'Toward the close of this year Missouri entered the Union. It will be remembered that the vast country known as Louisiana and transferred by France to the United States in 1803, was divided into the Territory of Orleans, and District of Louisiana, the latter being annexed to Indiana; this was in March 1804.* In March 1805 the District of Louisiana became the Territory of Louisiana under its own territorial government.† In June 1812 this became the Territory of Missouri, having then for the first time, a General Assembly. Thus it continued until, late in 1819, application was made for admission into the Union; there being then in the Territory nearly one hundred thousand persons. Upon this application arose that debate and agitation in reference to the admission of new slave States into the Confederacy, which will ever be remembered in our country. The result of the whole was a law, passed March 6 1820, authorizing the people of Missouri to form a Constitution to suit themselves, slavery or no slavery, but prohibiting, thenceforward, all servitude in the United States Territories and the States formed therefrom north of thirty-six and a half degrees of north latitude.§ The provisions of Congress having been agreed to in July by the Missouri Convention,¶ and a Constitution having been formed, on the 23d of November the act of admission was completed.** In November 1819, Governor Cass had written to the War Department, proposing a tour along the southern shore of Lake Superior, and toward the heads of the Mississippi; the purposes being to ascertain the state of the fur trade, to examine the copper region, and especially to form acquaintance and connections with the various Indian tribes.ft In the following January the Secretary of War wrote approving the plan, and in May the expedition Ante, p. 489.-Land Laws, 503 to 510. + Laws of Missouri, i. 6 to 8. Laws of Missouri, i. 9 to 13.-Land Laws, 614. Laws of Missouri, i. 628 to 631. ¶ Laws of Missouri, i. 632 to 634. ** American State Papers, xxi. 625.-Land Laws, 761, 793, 828. ++ American State Papers, vi. 318. 562 Canals talked of in Ohio. 1822 started. A full account of it by Mr. Schoolcraft is easily accessi sible, and we need only say that it was attended with as much success as could have been hoped for. During this year and from this time forward treaties were made with the western and northwestern tribes extinguishing by degrees their title throughout a great part of the original northwestern territory:- of these treaties we shall not, hereafter, speak particularly, except inasfar as they stand connected with the Blackhawk war of 1832. The documents can be found in the sixth volume of the American State Papers; up to 1826 in the Land Laws, p. 1056; in the Executive Papers published since 1826;— and up to 1837 in the Collection of Indian Treaties published at Washington in that year. † 1822. Upon the 31st of January the Ohio Assembly passed a law "authorizing an examination into the practicability of connecting Lake Erie with the Ohio river by a canal."‡ This act grew out of events a sketch of which we think it may be worth while to present. One of the earliest of modern navigable canals was made in Lombardy in 1271; it connected Milan with the Tesino. About the same time, or perhaps earlier, similar works were commenced in Holland. It was not, however, till 1755 that any enterprize of the kind was undertaken in England; this was followed, three years later, by the Duke of Bridgewater's first canal constructed by Brindley. In 1765 an act of Parliament authorized the great work by which Brindley and his patron proposed to unite Hull and Liverpool:-the Trent and the Mersey. This great undertaking was completed in 1777.§ The idea thus carried into effect in Great Britain was soon borne across the Atlantic. The Published at Albany 1821, i. vol. See list of Indian lands in each State and Territory in 1825, in American State Papers, vi. 545. Canal Documents published by Kilbourn, p. 26. Penny Cyclopedia article "canal."-American State Papers, xx. 832 to 834. § American State Papers, xx. 834. 1822. History of Canals in Ohio. 563 great New York canal was suggested by Gouverneur Morris, in 1777; but, as early as 1774, Washington tells us that he had thought of a system of improvements by which to connect the Atlantic with the Ohio; which system, ten years later, he tried most perseveringly to induce Virginia to act upon with energy. In a letter to Governor Harrison, written October 10th 1784,* he also suggests that an examination be made as to the facilities for opening a communication, through the Cuyahoga, and Muskingum or Scioto, between Lake Erie and the Ohio. Such a communication had been previously mentioned by Jefferson in March, 1784; he even proposed a canal to connect the Cuyahoga and Big Beaver. Three years later, Washington attempted to interest the federal government in his views, and exerted himself, by all the means in his power, to learn the exact state of the country about the sources of the Muskingum and Cuyahoga. After he was called to the presidency, his mind was employed on other subjects; but the whites who had meantime began to people the West, used the course which he had suggested, (as the Indians had done before them,) to carry goods from the Lakes to the settlements on the Ohio; so that it was soon known definitely, that upon the summit level were ponds, through which, in a wet season, a complete water connection was formed between the Cuyahoga and Muskingum. From this time the public mind underwent various changes; more and more persons becoming convinced that a canal between the heads of two rivers was far less desirable, in every point of view, than a complete canal communication from place to place, following the valleys of the rivers, and drawing water from them. In 1815, Dr. Drake, of Cincinnati, proposed a canal from some point on the Great Miami to the city in which he resided; and in January, 1818, Mr., afterwards Governor Brown, writes thus, "Experience, the best guide, has tested the infinite superiority of this mode of commercial intercourse over the best roads, or any navigation of the beds of small rivers. In comparing it with the latter, I believe you will find the concurrent testimony of the most skilful and experienced engineers of France and England, against the river, and in favor of the canal, for very numerous reasons. Meanwhile along the Atlantic various experiments had been tried both in regard to improving rivers and digging canals. In Sparks' Washington, ix. €8. 