THE STRUGGLE FOR STATEHOOD IN OHIO
BY RUHL JACOB BARTLETT, M. A.
The. admission of Ohio as a state into
the Union,
marked the end of a long and bitter
political contest
both within and without the Northwest
Territory.* It
was that age old conflict between the
forces that are
progressive and those that are
conservative, for it must
be remembered that the closing years of
the 19th cen-
tury marked a period of rapid political
transition in
American history. The colonists who had
so gallantly
adorned themselves in new garments of
political liberty
and equality in 1776 found that their
desires had grown
by 1800 to a demand for additional
plumage, in the way
of popular government. The
pre-Revolutionary leaders
as well as those who had piloted the
new government
through its first twelve years of
existence, did not look
with favor upon the too rapid growth of
democratic
ideals, but were content with the old.
Unaided then, by these Revolutionary
fathers, a
great political renaissance had taken
place in the minds
of the American people. The
Revolutionary War and
the new responsibility after the war
was in a great
measure the cause of the change. New
England colo-
* This seems to be the best designation
for the land that was gov-
erned by the Ordinance of 1787. It was
first known as the North-
western Territory and subsequently was
legally named The Territory
of the United States Northwest of the
Ohio River. Most writers have
adopted either the title, Northwest
Territory or simply The Territory;
but Judge Jacob Burnet and William
Maxwell write of it as the North-
western Territory.
(472)
The Struggle for Statehood in
Ohio 473
nists, who never in their lives had
travelled a dozen
miles from their native town, and
Virginia colonists,
who had not looked beyond their native
valleys, were
brought into contact by the war. Their
intellectual and
political horizon was extended and a
national conscious-
ness was born, which in its travail
brought forth the
desire for a more democratic form of
government. This
contest, that was shaking the people of
the original
states, inevitably was carried to the
rapidly increasing
population of the western lands. The
conflict in the
west took the form of a controversy
over the admission
of Ohio, as a state into the Union, and
extended over a
period of four years, from 1799 to
1803. But the forces
of reform had been brewing before 1799,
and therefore
it will be necessary for us to consider
briefly the early
history of Ohio, in order to understand
fully the feel-
ings of its inhabitants, which caused
them to be either
such strong supporters or such fervent
enemies of
statehood.
The fertility of the Ohio valley had
for a long time
been a matter of common knowledge to
the colonists of
America. For its possession the French
and Indian
War was fought, and for it also the heroic
George
Rogers Clark led his intrepid band to
Kaskaskia during
the winter of 1778-9. After the
Revolution, settlers
began to migrate to this land, without
much regard for
the rights of the states to which it
belonged. These
rights, either authentic or fictitious,
formed the subject
of much long and bitter discussion
among several of the
states, and Congress had at an early
time, made an
attempt at conciliation by assuming
control, with the
consent of the states, of the disputed
Territory.
In 1787 Congress perfected a system of
government
474
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
for the Territory of the United States
northwest of the
Ohio river. For the purpose of this
paper, suffice it to
say, that the government of the new
Territory was ad-
ministered by a governor and three
judges, appointed
by the President. General Arthur St.
Clair was the
choice of President Adams for the first
governor of the
Ohio country, and on the 9th of July,
1788, the new
executive completed his long journey
across the moun-
tains of Pennsylvania and arrived at
Marietta.1 On
the 15th of the same month, and in the
presence of the
small but sturdy band of pioneers who
had gathered in
the Campus Martius of Marietta, the
Governor assumed
formal possession of the Territory.2
The succeeding ten years of Ohio's
history is eco-
nomic and industrial rather than
political. It was a
decade of migration, of settlement and
development, of
home seeking and home building, and of
Indian wars.
Nevertheless this was an important
period in the history
of Ohio and of particular significance
for the subject
under discussion, for the people who
came to Ohio dur-
ing this period were to determine the
political character
of the government . Of these immigrants
there were
two distinct classes politically; those
who came from
the east and those who came from the
south. The
pioneers from the Federalist states,
Massachusetts and
Connecticut, very naturally settled in
eastern Ohio, thus
making the cities of Marietta and
Cleveland the centers
of the Federalist party in the
Territory, while on the
other hand, the Republicans of Virginia
and Kentucky
just as naturally settled in central
and western Ohio,
making Chillicothe the center of
republicanism.
1 Rardall and Ryan -- History of
Ohio, Vol. 2, p. 465.
2 Rufus King -- Ohio, p. 199
The Struggle for Statehood in
Ohio 475
The government in the Territory from
1788 to 1798
reflects the personality and political
theory of Governor
St. Clair. He had been schooled in New
England ideas
of government, and of course carried
these ideas with
him to the western country. He shared
in the political
beliefs of Washington and Adams, which,
as men-
tioned at the outset, were considered
liberal in 1776 but
became somewhat conservative in 1800.
The character
of his government, therefore, was
autocratic rather than
democratic. Culprits were punished by
fines, the pil-
lory or the stocks, and people were put
into prison or
sold into slavery for debt.3 Everywhere and in any
case, the will of the Governor was
absolute.
This condition of government made the
character
of the emigration to Ohio of great
importance. The
people who came from the cities of New
England were
accustomed to a strong centralized
government and, in
some measure, to the rigorous
regulation of lives by
law. Therefore, they did not fret under
the sturdy ad-
ministration of Governor St. Clair. On
the other hand,
those adventuresome frontiersmen of
western Virginia
and Kentucky, who, impelled by the
western rush of
population, crossed the Ohio river from
the south and
southeast and settled in southern and
western Ohio,
were unaccustomed to administrative
control, and hence
somewhat dissatisfied with the
government. It is of im-
portance, then, to keep these two types
of immigrants in
mind, for out of them, were to develop
two factions
which dominated the political thought
of the Territory
3 Randall and Ryan -- History of
Ohio, Vol. 2, p. 466, also Daniel
J. Ryan -- Ohio, p. 49.
476
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
and whose influences can be traced
through fifteen or
twenty years of Ohio's history.4
The Territory grew so rapidly in
population that by
1798 it contained 5000 free male
inhabitants, which, ac-
cording to the Ordinance of 1787, was
required for the
establishment of a Territorial
Legislature. Accord-
ingly, in December of 1798, Governor
St. Clair ordered
an election to be held for the purpose
of electing mem-
bers for such a body.5 Any
freeholder of fifty or more
acres of territorial land, who was a
citizen and had re-
sided within the Territory for two
years, possessed the
right of suffrage. The candidate for
office, however,
was required to be a free holder of 200
or more acres of
territorial land in addition to the
qualifications of voters.
Under these conditions twenty-two men
were elected to
compose the first legislature of the
Territory.
The representatives met at Cincinnati,
February 4,
1799.6 Their first duty, in pursuance
of the Ordinance
of 1787, was to nominate ten men of the
Territory, who
were free holders of at least 500 acres
of land, and
from whom the President would select
five to compose
the Legislative Council.7 Having
made these nomina-
tions the legislature adjourned to meet
again at the
same place on September 16, 1799.8 On
September 24,
1799, the Governor addressed the
Legislature, con-
gratulated them on the formation of the
new govern-
ment, and called their attention to the
problems which,
in his opinion, should receive their
attention.9 The
4 The influence of the ardent states'
rights supporters was shown in
the "Sweeping Resolutions" and
the National bank case.
