Report of the 44th Annual
Meeting 637
associated with not only academic work
but state historical work
in years past, an officer of the Indiana
Historical Society, and
editor of the Indiana Magazine of
History, who for a time left
the state of Indiana and was engaged in
educational work in one
of the colleges of Pennsylvania.
It was an opportunity that came to me a
few years ago, when
leaving the state historical work in
Indiana, to recommend Dr.
Coleman as my successor, feeling that he
was eminently qualified
to advance the work in certain lines
that needed to be developed.
He is acquainted with the problems of
the State Historical. So-
ciety and their relation to the
educational interests of the state.
In more recent years he had been closely
associated with a move-
ment that had its inception in Indiana
and which has grown to be
a national movement, promoted by the
George Rogers Clark Me-
morial Commission, which has received,
as most of you doubtless
know, an appropriation from the Federal
Government looking
forward to one memorial to George Rogers
Clark at Vincennes,
Indiana.
Dr. Coleman has been Secretary of this
Commission prac-
tically from its beginning and I say it
is a matter of particular
pleasure that I have an opportunity of
introducing to my newly
made friends of the past year in Ohio, a
former friend and asso-
ciate in Indiana who is at the present
time Director of the In-
diana Historical Bureau, which
corresponds to the state phases
of the work in this state, and the
Secretary of the Indiana His-
torical Society, and who is quite at
home in meeting our prob-
lems. Dr. Christopher B. Coleman, who
will address you on the
subject of "Rediscovering the Old
Northwest."
REDISCOVERING THE OLD NORTHWEST
BY DR. CHRISTOPHER B. COLEMAN
Some five years ago certain members of
the Indiana His-
torical Society were led by accounts of
celebrations of anniver-
saries of early revolutionary events in
the East and by contrast-
ing neglect of an important historical
site in their own state to
propose a movement for the observance of
the one-hundred-and-
fiftieth anniversary of events connected
with the acquisition of
the Old Northwest by the United States.
After considering such
projects as an industrial exposition, a
series of historical pageants
and the publication of historical
literature, they finally adopted as
their goal the erection of an artistic
and permanent memorial
638 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications which would embody in architecture, painting and sculpture the grateful commemoration by the citizens of the United States of the men and the movements which made the region northwest |
|
of the Ohio River a part of the United States. After considerable reflection it seemed to these men that the one event which might well be chosen for their object was the campaign of George Rogers Clark in February 1779, and the one place which by loca- |
Report of the 44th Annual
Meeting 639
tion and historical interest might well
be the best place for a
permanent memorial was Fort Sackville at
Vincennes which Clark
captured on February 23-25 of that year.
The first public notice of the project,
however, brought out
the existence of a decided difference in
opinion about the process
by which the Old Northwest became a part
of the United States.
Three distinct points of view quickly
emerged. The first was
that the Old Northwest, from the beginning, belonged to the
English colonies in America, to Virginia
under the Charter of
1609, to
Massachusetts under the Charter of 1629, and to Con-
necticut under the Charter of 1662.
Under this contention, in-
deed, a considerable part of the
Northwest belonged to two of
these colonies at the same time. All
three asserted their claims
vigorously and consistently; Virginia in
its commission to George
Rogers Clark expressed the hope that the
white inhabitants of
Kaskaskia would give "Evidence of
their attachment to this State
(for it is certain they live within its
Limits)," and in December
1778 recited in an Act of the Assembly
that "several of the
British posts within the territory of
this commonwealth, in the
country adjacent to the river
Mississippi, have been reduced,
and the inhabitants have acknowledged
themselves citizens
thereof."
A second point of view, set forth long
ago by Lyman C.
Draper, Judge John Law, and William H.
English and more
recently by James A. James and Milo M.
Quaife, assumed that
after the Quebec Act of 1774 the
country northwest of the Ohio
River was a part of the Province of
Quebec, essentially a foreign
country, and that it was conquered from
the Empire of Great
Britain by George Rogers Clark and his
associates.
A third point of view, asserted
vigorously by the late Clar-
ence W. Alvord, maintained that Clark
and the other revolution-
ists did not in fact occupy the region
between the Ohio and the
Great Lakes and that its cession to the
United States in the
Treaty of 1783 was therefore not based
on military possession.
It was due, Professor Alvord asserted,
to the far-sighted states-
manship and generosity of the Earl of
Shelburne, who thought,
by ceding this territory to the United
States, to avert future wars.
640 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Dr. Quaife, though not entirely
converted to this point of view,
withdrew his earlier allusions to
Clark's "conquest of the Old
Northwest" and contributed to
Professor Alvord's following by
asserting that Clark conquered only a
small part of the territory
involved.
Here, then, was an interesting and
important question which
had to be answered one way or another
before going further, for
none of the group referred to wanted to
celebrate one event when
another was really decisive, much less
to celebrate something
which never really took place. How then
was the Old Northwest
acquired by the United States?