564 History of Canals in Ohio. 1822. October 1784, Virginia, acting under the instigation of Washing ton, passed a law "for clearing and improving the navigation of James river: "* in March 1792, New York established two Companies for "Inland Lock Navigation;" the one to connect the Hudson with Lake Champlain, the other to unite it’with Lake Ontario, whence another canal was to rise round the Great Falls to Erie. These enterprises, and various others were presented to Congress by Mr. Gallatin, Secretary of the Treasury, in an elaborate report made April 4th, 1808.‡ Subsequent to this report, in April 1811, the General Assembly of New York passed a law for the Great Erie canal, and at the head of the Commissioners was Gouverneur Morris, who had proposed the plan thirty-four years previous. To aid her in this vast work New York asked the power of the Federal Government,§ and Ohio passed resolutions in favor of the aid being given. No great help however was given; and New York with the strength imparted by the energy of Clinton, carried through her vast work; and when Ohio began to speak of similar efforts, through the same voice that had encouraged her during her labors, the Empire State spoke encour agement to her younger sister.** When, therefore, Governor Brown in his inaugural address of December 14, 1818, referred to the necessity of providing cheaper ways to market for the farmers of Ohio, he spoke to a people not unprepared to respond favorably. In accordance with the Governor's suggestion, Mr. Sill, on the 7th of January 1819, moved that a committee be appointed to report on the expediency of a canal from the Lake to the Ohio: this was followed on the next day by a further communication from Governor Brown, and the subject was discussed through the winter. In the following December the Executive again pressed the matter, and in January 1820 made a full statement of facts relating to routes so far as they could be ascertained. Farther information was communicated in February, and on the 20th of that month an Act passed, appointing Commissioners to * See the Act and subseqnent ones in Gallatin's Report of 1808. (American State Papers, xx. 798 to 804.)-See also, American State Papers, xxi. 1006. See as above, American State Papers, xx. 781 to 789; as to progress of the work, Ditto, 769 to 780. American State Papers, xx. 724 to 921. This Act is in American State Papers, xxi. 166. American State Papers, xxi. 165. ** Atwater's History, 251, 252. ¶ American State Papers, xxi, 178, 1822. History of Schools in Ohio. 565 determine the course of the proposed canal, provided Congress would aid in its construction, and seeking aid from Congress.That aid not having been given, nothing was done during 1820 or 1821, except to excite and extend an interest in the subject, but upon the 3d of Jauuary 1822, Micajah Williams, chairman of a committee to consider that part of the Governor's message relating to internal improvements,-offered an elaborate report upon the subject; and brought in the bill to which we have already referred as having been passed upon the 31st of the last mentioned month.* The examination authorized by that law was at once commenced, Mr. James Geddes being the engineer. Upon the same day (December 6, 1821) on which Mr. Williams moved for a committee on canals, Caleb Atwater moved for one upon schools; and on the same day that the law above referred to was passed, one was also passed authorizing the appointment of Commissioners to report to the next Legislature a plan for establishing a complete system of Common Schools. To the history of that subject we next ask the reader's attention. The Ordinance of 1787 provided, that, "religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the hap piness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be for ever encouraged." In the previous Ordinance of 1785, regulating the sale of lands in the West, section No. 16 of every township was reserved "for the maintenance of public schools within the said township." And the Constitution of Ohio, using the words of the Ordinance of 1787, says, that "schools and the means of instruction shall for ever be encouraged by legislative provision." In accordance with the feelings shown in these several clauses, the Governors of Ohio always mentioned the subject of education with great respect in their messages,† but nothing was done to make it general. It was supposed, that people would not willingly be taxed to educate the children of their poor neighbors; not so much because they failed to perceive the necessity that exists for all to be educated, in order that the Commonwealth may be safe and prosperous; but because a vast number, that lived in Ohio, still doubted whether Ohio would be The messages, resolutions, reports and laws are all in the "Public Documents concerning the Ohio canals," compiled and published by John Kilbourn, Columbus, 1828: p. 2 to p. 31. See especially Governor Worthington's messages, and that of 1819 in particular. |