In 1784, the residents of the upper east Tennessee Valley declared themselves independent from their parent state of North Carolina. The political and economic leadership of the newly formed state of Franklin utilized the ideology, symbolism, and rhetoric of the American Revolution to garner local, regional and national support for the movement. After the state\u27s collapse in 1788, the state of Franklin continued to attract supporters and admirers, who considered the movement to be a noble extension of the revolution. Over the last two hundred years, historians, politicians, abolitionists, and business leaders have recast the legacy and meaning of the state of Franklin. I argue that the state of Franklin and its leadership were less than noble. East Tennessee\u27s land speculators and local economic elite led the effort to create America\u27s fourteenth state in order to protect and expand their landed wealth and political hegemony. During Franklin\u27s brief four-year existence, the state\u27s leadership engaged in dubious Cherokee land negotiations and pursued a policy of total Indian annihilation. Eventually, internal factionalism both within the statehood movement and the communities of the Tennessee Valley and North Carolina\u27s highly effective divide and conquer diplomatic strategy led to the dissolution of Franklin. Despite Franklin\u27s demise, its legacy, both real and mythologized, persisted. This dissertation examines specific examples of how individuals and groups have constructed and reshaped the history and meaning of Franklin to serve their specific agendas. These efforts include: Ezekiel Birdseye\u27s Free State of Frankland abolitionist effort, Andrew Johnson\u27s use of Franklin during the 1860 secession debate, the historical interpretations of Franklin historians, and finally, Franklin\u27s use in the twentieth century economic development of East Tennessee