The claims advanced under colonial
charters fortunately are
not now seriously pressed. The cession
of western lands by the
several states to the United States in
Congress assembled, while it
was not a denial or repudiation of these
claims, virtually deprived
them of weight even in a purely
historical argument. The char-
ters which gave Virginia, Massachusetts
and Connecticut claims
to the land west of the Ohio River had
been so rudely dealt with
by the English government that long
before 1774 they counted
for little more than makeshift argument.
The so-called Quebec Act of 1774 from
and after the time
of its passage constituted the law
governing all the dominions in
respect to the land concerned. This Act
indubitably in English
law, and in fact, canceled the
authority, if there was any left by
that time, which Virginia, Connecticut
and Massachusetts asserted
over these lands. The administration in
control north of the
Ohio and west of Pennsylvania was that
of the Province of
Quebec and of the imperial government
back of it. When the
Treaty of peace at the close of the War
of the American Revo-
lution gave undisputed title to the Old
Northwest to the thirteen
states whose independence Great Britain
recognized, it marked a
transfer and change of title as compared
with the situation cre-
ated by the Quebec Act.
How was this change affected? Was the
transfer of title
a conquest or was it a gift? One must
begin his answer to this
question with the observation that both
points of view, as put
forth without reservation by their
strongest advocates, are too
Report of the 44th Annual
Meeting 641
extreme. The northern part of the region
in question was never
reached by a soldier in the American
revolutionary army except
as a prisoner of war. Detroit and
Michilimacinac, together with
the command of the Great Lakes, gave the
British easy access
to it and control of its northern part
throughout the war and in-
deed for twelve years after the treaty
of peace. The Ohio River,
running along the southeastern edge of
the disputed region, was
Clark's base of operations, and even
that was neither safe for his
forces nor a sure protection against the
invasion of Kentucky,
as witness Lochry's Massacre in 1781 and
the Battle of Blue
Licks in 1782. At no time during the
war, nor at its end, could
the Virginian and United States troops
in any sense be said to
have possession of all the Old
Northwest.
On the other hand, the evidence adduced
in support of the
proposition that the Earl of Shelburne,
when he might have
drawn the boundary of the United States
along the Ohio River,
drew it through the Great Lakes instead,
with the generous hope
that thereby he was laying secure
foundations for permanent
peace between the mother-country and her
independent daugh-
ters, is entirely too slender to explain
the action. The most direct
evidence is a later statement by the
Earl of Shelburne himself
that the good-will he had embodied in
the Treaty had established
friendly relations which could not be
undone. Concessions to the
thirteen states were in fact necessary
as well as wise and it is
difficult to believe that any of the
concessions actually made by
the British government, either before or
after the crucial days of
the negotiation, were motivated by other
than the usual considera-
tions; nor is it easy to see how, apart
from actual demonstration
of control over the intervening region,
the Great Lakes would
afford a more pacific boundary than the
Ohio River would afford.
If the Earl of Shelburne thought so, the
War of 1812 proved him
wrong.
The fact seems to be that the transition
of this region from
the Province of Quebec to the United
States was due to the in-
sistence of the United States, military
as well as diplomatic in-
sistence, upon its possession. On July
4, 1776, at the time of the
Declaration of Independence, the British
government was in un-
Vol. XXXIX--41.
642 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
disputed control of it. Clark's campaign
in Illinois in 1778, his
capture in 1779 of Vincennes and of
Lieutenant Colonel Hamil-
ton who was entrusted with the execution
of the King's policy
in the western country, and his
punishment of the Indians in
Ohio in 1780 and 1782 broke
this control. While physically and
geographically Detroit was not touched,
it became an outpost
whose possession was not much more
decisive in 1782 than it was
in 1794. The influx of settlers into
Kentucky and into the French
towns north of the Ohio after Clark's
capture of Kaskaskia and
Vincennes told all who could read the
signs of the times that the
Northwest was destined to be a part of
the new republic. The
repulse of the British and Indian
expedition down the Mississippi
in 1780 showed the impossibility of its
recovery by any force the
British might hope to send to the
far-off interior of North
America.
Thus in the negotiations for peace, the
Americans carried
with them both their old claims to the
western country and the
new interest in it kindled by Clark's
heroic achievements. Both
made it impossible for them to negotiate
a peace which would
destroy the possibility of the
occupation of the West and deny
the land hunger which was one of the
principal causes of the
Revolution itself. The British
government which negotiated
with them, not only knew that its hold
on the West was
broken, but felt all too keenly the
strain and the unremunera-
tive expense of trying to hold remote
posts with the aid of
insatiable Indian allies. The
conclusion, then, has seemed
inevitable that it was the course of
events between 1776 and
1783, rather than a generous impulse of
the Earl of Shel-
burne, which gave the Northwest to the
United States. The
course of events, though not altogether
determined by the
activities of George Rogers Clark, was
yet dominated to a
remarkable extent by the genius and the
indomitable will of
the tall, athletic young Virginian. And
the quality of the
man, the quality indeed of the whole
western movement
which made the region between the
Alleghanies and the Mis-
sissippi what it now is, nowhere shines
forth in a clearer
light than in the campaigns of 1778 and
1779.
