USA > Indiana > Indiana, a redemption from slavery > Part 14
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
1 Mr. Webster erroneously stated that the votes of nine states were requisite to sustain this clause, and this view is somewhat supported by so skilled a parliamentarian as Mr. Cox, in his Three Decades of Federal Legislation (p. 43). The error was long since pointed out by Mr. Benton. Thirty Years' View, vol. i. p. 135. Other clauses of the ordinance were retained by the vote of seven states only. Journals of Am. Congress, vol. iv. pp. 374, 375. See, also, statement of Mr. Jefferson, Works, vol. ix. p. 276.
186
INDIANA.
laws of any of the original states. In the mean time Congress might make such legislation as was needed for their security and peace.
The alteration of his plan which most keenly affected Mr. Jefferson was the rejection of the slavery clause. He confided his chagrin to Madison in his letter of April 25, in these words : "You will observe two clauses struck out of the report : the first, respecting hereditary honors ; the second, slavery. The first was done, not from an approbation of such honors, but because it was thought an improper place to encounter them. The second was lost by an individual vote only. Ten states were present. The four Eastern States, New York, and Pennsylvania, were for the clause. Jersey would have been for it, but there were but two members, one of whom was sick in his chambers. South Carolina, Mary- land, and ! Virginia ! voted against it. North Carolina was divided, as would have been Virginia, had not Mr. Monroe, one of its delegates, been sick in bed." It is only necessary to read the repeated statements by Mr. Jefferson of his views on the slavery question to compre- hend the wealth of regret and state shame embodied in those two exclamation points at Virginia's failure to support this plan of gradual emancipation. Two years later he said : "The voice of a single individual would have prevented this abominable crime from spreading itself over the new country. Thus we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man, and Heaven was silent in that awful moment! But it is to be hoped it will not always be silent; and the friends to the rights of human nature will in the end prevail." 1 The sophisms of those who defended slavery in principle
1 Jefferson's Works, vol. ix. p. 276.
187
THE ORDINANCE OF 1787.
had no weight with him. He blushed that his state was not farther advanced in the principles of humanity and natural justice; he paled at the discord and danger which he saw entailed upon the Union by the spread of this institution.
On May 7, 1784, Mr. Jefferson was appointed a min- ister plenipotentiary to aid John Adams and Benjamin Franklin in negotiating treaties of commerce.1 He va- cated his seat in Congress, and remained abroad until 1789. There is nothing to show that he had any in- fluence on the enactment of the Ordinance of 1787 in addition to what was naturally carried by the resolution or ordinance of 1784. The latter had been universally ascribed to him until, in 1877, Dr. Adams attributed it, in part at least, to George Washington.2 This position is untenable. Washington's theory of settling the west- ern lands was to create one district or state at a time, and let it become populated before another was opened for settlement.8 This also was the original design of Congress in appointing the Jefferson committee, for the resolution directed them to prepare a plan of temporary government of "a district of the Western territory." 4 There were consultations with Washington at various times in regard to Western affairs, but the result was that they all came to Jefferson's plan, which made many districts, but put them all on equal footing. More than that, Mr. Jefferson's resolution or ordinance is not a plan for temporary government at all, and was not so con- sidered by Congress. It provided a mode by which the people of the West might adopt a temporary govern-
1 Journals of Congress, vol. iv. p. 400.
2 Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies, Third Series, pp. 41, 42.
3 Bancroft's Hist. of the Const , vol. i. p. 177.
4 Journals of Congress, vol. iv. pp. 294, 295.
188
INDIANA.
