History of the city of Toledo and Lucas County, Ohio, Part 57

Author: Waggoner, Clark, 1820-1903
Publication date: 1888
Publisher: New York and Toledo : Munsell & Company
Number of Pages: 1408

USA > Ohio > Lucas County > Toledo > History of the city of Toledo and Lucas County, Ohio > Part 57

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).

The bill thus endorsed by the Senate Coin- mittee, fixed the boundaries of Michigan and Indiana, as well as the Northern boundary of Ohio, and passed the Senate March 10th by a vote of 37 to 3, and went to the House of Rep- resentatives. March 22d a bill was introduced into the Senate by Mr. Benton to establish the Northern boundary line of Ohio and to admit Michigan into the Union, upon conditions therein expressed, which bill passed the Senate April 2d, by a vote of 24 to 18, and went to the House. This bill differed from the one passed March 10th, in that it contained a proviso, that the boundary line of Ohio should receive the assent of a Convention of delegates of the people of Michigan, as a condition of the ad- mission of Michigan into the Union. For this reason the second bill was not satisfactory to the larger portion of the Ohio delegation in Congress, who preferred the unconditional terms of the Clay ton bill, and were not willing that the question be left open for further doubt and agitation. In the House the question of

precedence in action upon the two Senate bills was raised, and decided in favor of the Benton bill, and June 13th it passed, by a vote of 153 to -15. June 15th, the Clayton bill, un- conditionally fixing the Northern line of Ohio, passed the House, without a division, and thus was the long - deferred and much. disputed boundary question and the " Toledo War " definitely and finally settled.

For reasons which seemed to have been more political than substantial, it was deemed ad- visable by the friends of the Administration to connect the admission of Arkansas with that of Michigan, by which association the adjust- ment of the boundary question probably was delayed for six months. A prominent, if not the controlling, consideration in the matter, was the sleepless jealousy of Southern politi- cians, with whom it had come to be settled, that no Free State should be added to the Union, unless associated with a new Slave State, to the end that equilibrium in the polit- ical power of Freedom and of Slavery might be preserved. This fact will explain the prece- dence given the Benton bill over the Clayton bill in the House. The same spirit of jealousy was constantly manifested as long as Slavery continued to be a cause of sectional discord. To the same fell spirit was the country subse- quently indebted for the annexation of Texas, in order that additional territory for Slave States might be obtained ; and to the same, for the like object, the Mexican War; and neither of these recourses being found effective, as a last resort came the attempt, through the re- peal of the Missouri Compromise, to subject Free territory to the establishment of Slave States. It was the failure of this device that drove the Slaveholding power to the fatal mad- ness of rebellion and an attempt to destroy the Union it was no longer able to control to its purposes, and led to the sudden and total de- struction of the interest so long and so despe- rately defended.

In this connection, the particulars of the Michigan forces as furnished by the pay-roll of her sokliers, now among the archives of that State, will be of interest. That roll gives the name of every soldier (officer and private), the amount of pay received, and in most cases, his receipt therefor. The list has the names of 1,160 men. The pay of Major-General Brown, Commander of the Territorial army, was $200 per month. He had for Aide-de-Camp, Al- pheus Felch, afterward Governor and United States Senator, who received $50 per month. Colonels were paid $75, Captains $40, Lieuten- ants $30, Ensigns $20, Sergeants $8 and privates 86.66 per month. Considering the " currency" in which they were paid ("Wild-Cat" Bank notes), these rates do not seem to be excessive. The several organizations of the Michigan forces were known as follows: The Oakland Detachment, of 192 men ; Major Bucklin's Reg-

305

HISTORY OF TOLEDO AND LUCAS COUNTY.

iment, of 159 men ; Colonel T. D. Davis's Rifle Brigade, of 248 men ; Second Regiment ( Colo- nel Warner Wing), 140 men; Captain J. Wood's Company of Light Horse, of 61 men ; Shelby Volunteers, of 60 men ; Acting Brigadier-Gen- eral Martin Davis's Detachment, of 47 men ; Colonel Davis Smith's Eighth Regiment, of 247 men. Total force, 1,254. The aggregate ex- penditure of Michigan, in connection with the boundary controversy, is placed at $13,658.76.