Report of the 44th Annual
Meeting 643
Clark conquered the wilderness and the
flood, inspired
his men with an unshakable confidence
that they were "su-
perior to other men and that neither the
Rivers nor seasons
could stop their progress";
intimidated the Indians, and forced
the King's representative in the
Northwest to surrender his
post and his force: an achievement
unsurpassed in American
history in sheer energy and personal
power. As dramatic as
it was significant, the capture of Fort
Sackville may well
serve as the theme of the epic of the
winning of the Old
Northwest. It holds the same place in
the western movement
as Yorktown holds in the movement for
independence.
With the tentative program of securing a
nation-wide recog-
nition of the acquisition of the Old
Northwest by celebration of
the capture of Fort Sackville by George
Rogers Clark, and of
erecting upon its site "a permanent
memorial commemorating the
winning of the Old Northwest and the
achievements of George
Rogers Clark and his associates in the
War of the American
Revolution," the Indiana Historical
Society set out in 1926-27 to
interest other historical societies and
the public generally in the
states formed from the Northwest
Territory.
Here also an interesting question arose.
In the case of Min-
nesota the boundary of the Old Northwest
did not coincide with
the present state boundary. It must be remembered that the
boundary as defined in the treaty of
peace between the United
States and Great Britain drew an
absolutely impossible line west
from the Lake-of-the-Woods west to the
Mississipi River. The
source of the Mississippi lies many
miles south of the Lake-of-
the-Woods. Nevertheless we must assume
that that part of the
State of Minnesota which lies east of
the Mississippi and a line
from its source to the Lake-of-the-Woods
was a part of the Old
Northwest. Should Minnesota therefore be
expected to consider
the War of the American Revolution as
marking its acquisition
by the United States?
It took but a little sounding of public
opinion to show that
Minnesota does not consider itself
primarily a part of the Old
Northwest. Its historical development
and its economic connec-
tions link it with the region beyond. It
belongs to the far North-
644 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
west, or if one can coin that
expression, to the Mesopotamian
Northwest drained by the Mississsippi
and the upper reaches of
the Missouri. Historic events along the
Ohio are of compara-
tively little interest to the
authorities and the public at St. Paul,
Minneapolis and Minnesota in general.
Giving up the idea of interesting
Minnesota, the Indiana
Society began corresponding with
societies and individuals in the
four other states which lie wholly
within the Old Northwest
Territory--Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and
Wisconsin. We soon
found that however much the three
southern states, Ohio, Indiana,
and Illinois might regard George Rogers
Clark as the patron saint
of their Americanism, he had not
conquered the two northern
states in sentiment any more than he had
reached them by force
of arms. We invited a leading historian
of Detroit to speak
at one of our meetings upon the general
theme of George Rogers
Clark. He chose as his particular
subject, "Detroit and George
Rogers Clark," and developed his
theme from the point of view
of the British inhabitants of Detroit
during the Revolution and
their descendants. In a masterly
historical address, he spoke
for Detroit, and dealt with General
Clark as an invader of the
Northwest. It was a very interesting and
stimulating line of
historical thought and perhaps a
salutary corrective of the ex-
cessive enthusiasm of his audience, but
it was an effective illus-
tration of one difficulty in arousing
interest in Michigan in the
acquisition of the Old Northwest through
the War of the Amer-
ican Revolution.
Another difficulty also became apparent.
There is a hymn to
the effect that while storms rage on the
surface of the ocean,
in the depths below quietness and
stillness reign forevermore.
Michigan's attitude toward the two
states on its south reverses
this situation. While on the surface and
in the intercourse of the
present day the most peaceful relations
prevail, down in the depth
of the historical consciousness of
Michigan there still exists resent-
ment over the settlement of its southern
boundary line. When
Indiana passed from territory into
statehood it managed to chip
ten miles off the southern end of
Michigan. Worse still, Ohio
succeeded in extending her own boundary
northward in the 'thir-
Report of the 44th Annual
Meeting 645
ties, at the risk of civil war, so as to
include Toledo. Michigan
then had and now has, so far as its
historical memory is active,
a grievance against the whole Northwest
Territory proposition.