5 Western Spy
and Hamilton Gazette, December 8,
1798.
6 W.
H. Smith -- The St. Clair Papers, Vol. 1, p. 207.
7 Jacob Burnet -- Notes on the
Northwestern Territory, p. 291.
8 Ibid, p. 292.
9 Western Spy, September
31, 1799.
The Struggle for Statehood in
Ohio 477
Legislative Council sent an
exceptionally laudatory
reply to the Governor, but the reply of
the Assembly,
though polite and respectful, obviously
lacked the
profuse praise contained in the reply
of the Council.10
In order to understand the subsequent
history of the
Territory, we must first analyze the
status quo of the
Governor since the establishment of the
Legislature.
First and most important of all, he
possessed the power
of absolute veto on all legislative acts.
His appointive
power extended over all justices of the
peace and army
officers, and he licensed all lawyers
and innkeepers. In
short, no legislative or administrative
act could be com-
pleted without his knowledge and
approval.11 These
were not new or additional powers that
had been be-
stowed upon him, but the exercise of
them in any ar-
bitrary fashion had a new significance
owing to the
existence of the Legislature.
It is the opinion of some writers that
the Legislature
registered their disapproval of the
Governor's regime,
when, in their first official act, they
selected William
Henry Harrison to represent the
Territory in Congress,
instead of Arthur St. Clair, jr., the
son of the Gov-
ernor. There is further significance to
this act when
it is understood that Mr. Harrison was
a strong Anti-
Federalist and hence a political enemy
of the Governor.12
However that may be, the first real
clash of authority
between Governor St. Clair and the
Legislature was
over the right to subdivide counties
and locate their
seats of government. Until February 4, 1799, the
Governor had undisputed power to
establish the bounda-
10 Western Spy, October
8, 1799.
11 Burnet -- Notes on the
Northwestern Territory, p. 475.
12 Western Spy, October 8, 1799 -- The President of the first
Legis-
lature was Edward Tiffin and the
Secretary was John Riley.
478
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
ries of counties and to designate the
county seat, but
since the establishment of the
Legislature, a good many
people of the Territory, and the
majority of the mem-
bers of the Legislature itself,
believed that this power
rested no longer with Governor St.
Clair.13
Nathaniel Massie seemed to be the
leader of the op-
ponents of the Governor on this
question. Mr. Massie
had migrated to the Territory from
Kentucky,14 which
at that time, was a center of
democratic ideals, and un-
der the influence of Thomas Jefferson.15
He had started
a settlement at Manchester in Adams
County, and
wished a county seat to be located at
that place. About
the middle of October, 1799, a petition
from the citizens
of Adams County was presented to the
Legislature, ask-
ing that Manchester be made the county
seat.
On November 5, the Legislature granted
the peti-
tion, and sent the bill to the Governor
for his signa-
ture.16 The Governor vetoed
the measure, as he did six
other bills of similar nature passed
during the first legis-
tive session,17 and located
the county seat at Adamsville.
He later tersely remarked that the
jurisdiction in the
case rested with himself and that after
investigation, he
had found Adamsville to be the more
suitable place for
a seat of government.18
Other marked differences of opinion
arose between
the Legislature and the Governor, and
in this connec-
tion, two acts of the Legislature are
of significance: 1st,
an act abolishing the property
qualifications for voting,
13 Western Spy, October 15; November 5, 1799.
14 David Meade Massie -- Life of
Nathaniel Massie, Cincinnati, 1896,
p. 52.
15 Robert Chaddock -- Ohio Before 1850, New York, 1908, p. 221.
16 Western Spy, November 5, 1899.
17 S.
P. Chase -- Statutes of Ohio, Vol. 1, p. 29.
18 Western Spy, December 24, 1799.
The Struggle for Statehood in
Ohio 479
and thereby extending the suffrage to
all free male in-
habitants over twenty-one years of age;19 and 2d, a reso-
lution remonstrating with Congress
against the unre-
stricted veto power of the executive.20
The extension
of suffrage bill was promptly vetoed by
the Governor.
There was a conflict of authority then,
between the
Governor and the representatives of the
people, as soon
as those representatives had a legal
means to express
their opinions. These differences of
opinion concerning
the rights of government in the
Territory, were, in
themselves trivial and local, but in
their principles, were
fundamental and national. The strong
desire on the
part of the people of the Territory for
local self govern-
ment was very similar to the democratic
movement
which swept through the old states and
elected Thomas
Jefferson to the Presidency in the fall
of 1800.21
Under the existing conditions in the
Territory, there
seemed little chance for reform. The
veto of the Gov-
ernor was absolute, the Council was not
responsible to
the people, and the Legislature was
elected by a limited
suffrage. The leaders of the reform
movement, there-
fore, began to look forward to the time
when the eastern
part of the Territory would have a
sufficiency of popula-
tion to entitle its admission into the
Union as a state,
and they made known their desires.
The Governor was not in sympathy with
the liberal
movement, but was alive to its
existence, and made early
attempts to hinder its progress and
prevent its success.
On February 18, 1800, he wrote a letter
to the Terri-
torial Representative, Mr. Harrison, in
which he pro-
19
Smith -- St. Clair Papers. Vol. 2, p. 447, et seq.
20 Ibid, p. 449.
21 Chaddock
-- Ohio Before 1850, p. 234.
480 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
posed a division of the Territory, for
the purpose of
government. In view of later events it
is important to
know the boundaries of this proposed
division. The
eastern division was to include the
lands of the Terri-
tory which lie between the Pennsylvania
boundary and
a line drawn north from the forks of
the Scioto River
to the Indiana boundary, and thence to
the northwest
corner of the Connecticut Reserve. The
central division
extended westward from the eastern
division to a line
drawn north from the falls of the Ohio
to the mouth of
the Chicago River. The western division extended
westward as far as the Mississippi
river. The capitals
of these several divisions of land were
to be Marietta,
Cincinnati and Vincennes respectively.22
The Governor
went on to state, in his letter to Mr.
Harrison, that his
opposition to the use of the Miami and
Wabash Rivers
as boundary lines, was based on two
points: The eastern
division would be too large, and the
Indian claims to
much of the western land was not as yet
extinguished.23
However sincere the Governor may have
been in
stating his reasons for division to Mr.
Harrison, he at
least had other motives which he did
not reveal to the
representative. These other schemes he
communicated
to his friend, Senator Ross of
Pennsylvania, in a letter
dated December, 1799. To the Senator he
said: 1st,
that the people of the Territory were
in no condition to
form a state government; 2d, that they
were too igno-
rant to form a constitution; 3d, that
they were too far
removed from Washington to feel the
power of the
National Government; 4th, that they
were, for the most
22 Western Spy, February 18, 1800;
King -- Ohio, p. 276; Smith -- St.
Clair Papers, Vol. 1, p. 215.
23 Ibid, February
18, 1880.