ment, but no provision was made for the intervening time until an amendment, offered by Mr. Gerry, was adopted, by which Congress was authorized to take necessary action " for the preservation of peace and good order among the settlers." 1 It was purely constitutional. It fixed the limits within which the local governments must act, but left the creation of those governments wholly to the future. In this respect it differs radically from the Ordinance of 1787, which is constitutional only as to its articles of compact, and merely statutory as to the remainder. The entire resolution of 1784 was to be " a charter of compact," but it was not to be unal- terable until the sale of lands by the United States was begun, and that sale Congress was not yet ready for. In the next year it caused the expulsion of all settlers north- west of the Ohio, except those protected by the Virginia deed of cession.2
After this action of 1784, the matter of temporary government was almost continuously in the hands of committees, and occasionally there was an attempt to amend the " charter of compact," - sometimes success- ful and sometimes unsuccessful. Meanwhile the French settlers were left to get along as best they could under their " ancient laws and customs." The local govern- ment of Vincennes bowled along merrily under this sys- tem. They had their commandant and their court, their clerk and their sheriff, an overflow of Kentucky militia at odd seasons and their own militia at all times. There was the greatest abundance of government, for the more the United States neglected them, the more authority their officials assumed. The people of the Illinois ap-
1 Journals of Congress, vol. iv. p. 378.
2 St. Clair Papers, vol. ii. pp. 1-5 and notes.
189
THE ORDINANCE OF 1787.
pear to have been less happily situated, for they peti- tioned Congress to give them some sort of government, and on August 24, 1786, Congress ordered, " That the secretary of Congress inform the inhabitants of Kaskas- kies, that Congress have under their consideration the plan of a temporary government for the said district, and that its adoption will be no longer protracted than the importance of the subject and a due regard to their interest may require." 1
On the surface, the years from 1784 to 1787 constitute an era of irresolution and uncertainty. Thirteen states, absolutely independent and sovereign, were acting to- gether for their common interest, but their harmony was subjected to many rude jars by their conflicting in- dividual interests. During the war, the general danger spurred them on to agreement or compromise of their differences, but with peace there grew an alarming laxity in providing for the general welfare. The confederate government was prostrate and helpless. The states were becoming discordant. The feeling was growing that there must be a stronger central government, or the Union must be abandoned. The realization had come that permanent union could be reached only through reciprocal concessions. Yet, with all the difficulties in view, and though they often expressed grave fears for the future, the great statesmen of the day proceeded much as though ultimate union were a certainty. They made it their business to remove difficulties, and to pro- vide for the future as though the difficulties were already gone. There was at least as much conflict of interest and sentiment concerning the Western territory as on any other subject, and yet every move in regard to it 1 Journals of Congress, vol. iv. p. 688.
190
INDIANA.
was made in expressed anticipation of a continuous union and a common sentiment.
Slavery had not yet become the controlling factor in national politics. In abstract theory no man of national fame defended it, and many explicitly condemned it. No one questioned the power of even the old Congress to prohibit it in the Western territory, though no one claimed any power in Congress to interfere with it in the states. Slavery still existed in all the states except Massachu- setts, but the feeling against it was very strong in the North ; and in Maryland and Virginia a large minority favored emancipation. The Abolitionists of the time confined their efforts strictly to appeals to conscience and to patriotism ; and although the invention of the cotton gin in 1793, and the enormous extension of the cotton and tobacco interests thereafter, turned private interest strongly against it, the abolition theory still continued to grow. In 1827 there were one hundred and thirty abolition societies in this country, and only twenty- four of them were in the free states. From 1830 the tide turned back in the Southern States and swept far into the North. The Nat Turner insurrection at South- ampton, and insubordination elsewhere, determined the South to prevent any kind of interference with slavery, and soon the nation passed into that dark period of thirty years when Abolitionist and villain were synony- mous, to emerge only when washed clean in her own best blood.1
Among the many Revolutionary soldiers who in 1784-1785 were contemplating settlement in the West,
1 For collected authorities on this subject, see Poole's Anti- Slavery Opinions Prior to 1800, and Helper's Impending Crisis of the South.