A similar situation prevails in
Wisconsin. If American sol-
diers in the War of the American
Revolution ever touched Wis-
consin soil, they did so only in a brief
raid upon the Indians in
its extreme southwest corner, in
retaliation for the British-Indian
expedition against St. Louis and
Kaskaskia. The most tangible
connection of Wisconsin with General
Clark's campaigns is the
possession, by the State Historical
Society, of the great Draper
collection of manuscripts relating to
it. Of this collection the
Society planned to publish a calendar as
its contribution to the
sesquicentennial of his achievements,
but thus far the Legislature
has failed to appropriate the necessary
funds. Wisconsin, too,
has its grievance against the rest of
the Old Northwest, for
Illinois went far beyond Ohio and
Indiana by taking the land sixty
miles north of the original line drawn
in the Ordinance of 1787,
and in the first territorial
organization, through the southern tip
of Lake Michigan.
To Wisconsin as to Michigan the three older
states have the
valid reply that the Ordinance did not
really make the east and
west line at Lake Michigan's southern
extremity itself the actual
division between the three states which
it required and the two
additional states which it permitted, but
merely provided that in
the region north of that line two
additional states might be
formed. To put it another way, the two
northern states could
not extend south of the extremity of
Lake Michigan, but the
three southern states might extend north
of that line. But it
much be admitted, that sound as this
interpretation seems to be, it
did not satisfy, nor has it ever
entirely convinced, those who
wanted a greater Michigan or a greater
Wisconsin.
These states, moreover, passed through
their formative stage
later than did Ohio, Indiana and
Illinois. In the War of 1812 their
settlements were still merely outposts,
so far from the developed
regions of the United States that they
were temporarily lost to it
during that conflict. They advanced to
statehood only when the
Revolution and the War of 1812 were
echoes of the past rather
646 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
than formative influences. Even in their
historical circles, the
early French explorations in which they
were the center of the
stage loom larger than the men and the
movements of the gen-
eration of the old Northwest Territory.
Turning, then, from Michigan and
Wisconsin to the older
states which were the scene of conflict
in the Revolution and
which fought as part of the United
States in the War of 1812,
we found that Illinois had led the way
in scientific study of the
acquisition of the Old Northwest by the
United States. The pub-
lication of the Kaskaskia and the
Cahokia Papers with illuminat-
ing introductions by Dr. Clarence W.
Alvord, and the two volumes
of George Rogers Clark Papers edited by
Dean James A. James
have made available a wealth of material
as yet unapproached in
either of the states to the east. But so
far as the Illinois public had
been reached, it seemed interested only
from the point of view of
its own state. It had rescued the French
settlements on the Missis-
sippi from historical oblivion and the
state now confined its at-
tention to the historical exploitation
of those particular sites. In
this it is handicapped by the fact that
the Mississippi River, in-
constant as it is mighty, undermined old
Fort Chartres and
changed its course by overflowing into
the Kaskaskia River some
miles above its old mouth, so that most
of the ancient French
village is in the bed of the Mississippi
and the rest of it is on
a lonely island entirely surrounded by
the Father of Waters.
Also, the highways which man has built
have left this whole
region to one side, where its visitors
are limited in number--
historically a relic of old French days
rather than a memorial
of the beginnings of the great Northwest
Territory.
In Ohio, more than in any of the other
states, the tradi-
tion of the Old Northwest has survived,
or perhaps it would
be truer to say, has from time to time
been revived. This is
only what one would expect. Here was the
"promised land" of
the Ohio Company for the winning of
which the Ordinance
of 1787 was put through the Continental
Congress. Here is
Marietta, the first seat and center of
the government set up in
the "territory northwest of the
River Ohio." Here are the
battlefields on which were beaten down
proud Indian tribes which
Report of the 44th Annual
Meeting 647
for more than a generation stained the
frontier with blood. Ohio
has not been unmindful of this. It has
erected a notable monu-
ment on the site of George Rogers
Clark's victor) over the
Shawnee, commemorating the destruction
of their village on the
Mad River from which raids had been made
into Kentucky.
Near the northern boundary of the state,
at Put-in-Bay, Oliver
H. Perry in the War of 1812 destroyed
the English fleet which
up to that time had controlled the Great
Lakes above Niagara.
This was by far the most decisive
victory of the United States in
that unfortunate war. Ohio did not
neglect to insure that the
centennial of that battle was fruitful
of a memorial whose lines
embody and set forth the aspiration, the
energy and the courage
which created Perry's fleet and led it
through blunders and haz-
ards to glorious victory.
But is it not true that even in Ohio in
the past decade, the
public generally is almost unconscious
of the process by which the
United States acquired the Old
Northwest? The battles in the
War of the American Revolution which
made its acquisition cer-
tain are apparently regarded in the
popular mind as matters
of local pride rather than as steps in
the first march of
the states newly proclaimed independent
toward the occu-
pation of the interior of the continent.