The Struggle for Statehood in
Ohio 481
part, people who had no ties connecting
them with the
people of the East, and that it would
be very inexpedient
to have another state formed whose
inhabitants were as
Republican as those of Kentucky.24
Governor St. Clair's real intentions
regarding the
future of the Territory, are, it seems,
rather clear. He
knew that sooner or later states would
be formed out
of the Territory, but desired to
prolong that process,
and thereby his own regime, as long as
possible. The
smallness of his proposed eastern
division would pre-
vent it from having, for some time to
come, a sufficient
population to be admitted as a state,
and after being
admitted, it would, in all probability,
be a Federalist
state; the inhabitants of the
Connecticut Reserve coun-
try, and the people in and about
Marietta being for the
most part Federalists.25
The House of Representatives had
already appointed
a committee to investigate conditions
in the Northwest
Territory, and Mr. Harrison was made
chairman of the
committee.26 In its report, the
committee recommended
a division of the Territory for the
purpose of a more
satisfactory government; the rapid
increase of settle-
ment over so great an area made
government from one
place difficult and almost
impossible. The committee
then advised Congress to divide the
Territory by an
imaginary line, drawn north from a
point on the Ohio
River opposite the Kentucky River, to
Fort Recovery,
and thence to the Canadian boundary.27
24 Massie, Nathaniel Massie, p.
69; King -- Ohio, p. 277.
25 According to the Ordinance of 1787, 60,000 free male
inhabitants,
or less conditionally, were necessary
for statehood.
26 Smith --St. Clair Papers, Vol.
1, p. 214.
27 Ohio Archaeological and Historical
Society Publications, Vol. 4,
p. 130; Western Spy, June 11,
1800; Smith -- St. Clair Papers, Vol. 1, pp.
214-216.
Vol. XXXII -- 31.
482
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
On May 7, 1800, Congress passed an act
dividing
the Territory as recommended by the
committee. The
act was to take effect July 4, 1800,
and the western di-
vision was to be called Indiana
Territory, with its cap-
ital at Vincennes. William Henry
Harrison was ap-
pointed to be the first Governor and
John Gibson, of
Pennsylvania, was the first secretary.
The capital of
the eastern division, which was still
to be called the
Territory of the United States
northwest of the Ohio
river, was removed from Cincinnati to
Chillicothe, be-
cause the latter place was nearer the
center of the Ter-
ritory.28
The removal of the capital from
Cincinnati caused
quite a stir among the discordant
elements in Ohio.
Governor St. Clair expressed his belief
that Congress
had exhausted its power in dividing the
Territory with-
out its consent, but the fact that
Chillicothe was the
center of the Anti-Federalist element,
no doubt biased
the Governor's opinion of congressional
privilege to no
small degree. Nevertheless there was
enough contro-
versy over the subject to influence Mr.
Harrison to write
a letter dated May 7, 1800, to the
people of the Terri-
tory, in which he attempted to defend
himself and ex-
plain his reasons for recommending the
removal of the
capital.29 The controversy
assumed a political aspect
and many heated controversial letters
appeared in the
Cincinnati newspapers of the period.30
The second session of the first Territorial
Legisla-
ture met at the call of the Governor at
Chillicothe, No-
vember 3, 1800, and was addressed by
him on Novem-
28 Western Spy, June 11, 1800,
Letter from Mr. Harrison to the
People of Ohio.
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid -- July
9, August 13, August 27, September 20, September 27.
The Struggle for Statehood in
Ohio 483
ber 5.31 After having chosen a
territorial representative
to Congress,32 Mr. Harrison
having been made Gov-
ernor of Indiana Territory, the
question of county
boundaries and seats of government was
again taken
up.33
A committee, composed of Messrs. Massie,
Go-
forth and Worthington, drew up and
presented to the
Governor a petition, requesting him to
reconsider the
stand he had taken concerning his right
to establish
county boundaries, and to return vetoed
bills to the
House from which they had originated.34
To this peti-
tion or remonstrance, the Governor
replied in a very
polite and gentlemanly manner, but was
adamant in his
refusal to concede authority.35
At this session of the legislature a
resolution was
also introduced, which might be called
the forerunner
of the Division Bill of 1801. The
resolution provided
for the holding of the legislature at
Marietta, Chilli-
cothe and Cincinnati, consecutively,
but it was lost by a
vote of eight to ten.36
On the 2d of December the Governor
notified the
Assembly that his term of office would
expire on the
9th instant, and owing to the fact that
the Secretary, in
his opinion, could not legally take his
place, the Legisla-
ture would be prorogued on that day.
Jacob Burnet,
who was always a friend and supporter
of Governor
St. Clair, mentioned how significant it
was that this
notice of dissolution was given at a
time when the Sec-
31 Western Spy, November
12, 1800.
32 Mr. William McMillan was appointed to
Congress until March 4,
1801, and Mr. Paul Fearing was appointed
for the two years following.
33 Western Spy, November 19, 1800.
34 Western Spy, December
12, 1800.
35 Ibid -- January 7, 1801. In the reply he made counter propositions
which the Legislature would not accept -- Burnet,
Notes, p. 325.
38 Ibid, December
10, 1800.
484 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
retary, Mr. Byrd, was absent from the
capital,37 and it
was common knowledge that the
Legislature would have
been called back into session had the
Secretary received
notice of their dissolution before they
had dispersed to
their homes. It was generally accepted
that such au-
thority rested with the Secretary.38
The Legislature, although not agreeing
that the
Governor had a right to dismiss them,
knew that he had
the power to do so, and did not attempt
to remain in
session. This arbitrary exercise of
authority by the
Governor, in connection with the older
questions of
county boundaries and the absolute
veto, caused much
unfavorable criticism of him and his
regime, and turned
the attention of the people toward the
formation of a
state government. The pages of the Western
Spy dur-
ing the fall and winter of 1800 were
fairly replete with
discussions of the political situation.
Each issue con-
tained one or more letters from
subscribers, who were
in favor of or against the
administration. Such literary
pseudonyms as Delector, Bystander,
Palladius and the
like made very frequent appearance.
Owing to the fact that the Governor had
not been
reappointed at the expiration of his
term, the Anti-Fed-
eralists decided to make the best of
their opportunity in
an attempt to accomplish his removal.
Accordingly,
Thomas Worthington was sent to
Philadelphia for that
purpose.39 The Federalists knew of the
movement on
37 Burnet, Notes, p. 327; Smith
-- St. Clair Papers, p. 252.
38 Randall and Ryan -- History of
Ohio, Vol. 3, p. 84.
Mr. Byrd, who at that time was in
Cincinnati, had heard rumors
that the Legislature was to be prorogued
on the 9th, but he thought that
it was a trick to prevent certain
petitions, praying for the dismissal of
the Governor, being sent to the
President; if the Governor's term ex-
pired on the 9th, his reappointment
would be made before the petitions
could reach Philadelphia -- See
references in note (37).
39 Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio,
Vol. 3, pp. 85-88.
