Page images
PDF
EPUB

JEFFERSON ATTEMPTS TO RANSOM CAPTIVES.

duty of 11 per cent. on the whole amount. This averaged $2,800 per captive, while the agents had been authorized to offer only $200.* Jefferson then attempted to obtain the release of the captives through a religious order in Paris called the Society of the Holy Trinity for the Redemption of Captives, commonly

383

known as Mathurins. In 1789 a sum

of money was placed at their disposal, but by July, 1790, only one captive had been ransomed, while six had died. Shortly afterward the Revolution in France abolished all religious orders, and the unfortunate captives were allowed to remain in confinement for several years.*

CHAPTER IV.

1784-1789.

LAND CESSIONS: WESTERN SETTLEMENTS; NEW GOVERNMENTS.

Congress urges States to cede western territory-Cessions by New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut and South Carolina The Virginia territory The Ordinance of 1784 - Jefferson's scheme of erecting States The names proposed — The slavery proviso - The Ordinance for the government of the Northwestern Territory introduced - Machinations of Ohio Company Memorial presented to Congress by Parsons Ordinance of 1787 passed-Cutler's negotiations with Congress regarding grant of territory — Colonizing parties sent out - Provisions of the Ordinance of 1787 - Territory South of the Ohio North Carolina territory in the West-Act of cession passed-State of Franklin General Sevier elected president Dispute compromised and North Carolina authority reestablished in State of Franklin - Restlessness in Kentucky - Petition to Virginia for separation - Various conventions - Separation authorized - Indian war in the West - Westerners discontented by the refusal of right to navigate Mississippi - Wilkinson's intrigue. Appendix to Chapter IV.-I. The Ordinance of 1787. II. Letters of Dane and King regarding authorship of Ordinance of 1787.

The western lands belonging to the various States were now beginning to be regarded as of considerable importance to the country. The majority of the people considered these western lands national property, and as one of the chief sources from which money could be derived for the payment of the national debt. Congress therefore requested the States to pass the necessary acts to cede their claims to this western territory "as well for hastening the extinguishment of the public debt, as

Schuyler, American Diplomacy, pp. 206-207.

--

for establishing the harmony of the United States." There were seven States which laid claim to the western country: New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. The other six States claimed that Congress had rightful authority over the territory, but if it did not, such right should be given it. Some of the States feared the power and strength of those States which possessed immense tracts of land in the West, and at an early date (October 15, 1777),

*Ibid, pp. 207-208.

384 LAND CESSIONS BY NEW. YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, ETC.

Maryland proposed that Congress
should be given the right to "fix the
western boundary of such States as
[lay] claim to the Mississippi or south
sea; and lay out the land beyond the
boundary so ascertained into sepa-
rate and independent States from
time to time as the numbers and cir-
cumstances of the people thereof may
require.''*
Until this were done
Maryland refused to sign the Articles
of Confederation. Gradually, one by
one, New York, Connecticut, and Vir-
ginia signified their willingness to do
this, and on March 1, 1781, Mary-
land's delegates in Congress signed
the Articles.t

[ocr errors]

On February 19, 1780, New York ceded her territory in the West, fixing the western boundaries of the State by a line from the northeast corner of the State of Pennsylvania, along the north bounds thereof, to its northwest corner, continued due west, until it shall be intersected by a meridian line, to be drawn from the 45th degree of north latitude, through a point twenty miles due west from the most westerly bent, or inclination of the river, or strait of Niagara; thence by

*Secret Journals of Congress, vol. i., p. 328; Herbert B. Adams, Maryland's Influence upon Land Cessions to the United States, in Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, series iii., no. i., p. 22; and the same paper under a slightly different title in Maryland Historical Society Publications, no. X.; Fiske, Critical Period, pp. 191-193; Ogg, Opening of the Mississippi, p. 403.

See the Journals of Congress for September 6, October 10 and 12, 1780; February 12, March 1, 1781; September 12, 1783. See also Curtis, Constitutional History, vol. i., pp. 90–97.

the said meridian line, to the 45th degree of north latitude, thence by the said 45th degree of north latitude." Congress accepted this cession in 1782.* On April 19, 1785, Massachusetts ceded her territory west of the line fixed by New York.t Connecticut retained possession of her lands until September, 1786, when she relinquished title to all that lying 120 miles west of the eastern boundary of Pennsylvania,‡ but reserving to herself the valuable tract known as the "Western Reserve" over which the United States did not receive jurisdiction until 1800.|| South Carolina did not cede her lands until August 9, 1787.§

At this time Virginia possessed extensive, rich and well-populated lands in the Northwest, out of which territory have since been carved the States of Michigan and Wisconsin

* Journals of Congress, October 29, 1782. Ibid, April 19, 1785.

