USA > Indiana > Indiana, a redemption from slavery > Part 13
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33
The most important point on the question of culpa- bility was not before the Board at this time, and unfor- tunately it seems to have been overlooked by all who have written on the subject. The impressment of goods was not a mere impulse of the moment ; it was the result of a carefully considered plan. The Executive Board of Virginia had convened in May, 1786, and on the 15th had ordered a convention of the field officers of the Kentucky militia, to take measures for the protection of the frontier. The field officers assembled, determined on
171
THE HANNIBAL OF THE WEST.
an expedition, and chose Clark to command them; but there had been no provision for supplying the troops, and nothing could be done without supplies. The question then arose whether the Virginia authorities intended them to use their discretion on this subject, and in order to get a reliable legal opinion they laid Governor Henry's letter, the militia laws of Virginia, and the sixth Arti- cle of Confederation, before the Attorney-General and Supreme Judges of Kentucky, who, after consultation, reported as follows : -
"We are of opinion that the Executive have delegated all their power under the said Law and Article of Con- federation, so far as they relate to Invasions, Insurrec- tions, and Impressments, to the field officers of that District, and that the officers, in consequence thereof, have a right to Impress, if necessary, all supplies for the use of the militia that may be called into service by their order or orders under the said order of council.
" GEO. MUTER,
" CALEB WALLACE,
" HARRY INNIS."
It cannot be denied that the proceedings at Vincennes were within the powers of the field officers under this construction, and that ends all question of moral culpa- bility. They obtained the best legal advice that could be had and acted under it. It is worthy of mention, in this connection, that Colonel Logan also impressed sup- plies for his expedition after he had been detached by Clark, and that all of the field officers maintained the propriety of their course throughout. The most astonish- ing feature of the affair was that, after giving this opin- ion, these three gentlemen were Clark's foremost ac- cusers ; in fact, Attorney-General Innis appears to have worked up the case against him.
172
INDIANA.
As the winter wore away there was a visible change of opinion in the East on the Spanish question. In April, 1787, when the papers relating to the Amis seizure and the action of Green and Clark were laid before Congress, Mr. Jay's accompanying letter stated that he was convinced "that the United States have good right to navigate the river [Mississippi] from its source to and through its mouth," and that, unless the States could agree to relinquish the use for a time, as he had suggested, they should remonstrate against Spain's action, and in case of continued refusal " declare war against Spain." As to the action of the people of the West, he said: "If war is in expectation, then their ardor should not be discouraged nor their indignation diminished. But if a treaty is wished and contemplated, then those people should be so advised and so restrained that their sentiments and conduct may as much as pos- sible be made to quadrate with the terms and articles of it." 1 Sentiment in Congress veered continuously in that direction until on September 16, 1788, it was " Resolved, That the free navigation of the river Mississippi is a clear and essential right of the United States, and that the same ought to be considered and supported as such." The matter of a treaty with Spain was then referred to the new federal government, and delegates were given leave to make public any facts necessary to remove the "misconception " that Congress was " disposed to treat with Spain for the surrender of their claim to the navi- gation of the river Mississippi." It is quite 'possible that the manifestations of temper by the Western people
1 Secret Journals of Congress, vol. iv. pp. 304, 305. The papers relating to Clark, Green, and Amis follow. They are also in Dillon, chap. xi.
173
THE HANNIBAL OF THE WEST.
contributed largely to make this a misconception, for it certainly was not one or two years earlier.
In the West, the people were almost a unit in sup- porting the action of the Kentucky officers. The French settlers felt their situation to be hard and oppressive, but they laid the fault to Congress, not to Clark. On June 12, 1787, William Grayson wrote to Governor Randolph : " We are informed [by Mr. Simms of Ken- tucky, late delegate from New Jersey] that the people of Kaskaskies and Post Vincent are in the most un- settled situation. They complain, and in my opinion with great justice, that Congress, notwithstanding their frequent applications, has, ever since the cession of Vir- ginia, suffered them to remain in a state of nature, with't law, government, or protection, and talk very strongly of becoming Spanish subjects." 1 In Kentucky, public sentiment was so clear and strong that Clark's accusers dared not follow up publicly the charges which they had secretly made. Clark, Colonel Logan, and Colonel Levi Todd, all asked for courts of inquiry, but none were granted. On July 19, 1787, the field officers of Ken- tucky convened and resolved that the action of the Vir- ginia Executive had " placed us in so critical a Situation as to oblige us to decline all offensive operations at pres- ent." 2 On July 21, Attorney-General Innis wrote to Governor Randolph refusing to institute proceedings against the officers responsible for the action at Vin- cennes, on the ground that he had no official power to do so, and to do so in a private capacity "would render him odious." He also objected because he had been instructed to report to the Attorney-General for the Eastern District of Kentucky, and this subordination