The Struggle for Statehood in
Ohio 485
foot and wanted to send Judge Todd of
Trumbull
County to advocate their cause, but
were restrained
from
doing so by reason of insufficient funds.40 How-
ever Mr. Worthington was unsuccessful
in his mission
and on December 22, 1800, President
Adams recom-
mended the Governor's reappointment for
a term of
three years, and the Senate confirmed
the appointment
February 3, 1801.41
During the summer of 1801 and especially
about
election time, there was great
agitation over the ques-
tion of statehood. The inhabitants of
Marietta met in
a mass meeting and resolved that the
people of the Ter-
ritory should not concern themselves in
an attempt to
form a state government until they had
better provision
for their wants, better schools, more
improvements, and
a larger surplus of money in the
Treasury.42 On the
other hand it was shown that the
expenses of the Terri-
tory for the year 1800 were $15,440.00,
while the
revenue was $27,926.00.43
Some writers were of the
opinion that a state government would
attract men of
wealth to the Territory, and others
thought that the
poor who were to work on the farms were
more desir-
able than men of means.44
40 W. E. Gilmore, Life of Edward Tiffin, p. 28.
41 Western Spy, February 11, 1801.
42 Ibid.
43 Scioto Gazette, October 24, 1801.
44 Western Spy, February 11, 1801: A person from Chillicothe call-
ing himself "A Friend of the
People" and writing in the "Scioto Gazette"
October 24, 1801, said in part:
"Let a change take place. Let a govern-
ment congenial to Americans be adopted,
and it will be like opening the
flood gates of a mill, wealth will flow
in upon us, improvements and
agriculture will adorn our lands; the
creeks and rivers emptying into
the Ohio will roll along the Mississippi
conveying food to thousands
suffering from want; manufactures will
spring up in the wilderness;
proper arrangements for education will
be perfected; a new Athens with
other seminaries of learning will
discover their towering steeples above
the lofty oaks, and soon send forth into
the world youths ornamental to
human nature. Our prolific plains
covered with herds, our farms loaded
486 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
In October 1801 the members of the
second Terri-
torial Legislature were elected and
they met in session
at Chillicothe November 24, 1801.45 Edward Tiffin was
chosen President of the Assembly and
John Riley Secre-
tary.46 During the early days of this session bills were
passed incorporating Cincinnati, Dayton
and Chilli-
cothe, and establishing a University at
Athens, but the
most important measure of the Assembly
was an act
to establish the boundaries of the
first three states to
be
formed out of the Northwest Territory.47 The
boundaries and capitals of these states
as proposed in
the act were practically the same as
those authorized
by Governor St. Clair in his letter to
Mr. Harrison,
February 18, 1800.48
The passage of this act produced great
excitement
in Chillicothe. When the provisions of
the bill became
known, mobs broke out and the rioting
lasted for two
days.49 Such a mob gathered
and threatened to enter
the house of Captain Gregg, in which
the Governor and
several of his friends lodged,50 and,
had it not been for
from the lap of plenty gladdening their
owners' hearts, and our govern-
ment like the tree of liberty extending
its branches over all our citizens,
and with paternal care sheltering and
defending them from tyranny and
oppression, will cause the astonished
traveller to contemplate our rising
greatness with amazement and cry out in
the language of the venerable
Franklin, 'Here dwells liberty -- here's
my Country'."
45 Western Spy, December 12, 1801; Smith -- St. Clair Papers, Vol.
1, p. 222.
46 Ibid, December 12, 1801.
47 Ibid, December 26, 1801. The vote on the measure was 12 to 8,
St. Clair Papers, Vol. 1, p. 222.
48 Cutler -- Life of Ephraim Cutler, p.
55.
Thus it will be noticed that the
Legislature sustained the Governor
in his ideas of Territorial division.
But, it must be remembered that
this Legislature was elected by a
restricted suffrage and no doubt the
minority believed that the real popular
will rested with them on this
subject. The vote was 12 to 8.
49 Robert Oliver, in a letter to Griffin
Greene, December 29, 1801,
quoted in Ohio Centennial Celebration
Proceedings -- Ohio Arch. and
Hist. Society Publications, gives
a full account of the affair, also Burnet
-- Notes, p. 328.
The Struggle for Statehood in
Ohio 487
the timely interference of Mr.
Worthington, serious
violence might have been done.51 It
seems that the idea
of attacking the house developed when
some one had
overheard Mr. Putman give this
toast: "May the
Scioto have the borders of two great
and flourishing
states."52
The next day the Governor gave the
names of some
of the rioters to Judge Samuel Findley
and ordered him
to arrest them. The Judge refused to
comply with the
Governor's order, and being threatened,
he imme-
diately resigned.53 The
Governor then sent a note to
Mr. Tiffin relative to the outbreaks in
the city, and re-
quested him to have certain men put in
custody for
trial.54 The remainder of
the time that the Legislature
was in session was without further
disturbance. There
was a minority resolution, signed by
those who did not
favor the Division Bill and an act was
passed removing
the seat of the Legislature to
Cincinnati.55
The feeling in the Territory over the
question of
statehood and the conduct of the
Governor was at fever
heat. The Anti-Federalists put all
persons who could
possibly act under requisition to ride
throughout the
Territory with petitions praying
Congress to admit
Ohio as a state. The Governor's public
and private
life was vilified, his appointments
were found fault
with, and his arbitrary conduct was
censured.56 Benja-
min Van Cleve characterized the whole
country as
being "in ferment."57
50 Cutler, Ephraim Cutler, p. 55.
51 Van Cleve, Memoirs, p. 64.
52 Cutler -- Life of
Ephraim Cutler, p. 55.
53 Western Spy, January 2, 1802.
54 Ibid, January 2, 1802.
55 Ibid.
56 Randall and Ryan, Ohio, Vol.
3, p. 93; Van Cleve, Memoirs, p. 66.
57 Van Cleve, Memoirs, p. 64.
488
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Governor St. Clair, in a letter to
Senator Ross, had
spoken of the Democratic-Republican
party as being "a
damned faction that was dragging the
country into
ruin." So, on account of this
statement and also by
reason of the Governor's well-known
Federalistic ten-
dencies, his opponents thought that
President Jeffer-
son could be induced to remove him from
office.58 Ac-
cordingly, Messrs. Worthington and
Baldwin were dis-
patched to Washington to oppose the
passage by Con-
gress of the late territorial act for
the division of the
Territory, and to secure the removal of
the Governor.59
For the furtherance of the last purpose
the Anti-
Federalists decided to draw up a formal
list of griev-
ances against the Governor and present
them to the
President. Nathaniel Massie and Edward
Tiffin drew
up the list during the early days of
February, 1802, and
Thomas Worthington presented them to
the President
on February 20, 1802.60 The Governor
was alleged to
have usurped legislative power,
mis-used the veto
power, endeavored to influence the
Judiciary and to be
generally hostile to the Republican
government.
There was considerable fear on the part
of the
friends of the Governor that his
removal would be ac-
complished. Paul Fearing wrote to
Ephraim Cutler,
January 18, 1802, saying that he was
afraid the Gov-
ernor would be removed, "for he
should have been more
cautious in his words to Judge
Findley." Return J.
Meigs also thought he would be removed
and said that
the conduct of the Governor was such
that none could
defend it. John Cleve Symmes said that
Congress be-
58 W. E. Gilmore, Life of Edward
Tiffin, p. 38;
Randall and Ryan,
Vol. 3, p. 93.
59 Cutler, Ephraim Cutler, p. 58.
60 Randall and Ryan -- Ohio, Vol.
2, p. 98.
The Struggle for Statehood in
Ohio 489
lieved the people of Ohio were wise
enough to make
good Republicans, once Governor St.