The historical ex-
ploitation of these sites, desirable and
patriotically stimulating as
it is, does not of itself engender that
large intelligent conscious-
ness of the whole sweep of our
development which it is one of the
missions of history to give. The
organization of the territory and
the settlement of its eastern portion is
here a better-known story.
The provisions made for the care and
exhibition of the historical
landmarks and associations of Marietta
are the admiration of
all visitors and, I can honestly say it,
the envy of historical or-
ganizations elsewhere. Already, and none
to early at that, con-
sideration is being given to the public
and wide-spread observ-
ance of the hundred-and-fiftieth
anniversary of the beginnings of
the territorial organization and formal
settlement of the Old
Northwest. But, so far as my own
observations extend, I find
little public interest in the history or
in the commemoration of the
648 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
acquisition of the territory, which to
an outsider would seem
logically to precede the celebration of
its organization.
When the Indiana Historical Society made
a survey of its
own state, it found a wide-spread
historical interest developed
in the celebration of the centennial in
1916 of its admission into
the Union. In addition to creating state
pride this had rescued
from obscurity and suitably marked the
site of George Rogers
Clark's home in Clarksville, just
outside of Jeffersonville--the
only home of his own he ever had--the
most permanent con-
nection he had with the great region he
conquered. But it found
little popular consciousness of the fact
that the West had been
the theatre of important operations
during the Revolution--
almost no idea that the Northwest had
then been acquired by the
United States. Among the hereditary
societies the Indiana Society
of the Sons of the American Revolution
has been holding its
annual dinner and meeting on February
25, the anniversary of
the surrender of Fort Sackville. The
Daughters of the American
Revolution had previously given no
special recognition to the ca-
reer and achievements of George Rogers
Clark nor to the devel-
opment of the Revolution in the West.
One of the surprising things was that
the earlier history of
the Old Northwest was so little known to
the people of its
central state. George Rogers Clark, its
central figure, was so
little known that he was usually confused
with his younger
brother, William, of the Lewis and Clark
expedition. Aside from
local considerations the expeditions of
George Rogers Clark in
1778 and 1779 are of far greater
importance in the history of the
United States as a whole; far more
spectacular, far more dra-
matic, than the Lewis and Clark
expedition, interesting as that is.
Yet when the first proposals were
advanced for the commemora-
tion of the Revolution in the West by
the erection of a memorial
in which George Rogers Clark was to
receive recognition, the
response was apt to be a reference to
the interest of the person
approached in the story of the Oregon
country. If people living
in the heart of the Old Northwest
betrayed this ignorance, per-
haps the Virginian can be excused who
led an Indiana pilgrim
seeking the birthplace of George Rogers
Clark near Charlottes-
Report of the 44th Annual
Meeting 649
ville to a house bearing a marker
inscribed "The Birthplace of
Meriwether Lewis."
The fact that the Old Northwest as a
whole had a very slight
hold upon the minds of Indianans was
demonstrated some years
ago when the State took no steps to
participate in the erection of
the monument commemorating Perry's
victory at Put-in-Bay. If
there had been any active consciousness
of the significance and
unity of the region between the Ohio and
the Great Lakes, In-
diana would certainly have been glad to
give grateful recognition
to the victory which annihilated the
British-Indian control of it
from which the whole frontier suffered.
The further progress of the
commemorative movement to
which I have referred I will pass over
rapidly. We turned to
political units rather than to
historical organizations and the
voluntary interest of possible
subscribers. In the course of a few
years the city of Vincennes and Knox
County, of which it is the
county-seat, contributed more than $250,000 toward the purchase
of part of the site of Fort Sackville. A
similar amount was de-
voted to the building of a boulevard
from this site to Grouseland,
the historic home of William Henry
Harrison, for a while gov-
ernor of Indiana Territory and then
governor of Louisiana Ter-
ritory. The State of Indiana imposed a
tax levy which produced
$400,000 for the completion of the
purchase of the site of the
Fort and of the land necessary for a
suitable park. The gov-
ernment of the United States in 1928
authorized an appropriation
of $1,000,000 for the erection
of "a permanent memorial com-
memorating the winning of the Old
Northwest and the achieve-
ments of George Rogers Clark and his
associates in the War of
the American Revolution." The plan
for the memorial was
chosen in an architectural competition
running from October 12,
1929, to January 23, 1930. The winning design, by Frederick C.
Hirons of New York, is a classical model
which gives every prom-
ise of producing one of the most notable
historical shrines of the
United States.
My interest on this present occasion is
not with the develop-
ment of this commemorative movement but
with the revelation to
which it led of the absence of both
knowledge of and interest in
650 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
the subject of the Old Northwest. In
previous generations this
subject occupied the attention of many
writers, of historical so-
cieties and of other groups. This
interest seems now to have
declined almost to the vanishing point.