1 Va. Cal., vol. iv. p. 297. 2 Ibid., vol. iv. p. 344.
174
INDIANA.
"the honor and dignity of this district call upon me to disavow." 1
Not knowing the exact cause of his treatment by the Virginia authorities, but rightly attributing it to the malice of his enemies, Clark fell into a state of sullen indignation. On October 8, 1787, he concluded a letter to Governor Randolph in these words: "Contious of having done everything in the power of a person under my circumstances, not only for the defence of the coun- try, but to save every Expense possible, I can with pleasure View Countries flourishing that I have Stained with the Blood of its Enemies, pitying mine when I deign to think of them as Citizens ; otherways with the utmost Contempt." 2 The remainder of Clark's life was passed in retirement, with the exception of one brief appearance before the public. When Genet, the French minister, undertook his reckless enterprise of raising American troops to invade the Spanish posses- sions, in defiance of the objections of our Executive, Clark accepted a commission as major-general of the army of invasion. He made public proposals for troops and supplies,8 but before any more serious action was taken Genet was recalled, and the commissions he had granted were annulled. The lands given Clark by Vir- ginia afforded him a home, but little more. Neither Virginia nor the United States paid for the property impressed at Vincennes, and in consequence the mer- chants sued Clark in the territorial courts and obtained judgments, under which much of his property was sold. His health became infirm. He was tortured for years by rheumatism, and this at length resulted in paralysis.
1 Va. Cal., vol. iv. pp. 321-323.
8 St. Clair Papers, vol. ii. p. 322, note.
2 Ibid., p. 347.
175
THE HANNIBAL OF THE WEST.
In poverty, sickness, and neglect, he lived on in his little home at Clarksville - where he could look out over the Falls of the Ohio, at which so many of the great enter- prises of his life had begun, and hear the constant roar of the rushing waters - until the year 1814. Then he removed to the home of his sister, Mrs. William Crog- han, at Locust Grove, near Louisville, where, in Febru- ary, 1818, he died and was buried.1
It is worthy of mention that no taint of guilt attached to General Clark, on account of his action at Vincennes, in the minds of the great men of his day who were ac- quainted with the facts in connection with it. On March 7, 1791, when Indian hostilities were spreading terror through the West, and the authorities were casting about for a satisfactory commander for the frontier troops, Mr. Jefferson wrote to Mr. Innis, of Kentucky : " Will it not be possible for you to bring General Clark forward ? I know the greatness of his mind, and am the more mortified at the cause which obscures it. Had not this unhappily taken place, there was nothing he might not have hoped : could it be surmounted, his lost ground might yet be recovered. No man alive rated him higher than I did, and would again, were he to become again what I knew him." 2 The defect to which Mr. Jeffer- son alludes was intemperance. His misfortunes con- firmed him in the habit which had contributed not a little to cause those misfortunes. Says Judge Burnet, who visited him in his old age : "The cruel ingratitude to which this distinguished soldier was doomed, - for which no justifiable cause can be assigned, - and the comparative poverty which made him almost a pen-
1 Hist. Ohio Falls Cities, vol. ii. p. 501.
2 Jefferson's Works, vol. iii. p. 217.
176
INDIANA.
sioner on the bounty of his relatives, was more than he could bear. It drove him to intemperance. He sought the inebriating bowl, as if it contained the water of Lethe, and could obliterate from his memory the wrongs he had endured." 1 Thus was blighted the latter half of the life of this great man - for he was a great man. Of all those who preceded or followed him, La Salle is the only one who can be compared to him in the won- derful combination of genius, activity, and courage that lifted him above his fellows. Ruined by drink! In this is another similarity to the great Carthaginian. The only difference was that the poison which destroyed the Hannibal of Africa acted more speedily than that which blasted the life of the Hannibal of the West.