Clair, "that
aristocratic old sinner," was out
of the way.61
Governor St. Clair knew of this strong
movement
on foot to effect his removal and he
wrote a letter to the
President in self defense. He denied
the charges made
against him by his opponents; asked the
President to
remember his long service in the
Territory during its
formative period; and explained the deep
humiliation
that removal at this time would cause
him. He then
made a journey to Washington, and the
President,
prompted by sympathy, or persuaded by
political ex-
pediency, did not remove him from
office.
During all of this controversy at
Washington, the
question of statehood was being debated
vigorously in
the Territory. Those who favored the
early admission
of Ohio as a state, gave the following
reasons: the peo-
ple were not enjoying the political
rights belonging to
freemen; neither the Governor nor the
Legislative
Council were responsible to the people;
the appointive
power of Congress was being abused; and
the Governor
controlled the will of the Assembly. On
the other hand,
the Federalists contended that the
grievances were
theoretical and not actual, that the
appointive power of
Congress was compensated for by the
payment of the
salaries of those appointed, and that
statehood should
be deferred for at least two years.62
Over these questions there was
considerable political
oratory during the summer of 1802.
Edward Tiffin
said that on account of the present
government, wealthy
61 Letter of Symmes to Griffin Greene,
quoted in Ohio Centennial
Celebration Proceedings, p. 87.
62 Burnet,
Notes, p. 100.
490
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
and influential people were prevented
from coming into
the Territory.63 Mr. Worthington spoke of the Gov-
ernor as "Arthur the First."64 General
Darlinton said
that the people would be able soon
"To shake off the
iron fetters of the aristocracy in the
downfall of the
Tory party in the Territory."65
Judge Symmes said,
"We shall never have fair play
while Arthur and the
Knights of the Round Table sit at the
head." At an-
other time Edward Tiffin pictured the
Territorial Gov-
ernment as being ill adapted to the
genius and feelings
of Americans; as having been formulated
at a time
when civil liberty was not so well
understood as it was
in 1802; and as contemplating a government
of a few
over the many.66
A writer in the Western Spy said
that he hailed the
day when aristocracy would
"receive a vulnerable jab
and from its ruins will appear a free
and pure repub-
licanism like the sun of glory rising
triumphantly and
shining forth in voluptuous splendor to
illuminate the
western hemisphere."67 Space does not
permit to men-
tion even briefly the numerous men who
wrote or spoke
during the summer of 1802, but the
above examples are
fairly typical.68
Thomas Worthington's activity at
Washington, and
the great number of petitions praying
for statehood,
which were collected by Messrs. Massie
and Tiffin must
have had a great influence on the
House, for that body,
on January 27, 1802, rejected the
Territorial Division
63 Gilmore, Life of Edward Tiffin, p.
37.
64 Hinsdale, The
Old Northwest, p. 310.
65 Hinsdale, The Old Northwest, p.
310.
66 Smith, St. Clair Papers, pp. 225-227.
67 Western Spy, June 16, 1802. Article written by "Plain
Truth."
68 Articles against statehood in Western
Spy for February 20, March
15, 1802.
The Struggle for Statehood in
Ohio 491
Bill by a vote of eighty-one to five.69
Thereupon, Rep-
resentative Giles of Virginia made a
motion to form a
committee which would report on the
advisability of ad-
mitting Ohio as a state, and if
favorable, to draw up a
plan for admission. From the private
correspondence
of Mr. Cutler, Mr. Fearing and Mr.
Giles, it is evident
that even the friends of Governor St.
Clair were tired
of the discussion and aware of the growing
sentiment
in Congress for the admission of Ohio,
and hence the
apparent futility of further
contention.70
The House committee appointed January
27, made
its report on March 20, 1802.71 This
committee, headed
by Mr. Giles, went into a detailed
discussion of those
provisions of the Ordinance of 1787,
which provided
for the admission into the Union, as a
state, or any part
of the Northwest Territory, and arrived
at the con-
clusion that the eastern part of that
Territory had ful-
filled those conditions necessary for
admission. The
committee, therefore, made the
following recommenda-
tions: 1st, provision should be made to
enable the in-
habitants of the eastern part of the
Northwest Terri-
tory to form a state government and constitution;
2nd,
the boundaries of the proposed state
should be defined;
3rd, a constitutional convention for
this Territory
should be arranged; 4th, the number of
its members,
their proper apportioning, and the
qualification of their
electors should be determined; 5th, and
finally, the new
69 Burnet
-- Notes, p. 335; Gilmore -- Life of Tiffin, p. 48; Annals
of Congress, 1802, p. 832.
70 Cutler -- Life of Ephraim Cutler, p. 65 and 86; Gilmore, Life of
Tiffin, p. 30.
71 Annals of Congress, March 20, 1802, p. 1098, et. seq. At this time
Congress was rather strongly Republican
and therefore willing to sponsor
an Anti-Federalist measure. Also they
were not adverse to the possibil-
ity of having additional Republican
electors at the next presidential elec-
tion.
492
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
state should have one delegate in
Congress, until its
next session.72
On March 30, 1802, an Enabling Act was
introduced
into the House, which embodies,
substantially at least,
the suggestions of the committee.73
The act may be
briefly summarized as follows: 1st, to
permit the in-
habitants of the eastern division of
the Territory of the
United States northwest of the Ohio
River to form a
constitution and state government and
to be admitted to
the Union on equal footing with the
original state; 2nd,
the new state was bounded as follows:
on the east by
the Pennsylvania line; on the west by a
line drawn due
north from the mouth of the Great Miami
River until
it should intersect an east and west
line drawn through
the southerly bend of Lake Michigan; on
the north by
an extension of the latter line to Lake
Erie, and then by
Lake Erie to the eastern boundary; and
on the south by
the Ohio River; 3rd, all other
territory east of the di-
vision line of 1800 was to be a part of
Indiana Terri-
tory; 4th, the suffrage for the
election of the delegates
to form a constitution was extended to
all male citizens
who had paid territorial or county tax
and had resided
within the Territory for one year.
These delegates
were to be apportioned at the ratio of
one for each 1200
inhabitants and the election was to be
held on the sec-
ond Tuesday of October, 1802; 5th, the
seat of the con-
vention was named and its first duties
were designated;
6th, the Constitution formed by the
convention should
provide for a Republican government not
repugnant to
the Ordinance of 1787; 7th, and
finally, there were at-
72 Annals of Congress, Enabling Act introduced into Congress,
March 30, 1802, p. 1098.
73 Ibid, March 30, April 8, 1802, pp. 1106-1161, Senate, p. 297.
The Struggle for Statehood in
Ohio 493
tached certain propositions concerning
school land, salt
springs and the taxation of government
land within the
state.
This act was considered in the House
March 30 and
31, 1802.74 Debate was
opened by Mr. Fearing, the Ter-
ritorial Representative, who, although
declaring himself
opposed to the measure, did not make an
extended argu-
ment. Mr. Griswold (Connecticut) argued
that Con-
gress had neither the power nor the
right to pass such
an act, and asked what would be the
result should Con-
gress attempt to interfere with the
actions of any state
in like manner. This speech was
answered by Repre-
sentative Nicholson, who pointed out
the difference in
Congressional authority when dealing
with states and
when dealing with territories. Mr.