The people of Michigan, in that controversy, labored under two serions embarrassments. In the first place, as already stated, theirs being only a Territorial Government, the creature of Congress, wholly subject to Federal rule, it could have no recognized authority even over its domestic affairs, and much less over its relations to other Governments. This condition of tutelage deprived it of the po- litical status which State organization and power alone could confer. In the next place it was largely handicapped by an unfortu- nate head of what government it possessed. In 1814, General Lewis Cass, then of the United States Army, but a resident of Marietta, Ohio, was made Military Governor of Michigan Ter- ritory. Subsequently, he was made Civil Gov- ernor, with William Woodbridge, also of Ma- rietta, as Secretary, both appointments being fortunate for the Territory. The administra- tion of Governor Cass will always stand prom- inent among those of Western Territories. He was specially serviceable in his relations with the Indians, with whom he concluded important treaties and largely maintained friendly rela- tions, being Superintendent of Indian Atlairs for all the then Northwest, as well as Civil Governor of Michigan. Ile it was, who nego- tiated at Fort Meigs, in September, 1817, the important treaty by which the Seneca, Dela- ware, Wyandot, Shawanese, Pottawatomic and Chippewa tribes surrendered to the Govern- ment about one-fifth of the territory comprising the State of Ohio, beside large districts in Michigan and Indiana. Beside this treaty, 16 others were negotiated, chiefly under his man- agement, and in their results transferring to the United States vast extents of lands, both East and West of the Mississippi. In 1831, Governor Cass was called to Washington, to serve as Secretary of War in President Jack- son's Cabinet. The loss of his services, made so highly valuable by his long experience and intimate knowledge of the affairs of the Terri- tory, was much regretted at the time; but the measure of the loss was made more fully known only through the management of succeeding years. In 1830, the Territory had attained to a population of 32,538, and was self-supporting. With such advance in numbers, the people bad become possessed of an exceptional degree of focal pride, no doubt largely due to the position which Governor Cass's administration had given the Territorial Government. Hence, the

succession to that officer was a matter of more than ordinary concern with them, and they were very desirons that it should fall upon one of several prominent citizens of the Territory, instead of being utilized in the promotion of political interests elsewhere. Secretary Wood- bridge and Austin E. Wing were looked upon as specially suitable for the Governorship. Such desire, however, had so little consideration at Washington, that John T. Mason of Virginia, a brother-in-law of Postmaster-General Barry, was appointed Secretary of the Territory, to act as Governor until the latter office should be filled. The appointee, however, did not ac- cept, but went abroad on some private agency, and the office was transferred to his son, Ste- vens T. Mason. The choice of a non-resident for purely political and personal reasons, was bad enough ; but that of a mere boy-but 19 years ofage-added greatly to the disappoint- ment and chagrin of the people, who sent to him a Committee for conference, when he ac- knowledged his minority, and sought to justify it on the ground that his father's income was not sufficient to properly support the family.

This feeling was greatly intensified by the fact, that in consequence of Governor Cass be- ing removed to become Secretary of War, the Secretary would become the Acting Governor, with full executive responsibilities. All pro- tests, however, proved unavailing. The Vir- ginia " lad " became Michigan's Governor, and by his subsequent action did not a little to jus- tify what had been said of him. It is more than probable that in the management of the boundary question, he sought to turn to per- sopal account the partisan feeling of the people of the Territory, and by extra zeal to increase that feeling, which will, in a measure, account for his indiscretion at different times .* Again, it, is probable, that the circumstances of his ap- pointment and the dissatisfaction arising there- from, his questionable personal course and his lack of discretion, all contributed to make the President more reluctant to make the Govern- ment responsible for Mr. Mason's action ; and thereby did the latter turn out more to the ad- vantage of Ohio than of Michigan in the dis- pute. Had Governor Cass been in Mason's place, and conducted the question on the same general basis, there is reason to believe that Ohio would have had a more embarrassing case on its hands, with a result fess satisfactory.

