THE OHIO-MICHIGAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE
RE-EXAMINED*
By CARL
WITTKE
A hundred years ago, the "sovereign
and independent state"
of Ohio and the Territory of Michigan
mobilized their forces
to settle a long-standing dispute over a
slice of territory some
seven miles wide at its western end and
some eleven miles at
its eastern end, stretching across the
State of Ohio from its
western boundary to Lake Erie, and
comprising the valuable
harbor at the mouth of the Maumee River.
In the "Toledo War," "Old
Governor" Robert Lucas was
ready to defend the claims of Ohio's
"million freemen" with ten
thousand militia, and Stevens T. Mason,
"the Boy Governor" of
Michigan, was prepared to welcome them
"to hospitable graves."
The story of the Ohio-Michigan boundary
dispute has been ade-
quately told elsewhere, and only a brief
review of the main
events is needed here.1
Bad maps sometimes produce a lot of
history. In I755, amid
a crop of new maps, appeared John
Mitchell's detailed map of
the West, prepared for the British Lords
of Trade. Mitchell
was an M. D., a Virginia botanist, and a
fellow of the Royal
Society, and so his map was regarded as
authoritative for the
Proclamation Line of 1763, and by the
peace commissioners of
1783. In 1778, Mitchell's map,
with little variation, received
the stamp of approval of Thomas
Hutchins, "geographer-general
to the United States."
Unfortunately, Mitchell drew the south-
* Read before the Tri-State Meeting of
the Library Associations of Indiana, Ohio
and Michigan, at Toledo, Ohio, October
17, 1986.
1 See Annah M. Soule, "The Southern
and Western Boundaries of Michigan," in
Michigan Political Science Association Publications
(Ann Arbor, 1895-), II (1896);
Arthur M. Schlesinger, "Basis of
the Ohio-Michigan Boundary Dispute," in The Ohio-
Michigan Boundary--Final Report of
the Ohio Cooperative Topographic Survey
(Mansfield, 1916), I, 59-70; and
Schlesinger's Bibliography, ibid., 113-5; W. V. Way,
The Facts and Historical
Events of The Toledo War of 1835 (Toledo,
1869); Lawton
T. Hemans, Life and Times of Stevens
Thomson Mason, the Boy Governor of Michi.
gan (Lansing, 1920); E. H. Roseboom and F. P. Weisenburger,
A History of Ohio
(New York, 1934) 161-6.
(299)
300
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
ernmost tip of Lake Michigan too far
north. This error ap-
parently was challenged only once before
1830 in a map prepared
by the inventor, John Fitch, who fixed
the relative position of
Lake Erie and Lake Michigan correctly.
The Ordinance of 1787, the Act of
Congress of 1802 ena-
bling Ohio to enter the Union as a
state, and the Act of 1805
creating the Territory of Michigan, all
defined the boundary of
the northern and southern tier of states
to be carved out of the
Northwest Territory as a line
"drawn east from the southerly
bend or extreme of Lake Michigan until
it intersects Lake Erie,"
on the assumption that the southern end
of the lake lay north
of Maumee Bay. While the Ohio Constitutional
Convention was
in session, a trapper, whose name seems
to have been lost in the
stream of history, brought the
disturbing news that Lake Mich-
igan extended much farther south, and
that a line drawn due east
through its southern extremity, would
actually attach the area
around the mouth of the Maumee to
Michigan. Thereupon, the
Ohio Constitutional Convention accepted
the boundaries of the
new State as described in the Enabling
Act only with the proviso
that if the southern end of Lake
Michigan turned out to be so
far south that the parallel in question
would not intersect Lake
Erie, or would strike it east of the
mouth of the Maumee, then
"with the assent of Congress of the
United States" a direct line
should be drawn to the most northerly
cape of Maumee Bay.
A committee of Congress, of which the
eccentric John Randolph
was chairman, approved the Ohio
Constitution, but advised no
action upon the boundary proviso, on the
ground that the whole
question turned upon a fact which had
not yet been ascertained.2
Ohioans thereafter claimed the boundary
which they insisted it
must have been the intent of
Congress to give them in the light
of the geographical knowledge of 1787 and 1802, while
Michigan
officials insisted on following the
latest, accurate surveys, which
would give Toledo and Maumee Bay to
Michigan.