Griswold again took
the floor and made a very strong point
of the fact that
the Legislature of the Territory, which
was the closest
representative body of the people, did
not favor the
change in government. Mr. Williams
(North Caro-
lina) answered this with the statement
that nine-tenths
of the people of Ohio desired a state
government, but
a petition for the same would never
come from its
Legislature, as long as there existed
an assembly elected
by a limited suffrage and controlled by
a council and an
executive whose offices would expire
with the creation
of a state government.
The debate in the House was continued
on April 8,
1802. There was nothing essentially new
presented in
the way of argument for or against the
measure.
Wayne County, which had been included
in the eastern
74 Annals of Congress, 1802, pp. 1106-1156. The northern boundary
of Ohio is the subject of a long story
by itself. See T. B. Galloway,
Ohio-Michigan Boundary Line, Ohio State Archaeological and Historical
Society, Publications, Vol. 4, p.
204.
494 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
division of the Territory by the
division line of 1800,
was the subject for some discussion,
but when a motion
was made to alter the northern boundary
to include
Wayne County, the motion was lost by a
vote of 44 to
27.75
The Enabling Act was voted on by the
House and
passed on April 9, 1802. The vote shows
that in gen-
eral the representatives from the south
favored, and
those from the New England states
opposed, the
measure. Out of the 47 yeas, Virginia cast 15, Massa-
chusetts 4, and Connecticut none. While
out of the 29
nays, Virginia cast 1, Massachusetts 5
and Connecticut
cast her entire vote. The south cast
27, the middle
states 14, and the New England states
6, of the favor-
able votes, but of the unfavorable
votes, New England
furnished 15.76
The passage of the Enabling Act was an
important
event for the future of Ohio. The
state, as bounded by
this act, is one of the most compact in
the Union, but
if the Division Bill passed by the
Territorial Legislature
in 1801, had been successful, Ohio
would be a compara-
tively insignificant state. By this
latter bill, the eastern
state would have been only one-half as
large as the
central state, and the western state
would have con-
tained 3,259,200 acres more land than
the other two.77
In the political comment which appeared
in the
75 Annals of Congress, 1802, April 9, p. 1161.
76 Annals of Congress, 1802, April 9, p. 1161. Passed by the Senate
April 28th. This vote is a fairly
accurate indication of the political con-
dition of the United States in 1802. The
Federalist party was declining
as a political power, but it was yet
strong in New England. The opposi-
tion of New England to the admission of
new states reached its highest
point at the time of the Hartford
Convention, when the delegates de-
manded no further admission of western
states into the Union.
77 Thomas Worthington, Address to the
People of Ohio, Chillicothe,
1802.
The Struggle for Statehood in
Ohio 495
Western Spy during the summer of 1802, there is a
noticeable amount of anti-slavery
agitation. The ma-
jority of the writers were in favor of
a state govern-
ment, but they appealed to the voters
to elect delegates
to the Constitutional Convention, who
were opposed to
slavery. There were some writers, and
among them
Judge Burnet, who depreciated the
strength of the pro-
slavery element within the Territory.
Nevertheless it
seems reasonable that there would not
have been so
much concern over the question, had
there been no
cause. The anti-slavery articles which
appeared in the
Western Spy generally advanced one or all of three
arguments: Slavery was wrong by having
been placed
under a divine anathema; the
institution was econom-
ically unsuited for a state as far
north as Ohio; and it
was a moral evil. Biblical references
and the principles
of the Bill of Rights were the common
proofs of the
arguments.78
Benjamin Van Cleve said, in his diary,
that the peo-
ple of the Virginia Military district
believed that Con-
gress had unconstitutionally prohibited
slavery there
and that many well-to-do Virginians and
Kentuckians
would come to the Territory, if slavery
was allowed.
"It was known," he continued,
"that there were many
in the Scioto country who were strongly
in favor of the
admission of slavery and that these
things influenced
many to oppose entering into a state
government for
fear lest the slave interests, which
they supposed had
taken the lead, should predominate.79
78 Western Spy, June 26; July 3,
10, 24, 31; August 7, 25; September
11; October 2, 9, 15, 27 and November
17, 1802.
79 Van Cleve, Memoirs, p. 54;
"The Republicans openly advocated
slavery and the Federalists opposed
it;" * Julia Cutler, Life of Ephraim
Cutler, p. 67.
496
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
One writer declared that the project of
statehood
was started by Congressmen who owned
vast tracts of
land near Chillicothe and desired the
capital of the state
at that place, in order to enhance the
value of their
land.80 There was also a
series of five articles in oppo-
sition to statehood, written for the Western
Spy, under
the signature of Frank Stubblefield.
His main opposi-
tion seemed to arise over the voting
regulation; the
election of the delegates to the
convention and the selec-
tion of the county officers occurred on
the same day
but at different places.81
In reality, however, this ob-
jection was insignificant.82
Notwithstanding all this discussion, with
the En-
abling Act passed, the state party in
Ohio had compara-
tively clear sailing, for the flank of
the Federalists was
turned and they were powerless. The
framers of the
act had been exceedingly careful to
prevent the Gov-
ernor from having a voice in the
subsequent proceed-
ings.
Congress had defined the
qualifications for
suffrage in the election of the
convention, had appor-
tioned the delegates to the inhabitants
of the Territory,
divided them among the counties, determined
the day
and place for the elections, and
finally had issued
instructions to the delegates when
elected.83
The Constitutional Convention met at
Chillicothe
November 1, 1802, and organized for
business by select-
ing Edward Tiffin for its President and
Thomas Scott
Secretary.84 There were
thirty-five members, two of
80 Western Spy, September 1, 1802.
81 Ibid, July 31,
1802.
82 Ibid, August 7, 1802 -- For Articles in favor of statehood
see Spy
for July 3, 10, 24, 31 and October 2,
25; Nov. 17; June 26, 1802.
83 Enabling Act, Annals of Congress, 1802;
W. E. Gilmore, Life of
Edward Tiffin, p. 63.
84 Journal of the Convention, Chillicothe, 1802, p. 5.
The Struggle for Statehood in
Ohio 497
whom came from Trumbull County, seven
from Fairfield
and Ross, and twenty-six from Hamilton,
Clermont,
Adams, Washington, Belmont and
Jefferson.85 Accord-
ing to Ephraim Cutler, there were ten
Federalists and
twenty-four Democrats in the
Convention.86 On one
of the most important committees, the
Judiciary, eight
of the sixteen members were from
Virginia.87 Mr.
Worthington was a member of six
committees and
Chairman of two, and Nathaniel Massie,
who was an
open enemy of the Governor, was the
chairman of the
executive committee.88
The character of the convention and its
hostility to
the existing government was shown on
the second day
of its session, when a motion was made
to permit
"Arthur St. Clair, Esq. to address
the convention on
those points which he deemed of
importance," there
were fourteen unfavorable votes cast.89 Whatever
may have been the feeling of the
delegates toward the
Governor, this action was not
commendable, for he was
yet the highest official in the
Territory. With seeming
malice aforethought, his title as
Governor was omitted,
and his right to speak questioned.