The protest of the people at Washington was general and emphatic, but to no avail. George

* The Detroit Courier, in March, 1832, had this item :

" His Excellency, the Acting Governor of the Ter- ritory of Michigan, at a special session of the Mayor's Court, was bound over to keep the peace ; and held to recognize for his good behavior at the June term of the Circuit Court. These proceedings were eaused by a personal assault by the Acting Governor upon a Detroit editor, on account of criticisms of that of- ficial."

309

OHIO AND MICHIGAN BOUNDARY.

B. Porter of Pennsylvania was appointed Gov- ernor, and had he devoted his time and atten- tion to the office, the presence of the "Boy Governor " would have been less offensive. The latter by cultivating geniality through the social customs of the day, and a course of con- ciliation, in a measure modified the intensity of the feeling against him, whereby the people were led to endure what they could not enre. Thus matters stood, when, in the winter of 1834-5, the action of the Ohio Legislature on the boundary question, raised an issne, which with the people of the ambitions Territory, soon overshadowed that of their Governorship. Some three years of experience in office had measurably fitted Secretary Mason for the place ; and appreciating the opportunity for commending himself to popular favor, fur- nished by the Ohio action, he at once en- tered in the most spirited manner upon such measures of resistance as he could employ. The result was, that he soon largely removed the feeling existing against him. But in doing this, he displeased the powers at Washington, whose deep concern for the political bearing of the controversy had led them to favor the Ohio side of the question. Hence it was, that in September, 1835, with the boundary question yet unsettled, John S. Horner, another young man, ignorant of the country, was appointed Governor of the Territory. He came on, and sought by a policy of conciliation to induce an adjustment of the boundary difficulty, whereby he seriously displeased the people, who looked upon him not as the Executive of the Terri- tory, but as simply the tool of political masters at Washington, whose sole interest in the mat- ter was to manage it for the greatest partisan advantage. This state of things was made the more offensive to the people, by the fact, that at that time they had organized a complete State Government-in form-with a Legisla- ture, and United States Senators chosen. Ere long Governor Horner left the Peninsula, for a portion of Territory beyond the limits em- braced in the State organization.

During the Summer of 1835, and while the boundary question was yet undetermined, the people of Michigan sat about the organization of a government, in which they could have some power. To this end they held a Conven- tion ; framed a State Constitution, which was adopted by the people, who, at the same time chose State officers and a Legislature. Secretary Mason was chosen Governor, and Edmund Mundy, Lieutenant Governor; while Lucius Lyon and John Norvell were chosen United States Senators by the Legislature; and Isaac E. Crary, as Representative in Congress. Such action, unauthorized by existing law, was not approved at Washington, and especially as its tendency was to complicate and intensify the boundary issue. The admission of the State under such state of things was ont of the ques-

tion. Then it was that the compromise, on which the whole trouble was finally settled, was proposed, to wit : That Michigan yiekl the dis- puted territory, and in lien of that accept the Lake Superior Peninsula. This proposition was submitted to the people of Michigan, who sent delegates to a Convention held at Ann Arbor, September 1, 1836, by which the offer was rejected. Steps were then taken for an- other Convention, which, in reality, was little more or less than an Administration scheme for forcing terms upon the people. For such purpose, delegates were chosen " direct from the people," in local caucuses, without even the semblance of authority in law. The body thus chosen met at Ann Arbor, December 6, 1836, and assuming to speak for the people of Mich- igan, proceeded to accept the terms proposed ; and by an act passed January 26, 1837, Con- gress declared that a State Government had been duly formed by the people of Michigan, and the same was admitted as a member of the Union, and the vexed question of boundary was forever settled. A large portion, and probably a majority, of the people, with their pseudo State officials, indulged in a liberal degree of indig. nation and protest ; but that was the only con- solation accorded them. They could accom- plish nothing in resistance to the wrong they felt. Governor Mason indulged in emphatie rhetoric about the outrage committed, to meet with little more than ridicule of himselfas "the llero of the bloodless plains of Toledo."

