sir, with horror, a private letter from the executive of the State, produced to influence the officers to do that which, in my opinion, was an unconstitutional act, and which would establish a precedent dangerous to the rights