191
THE ORDINANCE OF 1787.
was Colonel Timothy Pickering, afterwards of national fame as a senator and cabinet officer. He was in cor- respondence with Elbridge Gerry and Rufus King, then members of Congress, and, according to the statement of the latter, exercised much influence in the formulation of the plan for the disposition of the western lands. On March 8, 1785, writing to Mr. King concerning the or- dinance of 1784, Colonel Pickering said : "There is one article in the report of the committee on which that act was made, which I am extremely sorry to see was omit- ted in the act. The committee proposed that after the year 1800 there should be no slavery in the new States. I hardly have patience to write on a subject in which what is right is so obvious and just, and what is wrong is so derogatory to Americans above all men, so inhuman and iniquitous in itself." Later, on the same day, he continued in a second letter to King: "In looking over the Act of Congress of the 23rd of April last, and the present report of an ordinance, relative to these lands, I observe there is no provision made for ministers of tlie gospel, nor even for schools and academies. The latter might have been brought into view ; though, after the admission of SLAVERY, it was right to say nothing of Christianity. ... What pretence (argument there could be none) could be offered for its rejection ? I should, indeed, have objected to the period proposed (the year 1800) for the exclusion of slavery ; for the admission of it for a day or an hour ought to have been forbidden. It will be infinitely easier to prevent the evil at first, than to eradicate or check it in any future time. ... To suffer the continuance of slaves till they can be grad- ually emancipated, in States already overrun with them, may be pardonable, because unavoidable without hazard-
192
INDIANA.
ing greater evils ; but to introduce them into countries where none now exist1 - countries which have been talked of, which we have boasted of, as asylums to the oppressed of the earth - can never be forgiven. For God's sake, then, let one more effort be made to prevent so terrible a calamity." 2
This letter was effective with Mr. King, for on March 16, 1785, he moved the commitment to the whole house of a resolution, "That there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the States described in the resolve of Congress of the 23d of April, 1784, oth- erwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been personally guilty; and that this regulation shall be an article of compact, and remain a fundamental principle of the constitutions between the thirteen original states, and each of the states described in the said resolve of the 23d of April, 1784." The Northern States and Maryland voted for commitment. Delaware and Georgia were absent. The other Southern States opposed commitment, though one Virginia dele- gate, William Grayson, voted aye. It was referred to a committee consisting of Mr. King, Mr. Howell, and Mr. Ellery. This resolution, it will be observed, was ex- actly Mr. Jefferson's, except that it was to take effect at once instead of being dormant until 1800. On April 6th, the committee reported, making two important changes. The first restored Mr. Jefferson's limit of the year 1800
1 This mistaken thought was the cause of the objection of other Northern men to Mr. Jefferson's provision. They looked at the resolution as a provision for a new population ; Jefferson was thinking of the French settlers, with whose slave-holding he had become familiar while governor, and member of the executive council of Virginia.
2 Life of Timothy Pickering, vol. i. pp. 504-513.
193
THE ORDINANCE OF 1787.
for the continuance of slavery. The second added the fugitive-slave clause : "Provided always, that upon the escape of any person into any of the states described in the said resolve of Congress of the 23d day of April, 1784, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the thirteen original states, such fugitive may be law- fully reclaimed and carried back to the person claiming his labor or service as aforesaid, this resolve notwith- standing." 1 This was the source of the fugitive-slave clause in the Ordinance of 1787. Who introduced it is not known, but as the only known precedent for it was a similar provision in the compact of the confederated New England Colonies in 1643, and as Mr. King after- wards moved the introduction of the clause into the Constitution of the United States, it is certain that it was not considered objectionable in the North at that time. That Mr. King did not consider it inconsistent with even the advanced views of Colonel Pickering is shown by the fact, that, on April 15, he wrote that gen- tleman informing him that his propositions concerning the disposal of western lands had " had weight with the committee," and added : " I likewise enclose you the report of a committee on a motion for the exclusion of slavery from the new states. Your ideas on this un- justifiable practice are so just that it would be impossible to differ from them." No farther action was taken on the resolution until it was incorporated, with a modifica- tion as to time, in the Ordinance of 1787. The reason was that Mr. King held it back until the ordinance for the sale of western lands, then pending in Congress, should have been disposed of,2 but the resolution was
1 Papers of Am. Congress, vol. xxxi. p. 329.
2 Grayson to Madison, May 1, 1785.
194
INDIANA.
not taken up after that ordinance had passed, probably because the cessions by the extreme Southern States were withheld, and the adoption of the clause might interfere with obtaining these cessions.