The people of Michigan regarded it as a matter of grave wrong, that their Territory should be deprived of the few square miles of lands, which they had hoped would be included in their prospective State. And when, as a matter of compensation for such loss, Congress proposed to give them the great Peninsula of Lake Superior, with all its rich mineral deposits, the people of Michigan rejected the offer ; and the arrangement was consummated only through the unauthorized manipulation of local politicians. If the loss of that little strip of land, was so great a wrong to Michi- gan, what was the loss to Wisconsin, of a ter- ritory some 350 by 60 miles in extent, the taking of which cut that State off from some 400 miles of Lake coast, leaving to it only about 70 miles of such possession, and depriv- ing it of many valuable harbors, in order that Michigan might add the 400 to the 700 miles of coast already possessed by her? Not only all this, but Wisconsin was deprived of 100 miles of the Western coasts of Lake Michigan and Green Bay, with all their desirable har- bors, so important to that State, Of the two, it would seem that Wisconsin, rather than Michigan, was the party wronged in the ad- justment of the boundary dispute of 1835.

Of the $300,000 appropriated by the Ohio Legislature for expenses in the measures pro- posed for enforcing the rights of the State in

310

HISTORY OF TOLEDO AND LUCAS COUNTY.

the boundary controversy, the sum of 88,837 was subsequently expended. Among the items were the following : To C. Neiswanger, Quar- ter Master General, $1,173.77; pay of State Commissioners, for running the boundary, 8406; to Jonathan Taylor, one of the Commis- sioners, for expenses in running the line, 81,000; Samuel C. Andrews, Adjutant Gen- eral, $128.96; General John Bell, commanding Ohio forces, for compensation, $228.00; N. IL. Swayne, William Allen and David T. Disney, Commissioners to Washington, $300; N. H. Swayne, horse-hire and expenses, at Perry's- burg and returning to Columbus, 832.50; relief of J. E. Fletcher, of the surveying party, ar- rested and taken to Tecumseh a prisoner, by Michigan party, $100; Auditor of State John A. Bryan, for expenses in transmitting docu- ments to Tecumseh to secure release of Fletcher, $47.13.

It was both natural and proper that an event so important to the people of Toledo as the adjustment of the boundary question and the end of years of internecine contest and local bitterness, should be signalized in a public way; especially, that thereby was made sure to their Town the great benefits foreseen in the construction of the proposed Canals. Such celebration took place June 25, 1836, ten days alter the passage of the act of Congress estab- lishing the Northern boundary of Ohio on the Harris line. The report was first published in the Blade, and reproduced in the Gazette, as stated, "by request," as that paper was in sympathy with " the other side " of the bound- ary question :

" The day was ushered in at sunrise by the firing of cannon and ringing of bells," as we read. Appro- priate banners waved from hotels and public build- ings. At Sp. M., the citizens (such as " had a mind " to the occasion), with many distinguished visitors, assembled at the Mansion House ( Daniel Segur, pro- prietor), and marched to the School-House in which the memorable Court was held the year previous, where a short address was delivered by Emery D. Potter, Esq., when the procession returned to the hotel for a dinner " prepared in Mr. Segur's best style." The "cloth being removed," toasts were read by different gentlemen present, including .I. B. Maey, of Buffalo, N. Y .; Willard J. Daniels, Indiana ; Joel McClellan, of Loekport, N. Y .; Andrew Palner, Toledo; Levi Beardsley and J. R. Beardsley, Oswego, N. Y .; Colonel William MeLaughlin, Mansfield, O .; E. D. Potter, Toledo ; Rev. Mr. Bradburn, Nantucket, Mass .; A. J. Underhill, New York ; George R. Per- kins, M. D., Dr. H. B. Stillman, John JJay Newcomb, George II. Rich, and Roswell W. Cheney, Toledo. A guest gave,

" The Erie and Kalamazoo Railroad-Designed to be the great thoroughfare of the Far West."