1 Burnet's Notes, p. 81.
CHAPTER V.
THE ORDINANCE OF 1787.
IN January, 1830, in the great debate on Mr. Foote's resolution of inquiry, which reached its climax in Web- ster's immortal reply to Hayne, there originated an his- torical controversy as to the authorship of the Ordinance of 1787, which has increased with the years and ramified into branches that the original debaters never dreamed of. Mr. Webster, in his argument of the motion to postpone, had said : " That instrument [the Ordinance] was drawn by Nathan Dane, then and now a citizen of Massachusetts. It was adopted, as I think I have understood, without the slightest alteration; and cer- tainly it has happened to few men to be the authors of a political measure of more large and enduring conse- quence. It fixed forever the character of the popula- tion in the vast regions northwest of the Ohio by ex- cluding from them involuntary servitude. It impressed on the soil itself, while it was yet a wilderness, an in- capacity to bear up any other than free men. It laid the interdict against personal servitude in original com- pact, not only deeper than all local law, but deeper also than all local constitutions." In all of these statements except the first there is unquestionably much of error, and to the first Mr. Benton, with characteristic assur- ance, replied : " Mr. Dane was no more the author of that Ordinance, sir, than you or I, who about that
178
INDIANA.
time were mewling and puking in our nurses' arms. That Ordinance, and especially the non-slavery clause, was not the work of Nathan Dane of Massachusetts, but of Thomas Jefferson of Virginia." Both of these great party leaders were recognized authorities on historical questions ; both investigated the question afterwards ; both adhered to their original statements ; but neither found proof so positive as his assertion.
Although the discussion was taken up by others, the claims of Dane and Jefferson were the only ones con- sidered for many years. Then it was shown that Man- asseh Cutler, who all this time had been quietly ignored, had, to say the least, an influence on the drafting of the Ordinance.1 Soon afterwards claims were made for Rufus King ; 2 and of later date for Arthur St. Clair,8 Richard Henry Lee, William Grayson, and Edward Carrington.4 Keeping this controversy in view, and re- membering also the general truth that great measures are very seldom the fruit of any one mind, let us trace the history of this remarkable instrument, the constitu- tion of the territories of the United States, for its pro- visions have been esteemed so beneficent, that, in their general scope, they have been extended over a majority of the states of the Union while in their territorial stages.
The close of the War of the Revolution found the American states deeply involved in debt, and with no resources in prospective except such as might be derived
1 N. Am. Rev., vol. liii. p. 320 ; Annals of the West, p. 308; N. Am. Rev., vol. cxxii. p. 229.
2 N. Y. Tribune, February 28, 1855.
3 Mag. of West. Hist., vol. i. p. 49.
4 Bancroft, Hist. of Const., vol. ii. pp. 98-118.
179
THE ORDINANCE OF 1787.
from the sale of the lands west of the Alleghanies, to which Great Britain had relinquished her claim by the treaty of 1783. ) The title to this vast, unsettled domain was claimed by some of the states to have vested in the various colonies whose charters had extended their limits indefinitely to the West, and there was a special claim for Virginia on account of her conquest and retention of possession through General Clark. These claims were met by an equitable plea that was very forcible. All of the colonies had united for the common defense ; all had struggled under the burdens of the long conflict ; all had, by engaging the common foe, aided in wresting the western lands from the mother country; all had been grantees in the formal cession : why, then, should not all participate in the advantage gained, at least to the extent of the public indebtedness ? Maryland in par- ticular had insisted that this must be done, and refused to join in the Articles of Confederation until some satis- factory agreement as to western lands was reached.1 Other states which had no paper claims joined with her. Congress manifested a disposition to ignore Virginia's claims. The Old Dominion met the advance by a calm but bold remonstrance which was an effectual notice that she would resist any attempt to interfere with lier territory. Then came a halt and a change of base. An appeal was made to the patriotism and liberality of the states ; New York surrendered her claims ; Virginia re- lented. In January, 1781, she declared her readiness to cede her lands northwest of the Ohio to the general gov- ernment when Congress should agree to the terms she
1 For discussion of this subject see H. B. Adams's "Maryland's Influence upon Land Cessions to the U. S." in Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies in Hist. and Pol. Science, Third Series.