Having received their consent, the
Governor spoke
to the convention at some length, and
this speech proved
to be his undoing. He declared his
sense of gratitude
to God when he contemplated the great
progress of the
Territory during the fourteen years of
its existence,
and sought to impress upon the minds of
the delegates
85 Washington, Belmont and Trumbull
counties were Federalist, the
others were along the Ohio River or near
Chillicothe and were Republican.
86 Gilmore, Life of Edward Tiffin, p.
68.
87 Cutler, Life and Times of Ephraim
Cutler, p. 70.
88 Chaddock, Ohio Before 1850, p.
66. Journal of the Convention,
Nov. 2, 1802, p. 5.
89 Randall and Rvan, History of Ohio,
Vol. 3, p. 120.
Vol. XXXII -- 32.
498
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
the magnitude of the task before them,
which, he said,
they should consider with "candid
patriotism and united
good will."90 In
concluding, he made a violent declama-
tion against the National Government,
saying that Con-
gress had over-stepped its authority in
at least two
ways: in calling a convention without
the consent of
the Territorial Legislature, and in
"bartering" away
Wayne County like "sheep at a
market."91 President
Jefferson characterized the speech as
"intemperate and
indecorous," and Judge Burnet said
it was "sensible and
conciliatory."92
On the next day, with only one negative
vote,93 the
convention decided to form a
constitution, and a plan
for the same was drawn up. It was to be
composed of
eight articles and a schedule, each
article being drafted
by a special committee, read three
times before being
read for final passage, and treated in
passage as a sep-
arate bill.94
The principal discussions of the
convention were
over the questions of negro suffrage,
the number of
legislative sessions (annual or
biannual), the submis-
sion of the constitution to the people,
the salaries of the
officials, the qualifications of
voters, and the apportion-
ment of Senators and Representatives.95
The conven-
tion left no detailed record of its
debates, hence in-
formation as to actual events is
exceedingly scarce.
Even that which has been handed down
from the mem-
bers of the convention is extremely
liable to be biased
and prejudiced.
90 Hinsdale, Old Northwest, p.
321.
91 Randall and Ryan, History
of Ohio, Vol. 3, p. 122.
92 Cutler, Life and Times of
Ephraim Cutler, p. 78.
93 Journal of the Convention, p. 7.
94 Ibid.
95 Patterson Constitutions of Ohio,
p. 30.
The Struggle for Statehood in
Ohio 499
The third or Judiciary article seems to
have been
the hardest contested provision of the
constitution.96
It came from the pen of Judge Byrd,
and, in substance,
was a copy of the Virginia code as then
practiced. It
left final decisions in all cases of
considerable moment,
to be settled by a general court
sitting at the capital of
the state. After much discussion, and considerable
labor on the part of Ephraim Cutler,
the draft was am-
ended to allow sittings of the general
court at dif-
ferent places throughout the state.97
The slavery question arose at two
different times;
with the discussion of electoral
qualifications and again
with the discussion over the Bill of
Rights. By the
fourth article suffrage was extended,
with certain
qualifications, to all white male
inhabitants. A motion
was made to strike out the word
"white" but lost by a
vote of 14 to 17. Thus, it will be
noticed that fourteen
men of the convention favored equal suffrage
regard-
less of race.98 However, the
friends of the negroes got
through an amendment to this article,
which allowed the
negro a vote, if he was a resident and
had made a record
of his citizenship within six months
after the passage of
the act. This latter provision carried
by a vote of 19
to 15.
The negro supporters thus encouraged,
attempted to
make provision for the descendants of
the negroes who
were enfranchised under the above
provision. They
proposed "that the male
descendants of such negroes
and mulattoes as shall make record of
their citizenship,
shall be entitled to the same
privilege." One can
96 Cutler, Life and Times of Ephraim
Cutler, p. 72.
97 Ibid, Life and Times of Ephraim Cutler, p. 75.
98 Journal of the Convention, pp. 19-20; also Massie, Life of
Nathaniel Massie, p. 86; also Hickok, The Negro in Ohio, p. 34.
500
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
imagine the warmth of the debate over
this measure,
for when it came up for final reading,
the vote stood
seventeen on each side, and the measure
was finally
stricken out by the casting vote of the
President.
The question of slavery again came up
when the
Bill of Rights or the eighth article
was under discus-
sion. The committee which was to draft
the eighth
article, met with Mr. Tiffin. Mr. Browne proposed
that, "no person shall be held in
slavery, if a male, after
he is thirty-five years of age, or a
female after she is
twenty-five years of age."99
Ephraim Cutler, who was
a member of the committee, said that he
believed the
"handwriting to be that of
President Jefferson." He
probably meant that such a proposition
was in accord
with the President's wishes, for the
latter had expressed
such a desire to Mr. Worthington.100
However that
may be, the proposal made by Mr. Browne
was changed
so as to prohibit the holding, under
pretense of in-
denture or otherwise, of any male
person over twenty-
one years of age, or any female of
eighteen years of
age. This provision was adopted by the
committee by
a vote of 5 to 4, and was passed by the
convention by
a vote of 16 to 15.101
On November 13, the convention decided,
by a vote
of 27 to 7 that they would not submit
the completed
constitution to the people for their
approval or disap-
proval.102 This decision
called forth a considerable
amount of criticism from the anti-state
party, who ac-
cused the Democrats of being more
autocratic than they
had so recently said the Federalists
were, and cited,
99 Cutler, Life and Times of Ephraim
Cutler, p. 77.
100 Ibid.
101 Journal of the Convention, p. 22.
102 Ibid, p. 33.
The Struggle for Statehood in
Ohio 501
not without a hint of irony, the
preamble of the consti-
tution which began with "We the
People." It may be
noted in passing, however, that in
refusing to submit
the constitution to a referendum, the
convention had
ample precedent; nine of the original
states did not sub-
mit their constitutions to the
people.103
The convention lasted from November 2
to 29, 1802.
Altogether there were twenty-five days
spent in fram-
ing a constitution, and with a total
expense of $4,556.75.
Its success was undoubtedly due to the
ability of the
delegates, their small number and their
desire to work
with method and accuracy. When a new
constitution
was framed in 1851, the convention lasted
one hundred
and thirty-five days and cost the state
$93,364.29.104
A copy of the constitution was sent to
Washington,
and on January 7, 1803, a
committee was appointed by
the Senate to enquire whether or not
Legislative action
was necessary for the admission of Ohio
as a state.105
The committee reported that the
constitution for the
state of Ohio conformed to the
regulations as provided
in the Ordinance of 1787, and, in their
opinion, Con-
gress had no other duty than to establish
a district court
within the state to carry out the laws
of the United
States therein. Accordingly, such a
bill was framed,
and was passed by the Senate on
February 7, by the
House on February 12, and signed by the
President on
the 19th, 1803. Pursuant to the
schedule of the con-
stitution, the election of the
Governor, General As-
sembly and a sheriff and coroner for
each county, was
103 These
states were Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania,
Virginia and New Hamp-
shire.
104 Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio, Vol.
3, pp. 123-124.
105 Annals of Congress, 1803; also Gilmore, Life of Edward Tiffin,
p. 90.
502 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
to be held on the second Tuesday of
January, 1803.
Edward Tiffin was the nominee of the
Anti-Federalists,
and Governor St. Clair was the choice
of the Federal-
ists. However, the Governor refused the
nomination,
and no other choice was made by his
party.106 This, of
course, threw the election to Mr.