S. R. Beardsley's sentiment was,

"The Buckeyes of Lucas County-Ready and willing to yield when wrong, but firm and united in repelling the encroachments of their Wolverine neighbors."

Mr. Underhill,

" Toledo-The great outlet of the States of Ohio, In-

diana and Illinois; destined within a short period to be the great ('ity of the West.'

Mr. Cheney gave,

" The Orator of the Day-May he grow in useful- ness with the growth of our thriving and prosperous Village."

To which Mr. Potter responded briefly, saying, among other things,

" From the time that I arrived here, six months ago, a stranger, I have never had reason to regret the adoption of this place as my future home."

Colonel MeLaughlin toasted,

" The Democracy of Ohio-Ever true to their cause, they will give united and efficient support to the 'Favorite Son of New York '" ( Martin Van Buren, then Vice President, and a candidate for President).

Taken all in all, the site on which Toledo stands has gone through a series of mutations in government and control which will find few, if any, equals in this country or elsewhere. Among these may be named the following :

1. As carly as 1610, the French Government, by virtue of the establishment of trading-posts in this re- gion, laid claim to the territory.

2. In 1641 this claim was strengthened by the planting of the French flag at the Sault St. Marie, which was followed by 120 years of French domi- nation.

3. In 1763, as the result of the French and Indian War, Great Britain dispossessed France and assumed jurisdiction.

4. In 1783, by the treaty of peace between the Colonies and Great Britain, this territory was con- ceded to the former, although in fact, it remained under British control until after the victoryof General Wayne at Fallen Timbers (now in Lucas County) in 1794.

5. Connecticut and New York each for many years made separate claim to this locality.

6. In 1787, it was made part of the Northwest Territory.

7. In 1796, it became part of Wayne County, of said Territory,

8. In 1800, it passed to the Territory of Ohio.

9. In 1802, it became by jurisdiction, part of the Territory of Indiana.

10. In 1805, the new Territory of Michigan as- sumed jurisdiction of this place, and it was practically in Wayne County.

11. In 1817, Monroe County, Michigan, was or- ganized, and this locality passed to its control.

12. In 1820, Wood County, Ohio, was created with nominal jurisdiction here.

13. In 1827, Port Lawrence Township, Monroe County, was organized, including this locality.

14. As early as 183t, parts of the present terri- tory of Toledo were in the separate plats of Port Law- rence and Vistula, and afterwards another portion in Manhattan.

15. In 1833, Port Lawrence and Vistula were con- solidated in the Town of Toledo.

16. In 1835, the County of Lucas was established by the Legislature of Ohio, to include Toledo.

17. During the last named year, and until Janu- ary, 1837, when the Ohio title was made final by the admission of Michigan into the Union, the question of jurisdiction remained in dispute.

18. In 1837, the incorporated Town of Toledo be- came the City of Toledo.

19. In 1874, the limits of the City of Toledo were materially extended, to include Manhattan and much other adjoining territory.

311

OHIO AND MICHIGAN BOUNDARY.

Thus we find that this locality has been sub- ject to no less than 19 different jurisdictions.