The ordinance for the disposal of lands, which passed on May 20, 1785, was unquestionably a compromise. Mr. King wrote to Colonel Pickering on May 30: "All parties who have advocated particular modes of dispos- ing of this Western territory have relinquished some things they wished, and the ordinance is a compromise of opinions." The same might be said of the Ordinance of 1787. The matter of government was all the time in the hands of committees, and their reports were continu- ally amended, recommitted, or postponed. The real difficulty that lay back of it was that the Southern States would not make the cessions of land south of the Ohio which the other states wished them to make. Occasion- ally, however, some point of agreement would be reached, and these were held to in the Ordinance. The most im- portant of them was the change in the division of the territory for the formation of states. This subject was brought forward by a motion of Mr. Monroe, and on July 7, 1786, the committee to which his motion was referred reported in favor of recommending Virginia and Massachusetts to amend their acts of cession so that the Northwest territory might be divided into not less than two nor more than five states. This was adopted with the change that there should be "not less than three." The expressed reason for this change as to division was that the states before provided for would be too small, and that some of them would have no access to navigable waters, while others would have navigable streams entirely within their boundaries for some dis-
195
THE ORDINANCE OF 1787.
tance. Mr. Monroe's reason, however, as he wrote to Jefferson on January 19, 1786, was largely political. He says : " I am clearly of opinion that to many of the most important objects of a federal government their interests, if not opposed, will be but little connected with ours; instead of weakening theirs and making it sub- servient to our purposes, we have given it all the possi- ble strength we could ; weaken it we might also, and at the same time (I mean by reducing the number of states) render them substantial service." On July 16, 1786, he wrote that there was a desire on the part of New England to hinder the new states from coming into the Union, by enlarging the requirement as to the num- ber of inhabitants, and possibly to relinquish the western lands altogether to Spain. Whatever may have been at the bottom of it, the change was made, with but one dissenting vote, and was adopted in the Ordinance of 1787.
No action was taken that indicated an agreement as to the whole Ordinance until the spring of 1787. On April 23 of that year, a committee consisting of Mr. Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. Pinckney of South Caro- lina, Mr. Smith of New York, Mr. Dane of Massachu- setts, and Mr. Henry of Maryland, reported an " Ordi- nance for the government of the Western Territory," which was read the second time and amended on May 9. On May 10, the third reading was called for by Massachusetts, then represented by Messrs. Gorham, King, and Dane, but action was postponed, and this ordinance did not come up again, except to be referred to a new committee on July 9. The mass of it, with some modifications, is included in the Ordinance of 1787, forming about one third of that instrument. No provis-
. 196
INDIANA.
ion as to slavery was included in it. It had no features of a bill of rights, except the preservation of trial by jury and the writ of habeas corpus. It was chiefly a regula- tion of the form of government which might thereafter be adopted by the new states. As to the extent of its application it is very obscure, but the title, and the ab- sence of any restrictive provision, indicate that it was intended to apply to the entire western country. It is commonly understood, and is probably true, that this was what was known as "Monroe's plan." 1
The sudden stop in the consideration of this measure at the point of its third reading shows that some new motor was in action. This motor was the Ohio Com- pany, which had been formed in New England for the purpose of colonization in the western lands.Its ef- fects on this ordinance, and on the entire history of the Mississippi valley, were so great that an acquaintance with its development is essential to an understanding of our history. As the Revolutionary War drew to a close, many of the soldiers and officers began to look forward for some occupation when peace should come. On April 7, 1783, one day before news of the Treaty of Paris reached him, but while there was a general ex- pectation that a treaty would be made, Colonel Picker- ing wrote to his friend Mr. Hodgdon : " A new plan is in contemplation, - no less than forming a new State westward of the Ohio. Some of the principal officers of the army are heartily engaged in it. About a week since, the matter was set on foot, and a plan is digesting for the purpose. Enclosed is a rough draft of some propositions respecting it, which are generally approved
1 Monroe to Jefferson, May 11, 1786; Bancroft's Hist. Const., vol. i. p. 502.
197
THE ORDINANCE OF 1787.