180
INDIANA.
then proposed. This proposition was long considered. Some of the states opposed any recognition of state claims. On September 13, 1783, Congress decided on a compromise by adopting a report which accepted some of the terms proposed by Virginia and rejected others. On October 20th of the same year the Virginia legislature authorized a cession on the basis of this report, which ces- sion was made by her delegates on March 1, 1784.
Pending these negotiations a committee, composed of Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Chase of Maryland, and Mr. Howell of Rhode Island, had been preparing " a plan, consistent with the principles of the confederation, for connecting with the union by a temporary government, the pur- chasers and inhabitants" of the western lands, "until their numbers and circumstances shall entitle them to form a permanent constitution for themselves and as citizens of a free, sovereign and independent state, to be admitted to a representation in the union." 1 They re- ported it on the day that the cession of Virginia was formally executed, but it was recommitted to them. On March 22 they made a second report, which differed from the first in no material respect save in the project for the division of the territory. The original plan pro- vided for the formation of ten states, all in the territory northwest of the Ohio. The region west of Lake Mich- igan and north of parallel 45 was to be a state under the name of Sylvania. The lower peninsula of Michigan north of parallel 43 was to form Chersonesus. That part of Wisconsin between parallels 43 and 45 was to be Michigania. Below this there were to be two states to every two degrees of latitude, divided by a meridian line drawn through the rapids of the Ohio, except that
1 Journals of Congress, vol. iv. p. 294.
181
THE ORDINANCE OF 1787.
all the territory east of a meridian line drawn through the mouth of the Great Kanawha was to be one state named Washington. Between parallels 41 and 43, the eastern state was Metropotamia, and the western As- senisipia. Between parallels 39 and 41, the eastern state was Saratoga, and the western Illinoia. Between parallel 39 and the Ohio, the eastern state was Peli- sipia, and the western Polypotamia. Indiana, therefore, would have been divided up among these six states last named.
In the second report these names were dropped, but the divisions north of parallel 39 were left as before, except that the tract which had been called Sylvania was added to the tract which had been called Michiga- nia, and the Ohio where it runs north of parallel 39, in western Ohio and eastern Indiana, was substituted for parallel 39 as a boundary, to that extent. The real change in the report, and the one for whose making it had probably been recommitted, was in the divisions south of parallel 39. The original report provided only for the division of the lands northwest of the Ohio, and apparently was not intended to apply south of that stream, while the second report covered all territory west of the Alleghanies. The former report was in ac- cordance with the Virginia theory, for Virginia, in her proposition to cede, had insisted that her territory south of the Ohio should be guaranteed to her by the con- federacy ; but this the confederacy had refused, on the ground that, if this land "is really the property of the State of Virginia, it is sufficiently secured by the con- federation, and if it is not the property of that state, there is no reason or consideration for such a guarantee." This cautious stand had been taken on account of the
182
INDIANA.
irreconcilable conflict as to Virginia's title. So great was the bitterness of local feeling, and the danger of making a rupture which could not be healed, that Con- gress, by common consent, abstained from any debate on the rights of individual states.1
The objection to the extent of the Virginia claim had grown so strong that, even before his first report, Jeffer- son felt assured that his state must make further conces- sions or lose the support of Congress. On February 20, 1784, he had written to Madison, detailing his project for the division into states, and adding: "We hope North Carolina will cede all beyond the same meridian of Kanawha, and Virginia also. For God's sake push this at the next session of assembly. We have trans- mitted a copy of a petition from the people of Kentucky to Congress praying to be separated from Virginia. Con- gress took no notice of it. We sent the copy to the governor, desiring it to be laid before the assembly. Our view was to bring on the question. It is for the interest of Virginia to cede so far immediately, because the people beyond that will separate themselves, and they will be joined by all our settlements beyond the Alleghany, if they are the first movers. Whereas if we draw the line, those at Kentucky, having their end, will not interest themselves for the people of Indiana,2
1 Journals of Am. Congress, vol. iv. p. 267.
2 The Indiana here referred to was a tract of some 3,500,000 acres lying in what is now West Virginia. It was granted by the Indians, in 1768, to Samuel Wharton, William Trent, George Morgan, and others, Indian traders, at the treaty of Fort Stanwix, to recompense them for goods destroyed during the late war, and was under control of The Indiana Company. It was the subject of much dispnte in Virginia and Pennsylvania, and of several memorials to Congress. See Annals of the West, p. 120; Hutch-
183
THE ORDINANCE OF 1787.