Early attempts by Ohio Congressmen to
get Congress to
clear up the controversy failed. The
territorial governors of
2 See a summary in Morning Courier
and New York Enquirer, March 18, 1835;
and Western Courier
(Ravenna, Ohio) July 2, 1886.
OHIO-MICHIGAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE 301
Michigan exercised what little
jurisdiction was necessary in the
disputed area. In 1812, Congress
authorized a survey of the
boundary, in accord with the Ohio
Enabling Act of 1802, but
the War of 1812 delayed action
until 1815. Then, President
James Madison instructed Edward Tiffin,
the surveyor-general
of Ohio, to run the line. Tiffin told
his surveyor, William Har-
ris, to follow the line as defined in
the proviso of the Ohio Con-
stitution, and General Lewis Cass,
governor of the territory of
Michigan, promptly protested. The
governor and Legislature of
Ohio supported their surveyor-general,
and the governor and
judges of Michigan Territory sent a
committee to Washington
to lay their case before the Federal
Government. A new line,
the "Fulton line," run in
accordance with the Federal Act of
1812, Ohio refused to accept. Meantime,
Indiana was admitted
as a state with a northern boundary
which cut off a strip ten
miles by one hundred miles from
Michigan's claims, and to this
alteration Michigan also filed a
protest.
To the 1830's, Ohio was content to
assert her paper claims
without any serious attempt to exercise
jurisdiction in the dis-
puted strip, while Michigan built roads
and collected taxes in the
area which she had organized as the
Township of Port Lawrence.
Congress refused to act on various bills
to define the boundaries,
and a compromise line proposed by
Michigan was rejected by
Ohio. By 1833, settlers were pouring
into the Toledo area, and
Michigan was petitioning for statehood.
Now the battle began in
earnest. The question of statehood and boundaries became in-
separable. Ohio, and her friends in
Congress, demanded that
Congress settle the boundary first;
Michigan insisted that action
on the boundary should be delayed until
statehood was granted;
then the boundary could be carried to
the courts for settlement.
Congressional skirmishing made the issue
a matter of party
politics, and led to serious
embarassment for Andrew Jackson's
Administration. A census taken in
Michigan in 1834 showed
that the territory could qualify for
statehood on the basis of pop-
ulation; and when Congress failed to
act, the Legislative Council
of Michigan called a constitutional
convention and rested its
action on the promise of statehood in
the Ordinance of 1787.
302 OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL
QUARTERLY
A Senate bill, to fix the boundaries to
suit Ohio, Indiana and
Illinois, was defeated in the House,
largely by the efforts of
John Quincy Adams, and a proposition to
have commissioners
from Ohio and Michigan work out a
settlement, was haughtily
rejected by Lucas of Ohio, on the ground
that a state could not
deal with a territory, except through
the Federal Government.
The Ohio Legislature promptly authorized
the exercise of juris-
diction in the disputed area, accepted
"the Harris line," and or-
dered the governor to have it marked.
Ohioans angrily resolved
that "it ill becomes a million of
freedmen to humbly petition,
year after year, for what justly belongs
to them, and is com-
pletely within their control."
When Mason, then acting governor,
learned of these ag-
gressive measures, he ordered the
Michigan militia to prepare
for an emergency, appealed to Jackson,
and secured a law from
the Territorial Council of Michigan
"to prevent the exercise of
foreign jurisdiction" in the
disputed area. Jackson referred the
question to his attorney-general, who
rendered a curious and
evasive opinion. The President appealed
to both governors to
keep the peace, and dispatched two
Federal commissioners, Rich-
ard Rush and Benjamin C. Howard, to work
out a peaceful set-
tlement.
Early in April, 1835, the Ohio militia
under Major-General
John Bell, and the Michigan militia
under General Joseph W.
Brown, accompanied in each case by their
respective governors,
gathered near the disputed area. The
Federal mediators found
both parties obstinate, but pleaded for
delay until the next ses-
sion of Congress. Mason refused to yield
jurisdiction over the
Toledo area, or to accept the concurrent
jurisdiction of Ohio.
