PROVISONS OF THE ORDINANCE. observed toward the Indians; lands and property were not to be taken from them without their consent. Such States as might be formed from the territory (not less than three nor more than five) were forever to remain a part of the American Confederacy. While the boundaries of these States were fixed, Congress reserved the right to alter them by forming one or two new States in that part of the territory lying north of a line drawn east and west through the southern bend or extreme of Lake Michigan. Whenever one of these States should contain 60,000 free inhabitants, such State was to be admitted to the Union on an equal footing with the old States in every respect. At that time such State was to adopt a constitution and form a government of a republican nature and in strict conformity with the Articles of Confederation. If, however, the Confederation should deem it wise at any time to admit a State with less than 60,000 free inhabitants, this could be done, if not inconsistent with the general interests of all the States. Slavery and involuntary servitude were prohibited except in the punishment of crime of which the party should have been duly convicted. But it was provided that fugitive slaves owned in other States might be extradited and taken back · Cooley, Michigan, pp. 128–129. On the importance of this slavery proviso see Dunn, Indiana, pp. 219-260. 393 to the owners.* In speaking of this subject, Curtis makes the following remarks: "American legislation has never achieved any thing more admirable, as an internal government, than this comprehensive scheme. Its provisions concerning the distribution of property, the principles of civil and religious liberty which it laid at the foundation of the communities since established under its sway, and the efficient and simple organization by which it created the first machinery of civil society, are worthy of all the praise that has ever attended it. It was not a plan devised in the closet, upon theoretical principles of abstract fitness. It was a constitution of government, drawn by men who understood, from experience, the practical working of the principles which they undertook to embody. Those principles were, it is true, to be applied to a state of society not then formed; but they were taken from states of society, in which they had been tried with success." † * Mr. President King, in February, 1855, printed in the New York Daily Tribune, a chapter from his Life and Correspondence of Rufus King. In this chapter the question is fully and lucidly discussed respecting the authorship of the celebrated Ordinance of 1787. For an extract from this paper, see Appendix II. at the end of the present chapter. See also Dane, Abridgement of American Law (ed. 1824), vol. vii., p. 389; (1830), vol. ix., app., pp. 74-76; F. D. Stone, The Ordinance of 1787, in Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography (1889); John M. Merriam, The Legislative History of the Ordinance of 1787, in Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society; Dunn, Indiana, pp. 177-178, 204-215 and authori ties cited; Life, Journal and Correspondence of Rev. Mannasseh Cutler, LL.D., vol. ii., pp. 367-368; Edward Coles, History of the Ordinance of 1787; J. A. Barrett, The Evolution of the Ordinance of 1787, in University of Nebraska Seminary Papers; Hinsdale, The Old Northwest, chap. xv.; Israel W. Andrews, The Northwest Territory, in Magazine of American History, vol. xvi., pp. 133–147. Many claim that "the authorship of the Ordinance of 1787, and its passage through the old Congress, are the indisputable work, both in its conception and consummation, of the South." For this view see Benton, Thirty Years' View, vol. i., pp. 133136. P. 206. + Curtis, Constitutional History, vol. i., 394 TERRITORY SOUTH OF THE OHIO. It was not until October 5, 1787, that Congress elected Arthur St. Clair governor of the territory, with the capital at Marietta, now in the State of Ohio. The territory then began to grow and received large acquisitions of settlers from the Eastern States.* While the territory north of the Ohio was thus making rapid progress, the country south of this river was in the throes of civil strife. In chapter v., of the Revolutionary Era, we have seen that the Watauga Association had been formed, but for purposes of lucidity we shall give a short review of the circumstances. In 1770 James Robertson, with a party of pioneers, entered Boone's country and made a settlement on the Watauga, a headwater of the Tennessee river. 1772 he was joined by John Sevier, and as the settlement was isolated from the rest of the world, the settlers proceeded to form a government of their own.† This association, called the Watauga Association continued to exist until 1776 when it was incorporated in the government of North Carolina as the District of Washington. Settlers continued to pour into the region, and before the In * For details, see Moore, The Northwest under Three Flags, pp. 327-344, and authorities cited; Dunr, Indiana, p. 263 et seq. † J. G. Ramsey, Annals of Tennessee to the End of the Eighteenth Century, chap. ii.; John Haywood, Civil and Political History of Tennessee (ed. of 1823), p. 41. ‡ See Roosevelt, Winning of the West, vol. i., chap. vii. end of the Revolution numerous permanent settlements had been made beyond the mountains, all possessing a certain amount of self-government. North Carolina owned a large tract of land, comprising nearly 29,000,000 acres, lying beyond the western foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, and stretching past the Tennessee to the Mississippi. It had been settled. about 1758, and in 1784 nearly 10,000 persons were living in the region lying between the Holston, the Cumberland and the hills.