223.

Ibid, September 14, 1786, vol. xi., pp. 221

Marshall's Report, American State Papers, Public Lands, vol. i., pp. 94-98.

§ On the cessions, see Moore, The Northwest under Three Flags, pp. 315-326, and authorities cited, especially B. A. Hindsdale, The Old Northwest; Roosevelt, Winning of the West, vol. iii., pp. 246-251; Winsor's Narrative and Critical History, vol. vii., app. i.; Johnston, Connecticut, pp. 280-283; King, Ohio, p. 163 et seq.; F. J. Turner, Western State-Making in the Revolutionary Era, in American Historical Review, vol. i., pp. 251-258; Shosuke Sato, The Land Question in the United States, in J. H. U. Studies, series iv., nos. vii.-ix.; Henry Gannett, Boundaries of the United States and of the Several States and Territories; Joseph Blunt, Historical Sketch of the Formation of the Confederacy; Thomas Donaldson, The Public Domain (House Misc. Doc., 47th Congress, 2d session, pt. 4, no. 45.

CESSION BY VIRGINA; ORDINANCE OF 1784.

and much of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Pursuant to the recommendation of Congress, a bill was introduced in the Virginia House of Deputies in the autumn of 1783 for the cession of this territory to the national body,* and in March, 1784, the bill passed with only slight opposition.† Fiske says:

"When we come to trace out the results of her [Maryland's] action, we shall see that just as it was Massachusetts that took the decisive step in bringing on the Revolutionary War when she threw the tea into Boston Harbor, so it was Maryland that, by leading the way toward the creation of a national domain, laid the cornerstone of our Federal Union. Equal credit must be given to Virginia for her magnanimity in making the desired surrender. It was New York, indeed, that set the praiseworthy example; but New York, after all, surrendered only a shadowy

claim, whereas Virginia gave up a magnificent

and princely territory of which she was actually in possession. She might have held back and made endless trouble, just as, at the beginning of the Revolution, she might have refused to make common cause with Massachusetts; but in both instances her leading statesmen showed a farsighted wisdom and breadth of patriotism for which no words of praise can be too strong." ‡

With the exception of the Western Reserve, Congress now had title to all territory north of the Ohio, and

* Jefferson's draft of this bill will be found in Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. iii., pp. 406-407.

† Bancroft, History of the United States, vol. vi., pp. 111-117; Jefferson's letter to Washington, in Sparks, Correspondence of the Revolution, vol. iv., p. 62; McMaster, United States, vol. i., pp. 149150, vol. ii., p. 477; Cooley, Michigan, pp. 123124; Henry, Life of Patrick Henry, vol. ii., pp. 75-109, 219–220; Hunt, Life of Madison, p. 44 et seq.; Curtis, Constitutional History, vol. i., pp. 198-199. The act and deed of cession are in Poore, Federal and State Constitutions, vol. i., pp. 427-428; Thorpe, Federal and State Constitutions, vol. ii., pp. 955-957.

Fiske, Critical Period of American History. p. 195.

385

that body proceeded to enact legislation for its government. Nine years previously this territory had been practically unoccupied by settlers from the older States, but after the war plans for colonization were formed, and hope was expressed that the lands might be sold at a price sufficiently large to pay the debts of the Confederation.* Definite action was taken by Congress in March, 1784, when Virginia had completed her cession, and after much discussion a resolution was finally adopted in April following. It was originally proposed to divide the territory into seventeen States, but this was rejected, and a committee, of which Jefferson was the chairman, proposed a scheme by which ten States were to be formed. There were to be three tiers of States, each of which was to be two degrees of latitude in width, the meridians through the falls of the Ohio and through the mouth of the great Kanawha forming the boundaries of the middle tier, the western tier stretching westward from the first meridian to the Mississippi, and the eastern tier laying eastward from the second meridian to the western line of Pennsylvania.

J. A. Barrett, Evolution of the Ordinance of 1787, with an Account of the Earlier Plans for the Government of the Northwest Territory, in University of Nebraska Seminary Papers, no. i., pp. 4-5 (1891).

For the first draft of the report, see Randall, Life of Jefferson, vol. i., pp. 397-399.

This report will be found in Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. iii., pp. 407-410, and the report of March 22 on pp. 429-432.

386

JEFFERSON'S PLAN FOR FORMING STATES.