Eventually, he was removed by Jackson,
and his successor, John
S. Horner, was instructed not to enforce
the Michigan law
against "the exercise of foreign
jurisdiction." Mason described
his removal as "executive
tyranny" and despotism;3 his suc-
cessor encountered rough treatment at
Monroe and Ypsilanti, and
Mason was promptly elected governor of
Michigan, which began
3 Hemans, op. cit., 146.
OHIO-MICHIGAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE 303
to function as a state in November,
1835, without the previous
authorization of Congress.
Ohio meantime had elected local
officials in the disputed
area, and extended her county lines to
"the Harris line." When
Ohio officials tried to exercise
jurisdiction, they were served with
civil processes from Michigan, and the
residents of the Toledo
area were threatened with arrest if they
submitted to the juris-
diction of either of the disputants. The
surveyors appointed by
Ohio to run "the Harris line"
were arrested amid great excite-
ment after a wild pursuit, and Lucas
called the Legislature in
special session. The Legislature passed
a kidnapping act directed
at the Michigan authorities, created
Lucas County, voted $300,-
000, and authorized a loan for another
$300,000 to run the line
and to defend Ohio's rights.
Lucas had agreed to the proposals of the
Federal commis-
sioners, but Mason rejected the plan of
concurrent jurisdiction
as "dishonorable," and was
reported to have mobilized from eight
hundred to twelve hundred Michigan
militia. Lucas, with his
staff and the boundary commissioners,
encamped with six hun-
dred Ohio volunteers at old Fort Miami.
In the Toledo area,
people were being arrested, fist-fights
ensued, shots were ex-
changed, and the wildest rumors of
assaults, murder and atroci-
ties were reported. On September 7,
1835, Ohio judges, with
the troops of both parties mustered for
service, held a quick
"midnight" session of the
common pleas court, and rode away
before Michigan troops arrived. After
this show of authority,
Ohio desisted from further assertions of
jurisdiction, Michigan
remained theoretically in possession,
and Horner pardoned all
who ran afoul of its jurisdiction in the
disputed area. The "Har-
ris line" was marked by Ohio
without further interference, official
Washington worked for peace, and
Michigan claimed statehood
rights. When Mason was chosen as the new
state's first chief
executive, Horner departed for the wilds
beyond Lake Michigan.
Finally, in 1837, Congress
admitted Michigan to the Union,
Ohio received the disputed area, and
Michigan was compensated
by an additional nine thousand square
miles in the western part of
the Upper Peninsula.
304 OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND
HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Some of the factors and events in this
famous controversy
of a hundred years ago deserve more
detailed examination.
Michigan's case rested on the Ordinance
of 1787, and its
boundary provisions as reaffirmed by the
act of Congress which
created the Territory of Michigan in
1805. John Quincy Adams,
in 1835, in defending her claims
described the Ordinance of 1787
as "a compact as binding as any
that was ever ratified by God
in heaven," and Mason and his
supporters contended for "in-
alienable rights bestowed by an
inviolable contract." They did
not raise the question whether one
Congress could unalterably
bind another. Ohio's main contention
rested on expediency, and
the argument that Congress could divide
the public domain re-
gardless of the temporary boundaries
fixed in 1787. It was main-
tained that when Ohio, Indiana and
Illinois were admitted to the
Union, all the other states to the
compact of 1787 had consented
to their new boundaries. It must be
admitted, however, that
Congress had neither specifically
accepted, recognized nor re-
jected the boundary proviso of 1802 drafted by the
Ohio Con-
stitutional Convention. As early as
1817, an exchange of let-
ters between Cass and Tiffin brought out
clearly this difference
of opinion,4 and Harris, the
surveyor, earlier in the same year
insisted that his instructions to run
the line through the southern
end of Lake Michigan must be incorrect,
since the Indiana state
Constitution, accepted by Congress, ran
the line ten miles farther
north.5 At the time, however, the
district was almost without
inhabitants, infested with fevers, and
due to the swamps, "almost
impassable for horses at any season of
the year."6 The partisans
of Michigan contended that Ohio's
natural boundary was "the
Black Swamp." In a letter in 1820 to John Quincy
Adams, then
secretary of state, the acting governor
of Michigan urged the
wisdom of strengthening Michigan by
giving her the harbor at
Toledo, rather than to add to Ohio's
resources. "Under the
patronage and paternal care of the
General Government," he
4 Lewis Cass to Edward Tiffin, November
1, 1817, Ohio-Michigan Boundary MSS.