Tiffin.
When did Ohio become a state? This is
an old
question for debate, for at least four
different dates
have been championed vigorously. It is
held by some
people, that Ohio was a state as soon
as the Enabling
Act was passed April 9, 1802. Others adhere to
November 29, 1802, when the
constitution for Ohio was
completed. I. W. Andrews, at one time
President of
Marietta College, has written a lengthy
argument in
favor of February 19, 1803, at which
time Congress
passed the act to provide for the
execution of the Na-
tional laws within the "State of
Ohio." Finally it has
been said that Ohio was not a state
until the first meet-
ing of the General Assembly, March 1,
1803.
No doubt there are arguments in support
of any of
these dates, and perhaps the whole
question is futile or
of comparatively small importance.
Nevertheless, it
will not be out of place to mention two
exceptionally
good points in behalf of the latter
date. Mr. Fearing,
the Territorial Representative to
Congress, retained, by
express permission of the House, his
seat with that body
until March 4, 1803. Secondly, Judge
Meigs, a Terri-
torial Judge, asked for and received
his salary as a
Judge, from the Territorial Government
until March 1,
1803. Thus, from the viewpoint of
Congress, as well
as from the Government of Ohio itself,
the transition
106 Western Spy, December 8, 1802.
The Struggle for Statehood in
Ohio 503
from Territorial Government to
statehood did not take
place before March 1, 1803.
There is one more event of note in the
story of
Ohio's struggle for statehood; the
dismissal of Gov-
ernor St. Clair. It has been noted
elsewhere that the
Governor's speech at the opening of the
convention was
considered "intemperate and
indecorous" by President
Jefferson. The President evidently
considered this "in-
decorum and tendency toward a disorganizing
spirit," a
sufficient reason for the Governor's
removal, and such
an order was sent to him by the
Secretary of State,
James Madison, on November 22, 1802.
The letter of dismissal was not sent to
him direct,
but was sent to Mr. Charles Willing
Byrd, the Secre-
tary of the Territory, who became
acting Governor.
Governor St. Clair and Secretary Byrd
were open and
avowed enemies, the latter having made
personal at-
tacks upon the Governor through the
pages of the
Western Spy.107 Naturally, the Governor's humiliation
at being thus dismissed was very deep
and his resent-
ment exceedingly keen.
For us today it is not so very
important that Ohio
was admitted to the Union when it
was, but it is vastly
important that it was admitted as it
was. Had the state
been carved out of the extreme eastern
division of the
'Territory, it could not have played
the part that it has
in the affairs of our Nation. Those
early pioneers who,
driving the Indians before them,
planted their cabins in
the forests of Ohio, were true apostles
of the free polit-
ical and social institutions that
Americans love.
107 Western Spy, October 9, 1802.
504 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Secondary Authorities
Abbott, J. C. History of Ohio. Detroit,
1878.
Albach, James R. Annals of the West. Pittsburg,
1857.
Atwater, Caleb. History of the State
of Ohio. Cincinnati, 1838.
Chaddock, Robert. Ohio Before 1850. New York, 1908.
Chase, Salmon P. Sketch of the
History of Ohio. Cincinnati,
1888.
Cutler, Julia Perkins. Life and Times
of Ephraim Cutler, Cin-
cinnati, 1890.
Gilkey, Elliot H. Ohio's Hundred Year
Book. Columbus, 1901.
Gilmore, William Edward. Life of
Edward Tiffin. Chillicothe,
1897.
Hickok, Charles Francis. The Negro in
Ohio. Cleveland, Ohio,
University Studies. Cleveland, 1896.
Hildreth, S. P. Pioneer History of
Ohio. Cincinnati, 1848.
Hinsdale, B. A. The Old Northwest. New
York, 1884.
Massie, David Meade. Life of
Nathaniel Massie. Cincinnati,
1896.
McDonald, John. Biography of
Nathaniel Massie. Chillicothe,
1891.
McMaster, John Bach. History of the
People of the United
States. Volume 2. New York, 1903.
Randall, Emilius Oviatt and Ryan, Daniel
J. History of Ohio,
Volume 3. New York, 1912.
Ryan, Daniel J. The First
Constitution of Ohio, in Centennial
Celebration. Columbus, 1903.
Ryan, Daniel J. History of Ohio. Columbus,
1888.
Whittlesey, Charles. History of
Cleveland. Cleveland, 1867.
Sources
Annals of Congress, 1801-1802. Edited by Joseph Gales. Wash-
ington.
Burnet, Judge Jacob. Notes on the
Early Settlement of the
Northwestern Territory. Cincinnati, 1847.
Chase, Salmon P. Statutes of Ohio. Cincinnati,
1832.
Journal of the Constitutional
Convention of the Territory North-
west of the Ohio River. Chillicothe, 1802.
Journals of the House of
Representatives of the Territory of the
United States Northwest of the Ohio
River. Cincinnati,
1799-1801. Chillicothe, 1801-1802.
Patterson, Isaac Franklin. The
Constitution of Ohio. Cleveland,
1912.
The Struggle for Statehood in Ohio 505 Rives, J. C. Abridgment of the Debates of Congress. New York, 1857-1800-1803. Smith, William Henry. Life and Public Service of Arthur St. Clair, Together with the St. Clair Papers. Cincinnati, 1882. Van Cleve, Benjamin. Memoirs, Typewritten Copy, Public Library, Dayton, Ohio. Washington, H. A. Complete Works of Thomas Jefferson. New York, 1857-1859, Volumes 7, 8, 9. Periodicals Freeman's Journal. Cincinnati, 1796-1800. Centinel of the North-western Territory. Cincinnati, 1796. Scioto Gazette. Chillicothe, 180-1802. Western Spy and Hamilton Gazette. Cincinnati, 1799-1803. |
|
THE STRUGGLE FOR STATEHOOD IN OHIO
BY RUHL JACOB BARTLETT, M. A.
The. admission of Ohio as a state into
the Union,
marked the end of a long and bitter
political contest
both within and without the Northwest
Territory.* It
was that age old conflict between the
forces that are
progressive and those that are
conservative, for it must
be remembered that the closing years of
the 19th cen-
tury marked a period of rapid political
transition in
American history. The colonists who had
so gallantly
adorned themselves in new garments of
political liberty
and equality in 1776 found that their
desires had grown
by 1800 to a demand for additional
plumage, in the way
of popular government. The
pre-Revolutionary leaders
as well as those who had piloted the
new government
through its first twelve years of
existence, did not look
with favor upon the too rapid growth of
democratic
ideals, but were content with the old.
Unaided then, by these Revolutionary
fathers, a
great political renaissance had taken
place in the minds
of the American people. The
Revolutionary War and
the new responsibility after the war
was in a great
measure the cause of the change. New
England colo-
* This seems to be the best designation
for the land that was gov-
erned by the Ordinance of 1787. It was
first known as the North-
western Territory and subsequently was
legally named The Territory
of the United States Northwest of the
Ohio River. Most writers have
adopted either the title, Northwest
Territory or simply The Territory;
but Judge Jacob Burnet and William
Maxwell write of it as the North-
western Territory.
(472)