Its place perhaps has
been taken by the interest of each
citizen in his own state. His-
torical societies have been organized
within state lines and the
states of Indiana, Ohio, Illinois,
Michigan and Wisconsin severally
absorb the interest which earlier
extended itself over the larger
territorial unit.
Surprised by this situation, I have been
led to inquire if the
Old Northwest really did have, and does
now have, any significant
unity. Are the earlier associations which
clustered about the
Northwest Territory as a whole worth
preserving? As the phil-
osophers would put it, is there any
value today in the concept of
the Old Northwest?
I have come to the conclusion that the
Old Northwest formed
such a definite geographical section and
passed through so many
experiences common to the whole region
that there is a great
loss, socially and historically, in
ignoring its unity. There are
phases of our national history which
cannot be understood, much
less satisfactorily taught, without
taking into account the fact
that the people of the region between
the Ohio and the Great
Lakes formed a group which had many
interests and many dis-
tinctive characteristics of its own. Let
me enumerate briefly some
of the factors which have led me to this
conclusion. Their con-
sideration was to me a virtual
rediscovery of the Old Northwest.
I. The Old Northwest holds a place in
American history
as the first acquisition of land, the
first territorial expansion of
the United States of America. As I have
earlier asserted, when
the thirteen states declared themselves
independent of Great
Britain the region northwest of the Ohio
River was part of the
Province of Quebec. During the War of
the American Revo-
lution or at least by the treaty which
brought it to a close, this
region was acquired by the United
States. Its acquisition insured
the opening of the interior of the
continent to the new republic. I
need not emphasize here the importance
it had as a bond of union
among the thirteen states at a time when
they seemed to be des-
Report of the 44th Annual
Meeting 651
tined to fall asunder. Its possession as
the common property of
the federal government acted as a cement
to prevent the com-
plete disintegration of the confederacy.
But more than this it
paved the way for the accession of
territory beyond the Missis-
sippi. It was the first step of the new
nation toward the Pacific.
It is possible that without the
acquisition of the Old Northwest
the United States would have remained a
seaboard nation, sur-
rounded by hostile colonial empires and
that there would have
developed in North America, as there did
in South America, a
considerable number of nations striving
for aggrandizement
without any one of them attaining a
commanding position. Of
the many movements and events which from
the beginning con-
tributed to the present greatness of the
United States, few are
more significant than the acquisition of
the Old Northwest.
It is curious that this acquisition has
not been celebrated as
have other subsequent acquisitions of
territory, none of which,
significant though they were, approach
this one in importance.
The centennial of the Louisiana Purchase
was marked by the
project of a great World's Fair at St.
Louis. The opening of
the Far Northwest was celebrated by the
Lewis and Clark Ex-
position, which probably had much to do
with the familiarity
of the public with the name of William
Clark and the amalgama-
tion of George Rogers Clark with him in
the popular mind. The
centennial of the acquisition of Florida
was observed, in addi-
tion to other things, by a boom in real
estate, the effects of which
reached all parts of the country.
Perhaps it was a mistake to expect the
erection of a me-
morial at any one given place to
commemorate in the mind of
the nation the addition of the Old
Northwest to the United
States, but in this or in some other way
the history and the sig-
nificance of this acquisition, the
dramatic and heroic events
which led up to it, and the consequences
which have grown out
of it, should be made known to the
American people.
2. The organization by the United States
of territories as
an intermediate stage between national
domain and statehood was
an experiment first tried in the Old
Northwest. It is not gen-
erally understood today how important
this step was in the de-
652 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
velopment of the American nation. The
domain might have
been treated as government property to
be held as a colony for
the benefit of the original parties of
the union. The expansion
of the United States might have taken
place through the exten-
sion of some or of all of the original
states. It was only through
severe conflicts of opinion and of
interest, through serious thought
and through gradual development that the
idea of temporary
territories controlled by the federal
government, differing from
colonies chiefly in the fact that they
were temporary, came to
fruition. The Ordinance of 1787 has long
been received as
second only to the Constitution of the
United States in the place
it occupies in American history, but
this importance has usually
been attached to the general principles
of religious freedom,
popular education, and prohibition of
slavery inserted into the
document. As a matter of fact, the
establishment of these princi-
ples and their realization were affected
not so much by the
Ordinance of 1787 as by the developments
which took place in the
territories themselves. The provision
for the governmental or-
ganization of the territory and for the
subsequent creation of
sovereign states to be taken into the
union on the same basis as
the thirteen original states was of
greater political importance.
Provision has lately been made by the
National Government
for the publication of a selection from
the documents in Wash-
ington relating to the organization and
development of the ter-
ritories from which states have been
formed, especially from
those documents dealing with the
relation of the Federal Gov-
ernment to the territories. When this
collection is published it
will undoubtedly throw much light upon
the development and
the working out of the plan by which the
process of national
expansion has for the most part taken
place. Outside the boun-
daries of the thirteen original states
comparatively few of the
United States became a part of the
nation without going through
a territorial stage. So important was
the territorial organization
of parts of the West that it
precipitated such conflicts as the
struggle over Kansas, not to speak of
the earlier questions dealt
with in the Compromise of 1850.