Greenbrier, etc., who will, of course, be left to our management, and I can with certainty almost say that Congress would approve of the meridian of the mouth of the Kanawha, and consider it as the ultimate point to be desired from Virginia. I form this opinion from conversation with many members. Should we not be the first movers, and the Indianians and Kentuckians take themselves off and claim to the Alleghany, I am afraid Congress would secretly wish them well."
Mr. Jefferson was not deceived. The continuance of the country west of the Alleghanies as counties of states whose public affairs must always be managed east of the mountains was already recognized as impracticable. The desire for separation in Kentucky took shape in the Danville conventions of 1784-1785, and in 1786 Vir- ginia passed an act consenting to the independence of Kentucky, though the actual separation did not take place until 1790. The same spirit of home rule was rife in Tennessee, and culminated in 1785 in the or- ganization of the independent state of Franklin. This Western feeling had the sympathy of Congress and of the people. It would have been strange if it had not, just after the great struggle for colonial independence, when the whole country was saturated with the doctrine of the natural right of local self-government. Jefferson saw that this was no time to stand on technicalities. He saw the coming wave of public sentiment, and turned it as much as possible to the advantage of Virginia, know-
ins's Top. Desc., p. 4, note ; Rees's Cyc., tit. "Indiana; " Vir- ginia Calendar, vol. i. pp. 276-298; Journals of Am. Cong., refer- ences under "Indiana" in index. McMasters's statement, in his History of the People of the U. S., vol. ii. p. 482, that it was lo- cated in what is now Indiana, is a wild error.
184
INDIANA.
ing that Virginia could never obtain all she claimed in any peaceful way. On April 25, two days after his ordinance had become a law, he sent a copy of it to Madison, and wrote : "By the proposition to bound our country to the westward, I meant no more than the pass- ing of an act declaring that that should be our boundary from the moment the people of the Western country and Congress should agree to it. The act of Congress now enclosed to you will show you that they have agreed to it, because it extends not only to the territory ceded, but to be ceded, and shows how and when they shall be taken into the union." In brief, the resolution or ordinance of 1784, while in the words of Jefferson, was a compromise measure dictated by the general feeling in Congress. It was not wholly satisfactory to the extreme Southern States. South Carolina voted against its passage, and neither Georgia nor the Carolinas ceded their western territory for several years.1
As a result of the extension of this ordinance south of the Ohio, another important change was made in it before it passed. On April 19 Mr. Spaight, of North Caro- lina, moved to strike out the "article of compact " and "fundamental principle of constitutions" for the pro- posed states which provided, "That after the year 1800 of the Christian æra, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said states, otherwise than in punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been convicted to have been personally guilty." By the rules of Congress each state had one vote, and on motion to strike out, the question was, "Shall the words moved to be struck out stand ?" the affirmative votes of seven states being required to prevent striking
1 N. Carolina in 1790; S. Carolina in 1787; Georgia in 1802.
185
THE ORDINANCE OF 1787.
out. The Northern States voted aye, except New Jersey, which could not be counted under the rules, as only one representative was present. North Carolina divided, and lost her vote. Delaware and Georgia were absent. The remaining Southern States voted no, Mr. Jefferson being overruled by his two colleagues from Virginia. The words consequently were struck out, there being but six affirmative votes.1 On the 20th the report was farther amended, chiefly by striking out a clause that provided that the new states "shall admit no per- son to be a citizen who holds any hereditary title." On April 23, 1784, the ordinance, so amended, was passed, and until July 13, 1787, remained the funda- mental law for the government of the Western territory, though not in force so as to affect the actual government of the settlements there. It included seven articles of compact between the new states and the thirteen original states, which were afterwards included in the fourth article of compact of the Ordinance of 1787. It pro- vided that when any one of the proposed states hatl 20,000 inhabitants it might organize a permanent gov- ernment, and when it had as many inhabitants as the least populated original state it might be admitted to the Union. Previous to having 20,000 inhabitants, a tem- porary government might be established, by the consent of Congress and the adoption of the constitution and
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.