The lapse of 50 years of time, with the sub- sidence of partisan feeling and local interest which so largely grew out of and affected the minds and actions of participants on both sides of the unfortunate boundary question, now permits more deliberate consideration of and more just judgment on its merits. As al- ready shown, the residents of Toledo were not wholly agreed in their feelings and action on the issue. " Ohio men " and " Michigan men " then stood arrayed in sentiment, more than in action. To what extent either of those divi- sions were affected by ulterior considerations, cannot now be known. That such, more or less, operated to control individuals, is only natural. If either of the contending parties presented to the people of Toledo the stronger inducements for their support of its claims, it certainly was Ohio. It would not be possible, under present conditions, to appreciate all that was involved in that dispute, as viewed from the stand-point of the adventurous settlers of Toledo at that time. In the strong and bitter contest they were called to make with neighbor- ing rival Towns, involving the very life of their own, the matter of the Canals, with all that it involved to the successful candidate for the out- let of those important improvements, could not have failed to be most potential in con- nection with the boundary matter. The ques- tion itself was then so far involved in doubt as to facts and argument, that it is not strange that candid men should fail to agree as to its merits. The case, as already shown, rested upon a single point, to wit : Which should pre- vail-the Ordinance of Congress of 1787, and the act of the same body in 1805, both estab- lishing the line of boundary as claimed by Michigan ; or the provision in the Ohio State Constitution as accepted ? Ilence, the pivotal point : Did Ohio in becoming a State with such claim to boundary, secure rights, which not only overrode rights previously fixed by Con- gress, but which could not be affected by subse- quent action by that body ? Clearly, it is not within the power of a Convention representing the people of a Territory, or of that people themselves, to determine a question of boun- dary which affects the rights of others. Hence, the question again arises, Does the bare act of Congress admitting a State into the Union, ap- prove and irrevocably conform to it all that is claimed as to the question of boundary in the Constitution under which the State is admit- ted ? Ohio's case in the boundary dispute, had no other basis than the affirmative of this ques- tion. Had Michigan been a State, with a fixed boundary, instead of a Territory, when Ohio was admitted, there would have been no doubt as to the matter, since in such case she would have had the status of fully vested rights. But the fact, as already stated, was that Mich-

igan in the nature of the case, could not be a party in the dispute, for the reason that her's was a condition of tutelage, being the creature of Congress, without rights of any sort, except as that body saw fit to confer them.

The case as presented by the Senate Judi- ciary Committee (already cited ) seems to be the clearest and most satisfactory showing yet made. The simple fact that Congress, both in the ordinance of 1787 and in the act creating the Territory of Michigan in 1805, aeted upon an entire misapprehension as to the real loca- tion of the Southern extreme of Lake Michigan, which was made its base in fixing the boundary line, is the chief point in the case. The Ohio Convention, becoming apprehensive of such mistake by Congress, and desirous of protect- ing the State from the seriousinjury threatened through the same, most properly recognized the geographical doubt, and guarded against its damaging effect. It fully accepted the base employed by Congress for fixing the boundary line; provided, such base prove to be what Congress assumed it to be throughout its leg- islation in the matter. It is difficult to con- ceive of a proposition more simple and just. To question its fairness, is to question the good faith of Congress, and attribute to that body a willingness, if not the purpose, to take advan- tage of its own error, to the wrong of a party trusting to its sense of justice. The contingent provision in the Ohio Constitution was only saying that the State sought to have its North- ern boundary fixed as both t'ongress and the State Convention intended to make it; and Congress, in accepting that provision and ad- mitting the State into the Union with the boundary thus fixed, in the most direct and effective mode possible assented to such ar- rangement. Such contingent contracts are constantly occurring between parties, and no Court hesitates to enforce terms thus mutually agreed to. Then why should not a like agree- ment between the United States and a State be equally binding ?

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.

History of the city of Toledo and Lucas County, Ohio, Part 57

Author: Waggoner, Clark, 1820-1903 Publication date: 1888 Publisher: New York and Toledo : Munsell & Company Number of Pages: 1408

Author: Waggoner, Clark, 1820-1903
Publication date: 1888
Publisher: New York and Toledo : Munsell & Company
Number of Pages: 1408