It was in the Northwest Territory that the principles govern-
Report of the 44th Annual
Meeting 653
ing the later expansion of government in
the United States were
worked out. Arthur St. Clair, William
Henry Harrison and
Lewis Cass were the most important of
the territorial governors.
They were empire-builders. The codes of
law established for
the Old Northwest, the laws enacted by
territorial legislatures
and the procedure of government were of
importance not only
intrinsically but as precedents for
subsequent times.
3. The pioneer history of all of this
region has a distinct
unity. From revolutionary times, when
settlers from the thir-
teen states began to come into it, down
to the admission of Wis-
consin into the Union in 1848, the Old
Northwest passed through
a stage of development much emphasized
since Professor Fred-
erick J. Turner wrote The Frontier in
American History.
During this period the frontier
gradually moved northwest from
the Ohio River until the area of
established settlements reached
Lake Superior and the upper Mississippi
River. Throughout
its progress, to a very large degree,
the same general conditions
prevailed. Varying Indian tribes
confronted the settlers, but
their attitude toward the whites, their
habits of life and their
methods of trade and of warfare were
much the same. They
presented also a decided contrast both
to the Indians upon the
Atlantic coast and to those of the
western plains. The geograph-
ical and topographical features of the
country were so nearly
uniform that the conditions under which
the settlers lived were
largely the same. In most places the
country was wooded and
well watered. The existence of some open
prairies and of re-
gions where the water supply was not
plentiful made some local
differences but not enough to
distinguish any one of the present
states from the others.
The settlers who occupied this region
have often been called
the "typical American
pioneers." Though they were by no
means all of English descent, the German
and other European
stock which came here had already been
established within the
United States for a generation or two.
Though the southern
part of the region was settled chiefly
by immigrants from Ken-
tucky, Virginia and North Carolina,
there was a considerable
immigration from Pennsylvania and from
New England which
654 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
settled not far from the Ohio River. And
though the north-
ern part was settled more largely by
those who came from New
York and New England, the two streams,
from southeast and
from northeast, mingled and united
without serious friction and
often without any visible distinction
between them.
The early settlements also were made
throughout the region
along the streams and in the timber. The
first shelters in nearly
all instances were log cabins, an
inauspicious type of house, but
one made necessary by lack of time and
materials for better
habitations.
From the Ohio River to the Great Lakes
the food supply
was very similar. Everywhere settlers
depended upon corn,
cattle and hogs largely supplemented by
wild game. The hard-
ships and the unhealthful conditions of
life brought the same
prevalent ailments and the same heavy
mortality from Marietta
to Madison and from Cleveland to Cairo.
When tracts of land had opened to
settlement there was
the same struggle everywhere for
improvement in the means of
transportation. Wagon roads were built
slowly and with great
difficulty. The national road from
Wheeling through Columbus,
Indianapolis and Vandalia to St. Louis
became one of the coun-
try's greatest arteries of commerce and
travel. Various roads
between the north and south, such as the
famous Michigan road
in Indiana, occupied the attention of
the government for years.
To some extent in all five of the
present states, but especially in
Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, there were
the same disastrous at-
tempts to develop canals connecting the
lakes with the rivers
and improving and extending the
navigation of streams.
4. The Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Society
has led the way in the appreciation and
the study of the prehis-
toric peoples of the Old Northwest.
Before the time of the
white man, before the time of the Indian
tribes with which he
was familiar, the Old Northwest was
inhabited by Indians known
to us today chiefly through the mounds
which they left. As these
remains in the states of the Old
Northwest are studied, it is to
be hoped that problems as yet hardly
understood may be solved.
If the story of the prehistoric cultures
in this region can ever
Report of the 44th Annual
Meeting 655
be told it will throw a great deal of
light upon conditions of life
and the forces which shaped the destiny
of man upon this con-
tinent. It is at any rate clear that the
states of the Old North-
west are unavoidably united in a common
effort to understand
the remote past.
5. History and economics cannot be kept
entirely apart.
It is, therefore, allowable here to
point out that the five states of
the Old Northwest throughout their
history have had, and at
the present time have, many social,
political and economic inter-
ests which are identical.
This part of the country has suffered
from an unwarranted
opinion that the eastern seaboard and
the far Pacific states mo-
nopolize all the elements of national
interest. The "Middle
West" is generally looked upon as
lacking not only picturesque-
ness, but all points of distinctive
interest. One of the younger
members of the literary set in New York
City, at the close of a
series of lecture engagements is said to
have expressed himself
thus:
O pack my grip for a trip in a ship
Where the scenery at least is variable!