(in Ohio Archaeological and Historical
Society Library, Columbus). All manuscript
letters cited hereafter are from this
collection, unless otherwise noted. The writer is
greatly indebted to Dr. William D.
Overman, curator of history of the Society, for
making this material available.
5 William Harris to Tiffin, January 11,
1817.
6 Id. to id., September 8, 1817.
OHIO-MICHIGAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE 305
wrote, "Ohio has grown rapidly from
the condition of helpless
infancy. She has suddenly swollen to the
dimensions of a giant
--already she recons [sic] among
her children more than half
a million--her collossel [sic]
stature overshadows the whole
west; yet nearly half her Territory
remains a wilderness!" Mich-
igan, on the other hand, weak, and
"cut off by an almost im-
passable morass," must remain a
buffer against hostile Indians
to the Northwest, and "the rapidly
increasing political power"
of Canada.7
The Wolverines and the Buckeyes were
equally guilty of
exaggerations and there was little to
choose between the methods
they employed. Mason, who was only
twenty-four years of age,
was generally described by the Ohioans
as an irresponsible,
blatant, impetuous boy, but he wrote at
least one letter to Lucas
early in 1835, pleading for the
preservation of peace, in a spirit
of compromise, and with a flattering and
courteous reference to
Lucas' services to the people of
Michigan during the War of
1812.8
Ohio newspapers described in detail the
mob tactics em-
ployed by the champions of Michigan, but
similar charges could
be made by the other side with equal
truth. Michigan authorities
repeatedly were blocked in the exercise
of their jurisdiction by
Ohio people,9 and on one
occasion, when a Michigan deputy
sheriff tried to take several Irishmen
who had violated the law
before a magistrate, two Ohioans, George
McKay and N. Good-
sell, helped them to escape.10 A
sheriff's posse arrested the of-
fenders in Toledo, "horns, guns,
etc. were echoed from Vistula
to Port Lawrence and Tremainsville, and
in twenty minutes an
armed band of Nullifiers were on the
ground in pursuit" of the
Michigan officers.11 Brown, who
commanded Michigan forces
in the Black Hawk War, and later, served
as a regent of the
University, seems to have carefully
refrained from the use of
force, except in support of the civil
authorities against the "Nul-
7 William Woodbridge to John Quincy
Adams, August 11, 1820.
8 Stevens Thomson Mason to Robert Lucas,
April 2, 1835.
9 See Western Courier, April 2,
1835.
10 Michigan Sentinel (Monroe),
April 11, quoted in Cincinnati Gazette, April
22, 1835.