* In June, 1784, the North Carolina Legislature passed a bill ceding this land—that is, all of what is now Tennessee the government, allowing two years for the acceptance of the grant, during which time the authority of North Carolina was to be supreme.t Shortly afterward (August 23), delegates from Washington, Greene, and Sullivan counties met at Jonesboro, for the purpose of discussing the affairs of their section; and it was resolved that the three counties to # Albach, Western Annals, p. 507. For a history of the progress of the Holston and Cumberland settlements, see Roosevelt, Winning of the West, vol. ii., chaps. x.-xii. North Carolina considered these settlers "off-scourings of the earth” and "fugitives from justice." See George H. Alden, The State of Franklin, in American Historical Review, vol. viii., p. 277. For a description of the early Indian warfare, see J. R. Gilmore, Advance-Guard of Western Civilization, chaps. i. iv. See Hawkins' letter in Sparks, Correspondence of the Revolution, vol. iv., pp. 69-71; Phelan, History of Tennessee, p. 69; McMaster, United States, vol. i., pp. 155-156; Walker Kennedy, in The South in the Building of the Nation, vol. ii., P. 474. JOHN SEVIER AND THE STATE OF FRANKLIN. should be formed into a State, that the laws should follow those of North Carolina, and that a petition should be sent to Congress, advising the acceptance of the cession, and asking admission for the new State.* An address to the people was then issued, asking their support and coöperation. It was now decided to hold elections for five delegates from each county, who should meet at Jonesboro, September 16, for the purpose of framing a constitution and naming the new State, but it was not until late in November that the fifteen delegates met, and then only to separate in anger.t The North Carolina Legislature thereupon repealed the bill of cession, and established a supreme court at Jonesboro, granting also certain rights for which the western settlers had long been contending. At this time John Sevier had become a leader among the inhabitants * we Ramsey, Annals of Tennessee, pp. 287-288; Roosevelt, Winning of the West, vol. iii., pp. 155157; Phelan, History of Tennessee, p. 71 et seq.; Fiske, Critical Period, pp. 199-201. "If should be so happy," they said, 66 as to have a separate government, vast numbers from different quarters, with a little encouragement from the public, would fill up our frontier, which would strengthen us, improve agriculture, perfect manufactures, encourage literature and every thing truly laudable. The seat of government being among ourselves, would evidently tend, not only to keep a circulating medium in gold and silver among us, but draw it from many individuals living in other states, who claim large quantities of lands that would lie in the bounds of the new state."- Ramsey, pp. 288-289. † McMaster, United States, vol. i., p. 160; Roosevelt, Winning of the West, vol. iii., pp. 158159. 395 of the section, and had been one of the first to advocate the formation of a new State, but when North Carolina redressed the grievances of the western settlers, he advocated that they remain firm and faithful to the laws of North Carolina. The members, however, rejected his advice, opened the convention and elected Sevier president.* On May 23, 1785, Congress asked North Carolina to reconsider her act of the previous November and once more to cede the lands, but the State refused, being too intent on bringing her rebellious citizens to terms.† When the westerners heard of the resolution of Congress, they expressed much surprise, for they said that inasmuch as North Carolina had given them away and the gift had been refused, they were now absolutely independent. Early in 1785, therefore, they had called a convention, had given the State the name of Franklin, had framed a constitution, which was submitted to the people for approval, and had elected a legislature which was actually in session before Congress passed the resolution asking North Carolina again to cede the lands. This legislature had met at Phelan, History of Tennessee, chap. x.; Roosevelt, p. 159. † Governor Alexander Martin issued a manifesto to the inhabitants of Franklin at the end of which he said: "North Carolina's resources are not yet so exhausted or her spirits damped, but she may take satisfaction for this great injury received, regain her government over the revolted territory, or render it not worth possessing."— Phelan, History of Tennessee, p. 81. 396 THE DISPUTE DECIDED; TENNESSEE CEDED. Jonesboro, enacted many laws, and had adjourned on March 31. It had also been decided that, as much time must necessarily elapse before the constitution could become known to all, a third convention should not be held to ratify the constitution until November 14, at which time the delegates were to assemble at Greeneville.