of. They are in the hands of General Huntington and General [Rufus] Putnam for consideration, amendment, and addition." These propositions, drawn by Pickering, were for the establishment of a sort of brotherhood com- munity of soldiers, the most important political provision being, " The total exclusion of slavery from the State to form an essential and irrevocable part of the Constitu- tion." 1 Possibly this project may have influenced Jef- ferson in drafting his ordinance, as there was certainly correspondence between the projectors and the influential men of the day. Putnam prepared a memorial, which he sent to Washington in June, 1783, and he forwarded it to Congress. Other similar memorials were sent to Congress, but it was urged that the title to the western lands was too unsettled for action. On October 29, 1783, Congress formally announced that it was unable to do anything for the soldiers for the time being. April 5, 1784, Putnam wrote to Washington for infor- mation concerning the western lands, stating that he feared to confide in Massachusetts or New York dele- gates, because those states had land to sell, and their representatives would desire to impede the Ohio move- ment. On June 2, Washington replied that he was per- suaded that something of the sort was true. In 1785 Putnam was elected surveyor for Massachusetts, under the land ordinance ; but as he could not then serve, Gen- eral Benjamin Tupper, who had been associated with him in the Ohio project, was appointed to take his place temporarily.2 Tupper started for the West, but only reached Pittsburgh, the hostile attitude of the Indians preventing any surveying.
1 The propositions in full are in the Life of Pickering, vol. i. p. 546.
2 Journals Am. Cong., vol. iv. pp. 527, 547.
198
INDIANA.
The Indians who were objecting most strenuously to the advance of the white man beyond the Ohio were the Shawnees. The Iroquois had surrendered all claims to lands northwest of the Ohio, in their treaty of Fort Stanwix, on October 22, 1784; but the western tribes were far from conceding that the Iroquois had title there. On January 21, 1785, a part of the Wyan- dots, Delawares, Chippewas, and Ottawas ceded more than half of Ohio - lying east of the Cuyahoga and Tuscarawas, south of a line drawn from near the mouth of Sandy Creek to the head of the Great Miami, and east of the last-named stream - at the treaty of Fort McIntosh. In the fall of 1785, General Samuel Holden Parsons, an associate of Putnam and Tupper, came West as commissioner to aid General George Rogers Clark and Colonel Richard Butler in treating with the Shaw- nees. The tribe was very reluctant to surrender the country which contained their old towns, but they held it only by sufferance of tribes that had already ceded, and the commissioners gave them the alternative of ces- sion or war in so plain terms that they made the same relinquishment as the other western tribes. They were given, with the consent of the Wyandots and Delawares, a tract of land running from the northern part of the Great Miami to the Wabash. This treaty was concluded at the mouth of the Great Miami, at Fort Finney, on January 31, 1786. While engaged in this business, Par- sons also looked for a favorable place for a settlement, and wrote from Fort Finney, on December 20, 1785 : " I have seen no place that pleases me so well for settle- ment as Muskingum." 1
At the opening of 1786 the way appeared clear for 1 N. Am. Rev., vol. liii. p. 329.
THE ORDINANCE OF 1787. 199
a movement towards settlement; and on January 10, Tupper having reached Rutland, Mass., the home of General Putnam, on his return from the West, the two issued a call for those who desired to embark in the Ohio project to hold meetings in the various counties on February 15, and elect delegates, who should convene at the Bunch-of-Grapes Tavern in Boston, on March 1, and organize the Ohio Company. This plan was pub- lished in the newspapers, and was carried out at a meet- ing of delegates from eight counties as proposed. Sub- scription books were opened, and subscriptions to stock advanced so well that on March 8, 1787, Samuel H. Parsons, Rufus Putnam, and Dr. Manasseh Cutler were appointed to make application to Congress for a private purchase of land under such conditions as they might consider proper. The stock of the company was one thousand shares of $1,000 each. Each shareholder was to pay $10 in coin to defray expenses of the company, and the remainder in Continental certificates. The latter had been issued in payment to the soldiery, as well as in satisfaction of other public debts. They bore interest, but because they had been thrown on the market in large quantities, because the interest had not been met promptly, and because the general government appeared insolvent, they had fallen to a very small percentage of their face value.
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.