11 Ibid.
306
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
lifiers of Toledo."12 Mason and Brown had the enthusiastic
support of the people of Michigan.13
When several of the Ohio
party of surveyors were arrested,
exaggerated accounts of the
scuffle were promptly sent to Lucas,
although the report of the
Michigan commander of the militia showed
that no one had
been fired upon, and that only a few
muskets had been discharged
into the air, as the sheriff and his
posse took after the surveyors
who were running for the woods. The Ohio
version described
the surveyors being set upon by Michigan
militia while peace-
ably enjoying "the blessings of the
sabbath" just across the
line in Henry County, and related how
from thirty to fifty shots
were fired at them, although strangely
enough, no one was hit.14
Little wonder that one of the party of
surveyors pleaded for
delay, although he rested his case on
"the sickly season" and
"the difficultie [sic] of
encountering the flies, [and] musketoes
[sic]"15
Brown was accused of interfering with a
mass meeting of
three hundred Ohio partisans at Toledo,
with "intimidation and
threats."16 A name often mentioned
in connection with these
disturbances was that of
"Major" B. F. Stickney. Stickney had
two sons, the older he named One
Stickney and the younger,
Two Stickney. The latter resisted arrest
when a deputy sheriff
tried to serve a court order, and during
the scuffle, Two Stick-
ney stuck the sheriff with a penknife,
and escaped. Mason, in
reporting the episode to the secretary
of state in Washington,
wrote that the sheriff of Monroe County
"is said to have been
mortally wounded."17 The Michigan
governor offered a reward
of $500 for Two Stickney's capture, and
the Ohio governor re-
fused to extradite him. Some weeks later, when Michigan
troops paraded in Toledo, they
apparently selected B. F. Stick-
ney's orchard for a parade ground,
"pillaged his garden and
12 Ibid.
13 Michigan
Sentinel, cited in House Documents,
24 Cong., 1 Sess., no. 7, p.
102-3, hereafter cited as House
Documents, no. 7.
14 Jonathan Taylor, John Patterson and
Uri Seely to Lucas, May 1, 1885.
15 Taylor to id., August 3, 1835.
16 Andrew Palmer to id., March 1,
1835.
17 See Mason to John Forsyth, July 16,
17, 1835; and George McKay to Lucas,
July 15, 1835; and N. Goodsell to id.,
July 16, 1835.
OHIO-MICHIGAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE 307
vineyard, took a quantity of hay and
whatever else they stood
in need of and killed several horses and
cattle."18
Reports of outrages perpetrated on
innocent Toledoans con-
tinued to pour into the Ohio newspaper
offices. "Houses have
been broken open in the night
time," reported a correspondent
from
Defiance, Ohio, "and our citizens carried off--women are
abused . . . and dragged off on false
pretences to Monroe," to
which, in the ribald journalistic style
of the day, a Michigan
paper replied that these same ladies who
had been insulted and
abased "would suffer themselves to
be much harder dealt with,
under other circumstances, without a
murmur."19 The Toledo
(Ohio) Gazette, described in
detail how a mob broke down the
door of its printing office, demolished
the press, and left the
publisher "hardly type and
materials enough" to lay the horrible
deeds before the public, and referred to
these acts of violence as
"worse than Algerine robbery or
Turkish persecution."20
Perhaps the crowning insult was the
desecration of an Ohio
flag which had been raised at Toledo.
According to the Michi-
gan Sentinel (Monroe), patriotic citizens of Michigan "tore the
disgraceful badge of treason from its
perch, dragged it through
the streets," and finally burned it
in Monroe "with suitable
demonstrations of contempt."21 According to the Ohio version,
Brown had had the flag taken down, and
had it tied to the tails
of several horses in his troop. But
Toledo too had her Barbara
Frietchie who unfurled the Ohio flag to
the breezes again, although
the record does not indicate whether it
was the old flag that was
recovered, or whether a new one was
speedily produced.22 One
excited patriot wrote from Ypsilanti to
Lucas to warn him of
a plot against the governor and his
commissioners: "A band of
about one hundred Chippewa and
Pottewattami Indians have been
sent out to the boundary line . . . and
there await an opportunity
to execute their nefarious
outrage."23
18 Xenia (Ohio) Free Press, September
19, 1835.
19 Michigan Sentinel, quoted in Detroit Journal and Courier, April 29,
1835. For
the Ohio version, see Western Hemisphere (Columbus,
Ohio), April 29, 1885; and Xe-
nia Free Press, May 2, 1835.
20 Toledo (Ohio) Gazette, July
29, 1835, quoted in Western Hemisphere, July 29,
1835.
21 Quoted in Detroit Journal and Courier, April 29, 1835.
22 See Western Hemisphere, April
29, 1835; Xenia Free Press, May 2, 1835.
23 A. S. Millington to Lucas, May 1,
1835.
308 OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
The most amusing episode in the whole
controversy was
the holding of a common pleas court in
Lucas County shortly
after midnight of September 7,
1835. The special session of the
Ohio Legislature made this exercise of
jurisdiction mandatory.