The names proposed for the States were curious, being derived from Latin and Greek, and Latinized forms of the Indian names of the rivers in the territory. Sylvania was the name given to the tract stretching from the 45th parallel of latitude to the Lake of the Woods, this constituting the western State of the western tier, and covering what is now the northern half of Wisconsin and the northwestern part of Minnesota. Under Sylvania, stretching from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi in what is now the heart of Wisconsin, was to be Michigania. South of this to the 41st parallel was Assenisipia, below which, between the 39th and 41st parallels, was Illinoia. The present State of Michigan, between lakes Michigan and Huron, was to be called Cherronesus, south of which and east of Assenisipia, stretching to the shores of Lake Erie, was to be Metropotamia. South of Metropotamia and eastward from Illinoia was to be Saratoga. Under the latter two was to be Polypotamia, and east of this Pelisipia. The tenth State was Washington, bounded on the west by Metropotamia and Saratoga, on the south by the Ohio, on the east by Pennsylvania and on the north by Lake Erie.* A code of laws was drawn to serve as a constitution for each State, which would be allowed

[blocks in formation]

self-government when the inhabitants numbered 20,000. These governments were to be established on the following principles-that they should forever remain a part of the Confederacy of the United States; that they should be subject to the Articles of Confederation and the acts and ordinances of Congress just the same as the original States; that they should not interfere in the disposal of the soil by Congress; that they should pay their shares of the public debt, present and prospective, as proportioned by Congress; that the governments should be republican; that lands owned by non-residents should not be taxed higher than those owned by residents in any new State before its delegates had been admitted to vote in Congress. Until the new States should have population sufficient to admit them into the Union, they might send a representative to Congress who should have the privilege of speaking and debating, but not of voting.*

One of the proposed provisions of this code abolished slavery after 1800, and another stated that no person holding a hereditary title might become a citizen of the new States, but both these these provisions provisions were stricken out by Congress.+ Slightly

* Curtis, Constitutional History, vol. i., pp. 200201. The text of the ordinance of 1784 is in Old South Leaflets, no. cxxvii. A map of the proposed division of States will be found in Winsor, Narrative and Critical History, vol. vii., p. 529. † Dunn, Indiana, p. 184 et seq.; King, Ohio, p. 179; Holmes, Annals, vol. ii., pp. 354–356.

THE SLAVERY PROVISO; ORDINANCE OF 1787 INTRODUCED. 387

amended as to boundaries and names of States, the Ordinance was passed by Congress, April 23, 1784, but it never went into effect.*

Some of the Northern men, however, were not satisfied that the slayery proviso had been dropped, and Pickering called the attention of Rufus King to this fact, saying: "To suffer the continuance of slaves till they can gradually be emancipated, in States already overrun with them, may be pardonable, because unavoidable without hazarding greater evils; but to introduce them into countries where none now exist -countries which have been talked of, which we have boasted of, as asylums to the oppressed of the earth can never be forgiven." † Accordingly, on March 16, 1785, King moved that the following proposition be committed: "That there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the States described by the resolve of Congress of the 23d of April, 1784, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall be 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 motion to commit pre

Journals of Congress, vol. ix., p. 153; McLaughlin, The Confederation and the Constitution, p. 117. †Pickering, Life of Pickering, vol. i., p. 510.

vailed by a vote of eight States against four, but the resolutions were docketed by the secretary and were never enacted into law.*

There had been a number of discussions in Congress regarding the disposition of the western lands, and various measures had been suggested which were ultimately incorporated into the Ordinance of 1787, but no action was taken that indicated an agreement on the whole Ordinance until the spring of 1787. On April 23 of that year a committee of Congress, consisting of Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts; C. C. Pinckney, of South Carolina; Smith, of New York; Johnson, of Connecticut, and Henry, of Maryland, reported an "Ordinance for the Government of the Western Territory," which was read for a second time and amended on May 9.† Though the Massachusetts representatives called for a third reading on May 10, action was postponed and this Ordinance did not come up again, except to be referred to a new committee on July 9. About one third of it, however, with some modifications, is included in the Ordinance of 1787 as finally adopted.+

The sudden halt in the consideration of this measure is attributed to

* Dunn, Indiana, p. 192 et seq.; King, Ohio, p. 179; Cooley, Michigan, pp. 126-127; Barrett, Evolution of the Ordinance of 1787, p. 28.

† Dunn, Indiana, p. 195. This draft of the Ordinance is given by W. F. Poole, in North American Review, vol. cxxii., pp. 242-244.

For some of its provisions, see Dunn, Indiana, pp. 195-196.

« PreviousContinue »