For East is East, and West is West
But the Middle West is terrible.
I need not point out that such a
reputation is a distinct dis-
advantage to any region. In this case it
is unmerited and un-
necessary. Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin
possess in abundance, natural scenery,
sites of archaeological and
historical interest, and records of
achievement which need only
concerted publicity to replace apathy
and indifference by a health-
ful, lively enthusiasm. But if the
natives themselves are ignor-
ant of their heritage how can we expect
easterners and far-
westerners to recognize it?
The heroic and dramatic history of the
Old Northwest is
an asset too valuable to be neglected.
It is the common property
of the whole region. Corn Island, now no
longer visible in the
Ohio River; Kaskaskia, even in its
altered topography; Vin-
cennes, with all of its romantic
associations; Detroit, checkered
in its early career and marvelous in its
recent industrial develop-
656 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
ment; Marietta, Cincinnati, Springfield,
Fallen Timbers, Put-in-
Bay and the many other historic sites in
Ohio rich in associations
with the Revolution and the opening of
the West; all of these
places illustrate chapters in a common
history which should
attract the interest of present-day
citizens and draw larger num-
bers of visitors.
The Old Northwest, also, faces
agricultural and industrial
problems, and problems of transportation
and communication
which call for concerted action. In the
absence of a regional
consciousness these problems are apt to
be neglected, not only
by the National Government, but by the
states concerned. Per-
haps it is only a fancy, but sometimes
there seems to be a cer-
tain significance in the fact that it
was the Old Northwest, the
region of the "typical American
pioneer," that has played the
leading part in the production of
agricultural machinery, of rail-
road equipment, of the automobile and of
the airplane. Is it
possible that this same region, where
floods and experiments with
canals have been almost equally
disastrous, may some day work
out a solution of flood-control and
canalization?
However, it is not the purpose of this
address to convert
historical societies into promotional
agencies. It is enough to
point out the fact, now seemingly
escaping public attention, that
the Old Northwest has not only a great
history, but a real his-
torical unity, and that there is good
reason for preserving and
encouraging the consciousness of its
unity.
After his formal address, Mr. Coleman
made some re-
marks which he concluded as follows:
This region has a real unity today as
much as it had in the
past, a unity which it would be well for
us to take into account.
Out of this territory which we acquired
during the War of the
American Revolution have been carved
five states which contain
more than one-fifth of the population of
the United States today,
nearly one-fourth of the wealth of the
United States, three of
the five greatest cities of the United
States, according to the last
census, Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland.
It determined the bal-
ance of destiny in the time of the Civil
War. It gave the Presi-
dent who guided the country in that
crisis; the general who won
the war to maintain the Union; and it
has been the central stone
Report of the 44th Annual
Meeting 637
associated with not only academic work
but state historical work
in years past, an officer of the Indiana
Historical Society, and
editor of the Indiana Magazine of
History, who for a time left
the state of Indiana and was engaged in
educational work in one
of the colleges of Pennsylvania.
It was an opportunity that came to me a
few years ago, when
leaving the state historical work in
Indiana, to recommend Dr.
Coleman as my successor, feeling that he
was eminently qualified
to advance the work in certain lines
that needed to be developed.
He is acquainted with the problems of
the State Historical. So-
ciety and their relation to the
educational interests of the state.
In more recent years he had been closely
associated with a move-
ment that had its inception in Indiana
and which has grown to be
a national movement, promoted by the
George Rogers Clark Me-
morial Commission, which has received,
as most of you doubtless
know, an appropriation from the Federal
Government looking
forward to one memorial to George Rogers
Clark at Vincennes,
Indiana.
Dr. Coleman has been Secretary of this
Commission prac-
tically from its beginning and I say it
is a matter of particular
pleasure that I have an opportunity of
introducing to my newly
made friends of the past year in Ohio, a
former friend and asso-
ciate in Indiana who is at the present
time Director of the In-
diana Historical Bureau, which
corresponds to the state phases
of the work in this state, and the
Secretary of the Indiana His-
torical Society, and who is quite at
home in meeting our prob-
lems. Dr. Christopher B. Coleman, who
will address you on the
subject of "Rediscovering the Old
Northwest."
REDISCOVERING THE OLD NORTHWEST
BY DR. CHRISTOPHER B. COLEMAN
Some five years ago certain members of
the Indiana His-
torical Society were led by accounts of
celebrations of anniver-
saries of early revolutionary events in
the East and by contrast-
ing neglect of an important historical
site in their own state to
propose a movement for the observance of
the one-hundred-and-
fiftieth anniversary of events connected
with the acquisition of
the Old Northwest by the United States.
After considering such
projects as an industrial exposition, a
series of historical pageants
and the publication of historical
literature, they finally adopted as
their goal the erection of an artistic
and permanent memorial