But how exercise authority without
encountering the Michigan
militia? There was much correspondence
between Lucas, his
adjutant general and the judges selected
for this perilous task,
before the sovereign State of Ohio was
ready to move. Judge
David Higgins disclaimed all
"apprehension of a personal char-
acter," but insisted that he would
"feel acutely . . .the disgrace
of the capture and abduction, by a
Michigan mob, of a branch
of the Judiciary of the State when
actually engaged in the per-
formance of Judicial functions."24 Judge Baxter
Bowman was
"in a state of consternation."25 The adjutant
general of Ohio
reported to the governor from the scene
of action that the holding
of the court would be
"impracticable and dangerous without
a protecting force," that the
sheriffs and judges of Lucas County
had "utterly refused to attempt
it," and had removed "their
families and effects . . . and were
determined to flee themselves,"
and that a force of one thousand militia
was needed.26 Apparently
the governor himself played a prominent
part in working out the
plan that was eventually followed, to
have the court meet, or-
ganize, and adjourn at once, and his
adjutant general prepared
the details. At any rate, the latter
reported to his chief on Au-
gust 30 that "Mr. Coffinberry will
provide himself with a Book
for making out the Record--and have the
entries all made pre-
vious to starting so that there will be
no necessity of doing any-
thing more than to meet, open court,
appoint a clerk and ad-
journ."27
The plan was carried out to the last
detail, "very early in
the morning" and "before
daylight."28 Colonel Mathias Van
Fleet of the Ohio militia escorted the
mounted judges and offi-
cers of the court with twenty picked
troops to Toledo, each man
carrying a rifle and two pistols. Court
was quickly opened in
24 David Higgins to id., July 20,
1835.
25 Samuel C. Andrews to id., September 3, 1835.
26 Id.
to id., September 3, 4, 1835.
27 Id. to id., August 30,
1835.
28 Western Courier, September 10, 1835; Cleveland Whig, quoted ibid.
OHIO-MICHIGAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE 309
the school house, the record made, and
then the session was
adjourned sine die. The record
was carried in the clerk's hat
to a nearby tavern, where the Ohio
victory was to be duly cele-
brated, when news came of the approach
of a large force of
Michigan militia, and the party took to
its horses. In the ex-
citement, the clerk lost his hat and the
record, and had to crawl
back to find them.29 Michigan
had been outwitted, or else her
forces had been "too much occupied
in a bachanalian revel to
be aware of what was going on."30
When reports of the mid-
night session reached them, "a
great bustle ensued--the soldiers
were paraded--messengers were dispatched
in every direction."
No one was found who would give evidence
of what had hap-
pened, and no damage was done, except
the "wanton butchery of
two noble horses . . . the destruction
of gardens and orchards,--
shooting of hogs, and some petty
depredations about the print-
ing office" of the Toledo Gazette.31
Lucas received much gratuitous advice
during the progress
of the controversy. Some of his friends
advised him to go
slowly, to put the blame on Michigan,
and to remember that
"prudence is the better part of
valor."32 An anonymous Buckeye
from Philadelphia wrote the governor:
"Never let it be said that
a Buckeye receieved [sic] an
insult with impunity. . . . We will
have our rytes [sic] in spite of
all the world."33 Taylor Webster
wrote from Hamilton County to report that "there is a great
aversion to using force or spilling
blood"34 while the redoubt-
able B. F. Stickney, "peeping
through the grates of a loathsome
prison" in Monroe, Michigan, wrote
that he had been fourteen
hours without refreshments, and that
these "bands of ruffians ...
require chastisement."35 A mass
meeting at the Zanesville Court
29 Way, op. cit., 42-5.
30 Western
Hemisphere, September 16, 1835. This
paper tried to deny that the
court had been held in secret.
31 Ibid., September 23, 1835; Toledo Gazette, quoted in
Cincinnati Daily Repub-
lican September 21, 1835. See also, Higgins to Lucas,
September 8, 1835. Andrews
to id., September 8, 1835,
explains that the forces of Michigan had to be outwitted,
since the Ohioans were outnumbered, and
reinforcements could not be brought up
because of a heavy rain which "had
rendered the black swamp . . . impassible
[sic]."
32 John A. Bryan to Lucas, April 24,
1835.
33 ---------- to id., May 26, 1835.
34 Taylor Webster to id., June 4, 1835; see also
James Miller to id., June 4, 1835.