* Two governments now existed in the territory, each with its courts, justices, sheriffs, state officials and militia, and each enacting laws and levying taxes. Sevier's followers endeavored to hold court at Jonesboro, but the rival officials broke up the court and seized its papers. Sevier retaliated by committing the same act upon a judge sitting under the authority of North Carolina, and thus the battle was waged back and forth for some time. But an outbreak of war with the Cherokees, Chippewas, Twightwees, Tawas, Shawanese and Pottawattamies put an end to local animosities for the time being, and all energies were expended in protecting the frontier. Sevier organized a band of 160 horsemen, and, crossing over the Unaka Mountains to the Hiwassee, attacked and burned three Indian villages, killing fifteen Indians. However, as there were supposed to be McMaster, United States, vol. i., pp. 262-265; Roosevelt, Winning of the West, vol. iii., p. 166 et seq. Phelan, History of Tennessee, pp. 87-88; Roosevelt, p. 170; Ramsey, Annals of Tennessee, pp. 339-340; Haywood, History of Tennessee. about 1,000 braves on the warpath, it was decided expedient to return to the settlement.* Efforts were now made to settle the dispute between the two commonwealths, the offer of compromise coming first from Franklin and then from North Carolina. It was finally agreed that public business was to be carried on by the authorities of the two States acting in conjunction, until the differences could be properly and amicably adjusted. Sevier served throughout his term of office which expired in March, 1788, and as no successor was elected the State of Franklin, after three years of fitful life, passed out of existence. In 1790 the government accepted from North Carolina (the act being approved April 2, 1790) the cession of Tennessee, and the latter became part of the Territory of the United States South of the River Ohio, remaining in this status until admitted to the Union in 1796.|| * Roosevelt, Winning of the West, vol. iii., pp. 177 ea seq., 189; McMaster, United States, vol. i., pp. 384-385. On the various Indian campaigns, see Gilmore, Advance-Guard of Western Civilization, chap. vi. Phelan, History of Tennessee, pp. 93–100. For other details see F. J. Turner, Western StateMaking in the Revolutionary Era, in American Historical Review, vol. i., pp. 258-261; George H. Alden, The State of Franklin, in American Historical Review, vol. viii., pp. 271-289; J. R. Gilmore, John Sevier as a Commonwealth Builder; Roosevelt, Winning of the West, vol. iii., pp. 180183. The act of cession will be found in Thorpe, Federal and State Constitutions, vol. vi., pp. 3409-3413. See Walker Kennedy, in The South in the KENTUCKIANS PETITION FOR SEPARATE GOVERNMENT. The Kentuckians were also becoming restless, especially as the Indians were committing depredations on the southern borders,* and the community had no means of organized defence. Benjamin Logan, a colonel in the militia, therefore called a meeting of citizens at Danville to deliberate upon a plan for defence. The opinion prevailed at this meeting that the citizens could not legally carry on a campaign against the Indians, nor even call out the militia, no matter how great the danger. There was no authority even to provide ammunition for the use of the militia.† It was therefore decided that delegates should be chosen to meet at Danville, December 24, 1784, for the purpose of drafting an appeal to Virginia for permission to form a new State. This convention resolved "that many inconveniences under which they labored might be remedied by the legislature of Virginia, but that the great and substantial evils to which they were subjected were beyond the power and control of the government, namely, from their remote and detached situation, and would never be remedied until the district had a government of its Building of the Nation, vol. ii., pp. 475-479; * For details, see Roosevelt, Winning of the West, vol. iii., p. 206 et seq. † Gilmore, Advance-Guard of Western Civiliza tion, pp. 126-127; Roosevelt, vol. iii., pp. 217 218. Marshall, History of Kentucky, p. 190; The South in the Building of the Nation, vol. i., pp. 254-255. 397 own.' It was then decided to hold another convention, May 3, 1785,* and on that date the second convention met at Danville, then resolving "First-That a petition be presented to the Legislative Assembly, praying that this district be established into a state separate from Virginia; second-That another convention of representatives be elected to meet at Danville on the second Monday in August, to take further under consideration the state of the district; third-That this convention recommend that an election of deputies for the proposed assembly be on the principles of equal representation on the basis of population.”† A third convention was held on August 14, 1785, and a petition sent to the Virginia Assembly, which brought forth some results in June, 1786, when an act was passed authorizing the separation. But annexed to the proposition were certain conditions relating to boundary, the proportion of the public debt to be assumed by Kentucky, the navigation of the Ohio, etc., which the Kentuckians would not accept. It was furthermore provided that a fourth convention should be held at which the will of the people should be freely expressed, either for or against sepa Ibid, vol. i., pp. 255–256. Ibid, vol. i., p. 256. See also Roosevelt, Win ning of the West, vol. iii., pp. 219-220. Madison's Works (Congress ed.), vol. i., pp. 207-208. |