35 B. F. Stickney to id., May 6,
1835. See House Documents, no. 7, p. 222-3. Two
Stickney wrote to Lucas from Lower
Sandusky, October 4, 1835, as follows: "Should
it appear consistant [sic] with
your excilancies [sic] policy to gratify my impatience
310 OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND
HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
House denounced Michigan's activities,
and declared the opinion
of Jackson's attorney-general "an
impertinent interference with
the rights of the state."36 The Western
Courier of Ravenna
counseled delay,37 but Lucas'
party organ at the State capital
thundered that no "angry blasts
from the North, or lowering
clouds in the East" could
"shake the purpose of our unterrified
commonwealth."38 "Michigan
must be taught to understand that
even the lion, in the nobleness of his
nature, can be provoked to
the assumption of his rights.... Our
cause is the cause of human
justice."39
The Toledo War had to be carried on, if
at all, by the volun-
teer militia of the two contestants.
Excited Toledoans described
the Michigan levies under Brown as
"an invading army . . . com-
posed of the lowest and most miserable
dregs of the community
--foreigners and aliens, low drunken
frequenters of grog shops,
who had been hired at a dollar a
day."40 But all was not well
with the Ohio militia either. On August
3, 1835, Lucas found
it his "painful duty" to call
for a muster of volunteer cavalry
and riflemen, to be "willing to
march at a moment's warning, to
defend the rights and honor of the
state." Lucas believed in pre-
paredness, and thought some forces would
be needed to protect
his boundary commissioners from
"mobs and lawless banditti."41
This general order followed by four
months an earlier order to
Bell of the 17th Division of Ohio
militia to raise and equip
five hundred troops. The
adjutant-general had enthusiastically
by communicating the period when the
interests of the State will Justify the Seting
[sic] aside exparte forbarance [sic] (if no other
alternative will produce the desired
effect) and permit us to share with your
excelence [sic] the glorious legacy 'Death
rather than dishonour.' " Stickney was still staying away from home on Lucas'
advice,
and evidently was becoming very
impatient.
36 Zanesville Gazette, quoted in Western
Hemisphere, May 27, 1835.
37 May 14, 1835.
38 Western Hemisphere, June 8,
1835.
39 Ibid., May 13, 1835. William Blackburn wrote Lucas from
Wapakoneta on
May 16, 1835, to congratulate the
governor on calling the Legislature back in special
session, and continued, perhaps with a
suggestion of irony: "I learned you had re-
turned from the disputed ground unhurt
unwounded nor yet alarmed. Rumor here
with her hundred tongs [sic] is
buisey [sic] Reporting that some of the Commis-
sioners Showed Leg Bail . . . through
mud and mire . . . as they heard the
Riflemen and Light Infantry of Michigan
popping away at the Buckeyes close in their
rear."
40 Toledo Gazette, quoted in
Cincinnati Daily Republican, September 21, 1885.
41 The general orders are reprinted in
the Western Courier and Piqua (Ohio)
Enquirer, August 29, 1835.
OHIO-MICHIGAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE 311
predicted that he could raise three
thousand cavalry and ten
thousand riflemen "in complete
order."42
Militia officers wrote the governor to
offer their services--
but usually, with a request for some
favor in return. A cor-
respondent from. Chillicothe outlined a
complete plan of battle,
to force the "beardless boy"
of Michigan to surrender, "like a
ground hog, with a dog between him and
his hole,"43 but the
letter closed with a postscript
"not to forget" the writer. James
Worthington suggested sending three or
four thousand high
grade soldiers into the disputed area.44
Other letters reached
the adjutant general's office, inquiring
whether the old custom of
having the officers elected by the men
would be observed, and
what the pay would be.45 Robert
Jackson of Xenia, for example,
informed the governor that the company
of cavalry and riflemen
of Greene County would regard being
called "a perticular [sic]
favour," and Solisits [sic] an
order from you."46 Another offered
his services and those of "several
of my fellow Cavaliers," and
promised that they "shall not be
ruffians but men on whom I can
depend for inteligence [sic] or
other subjects which may come
in view."47
Nevertheless, the militia muster was a
failure in many coun-
ties where the people were either
indifferent, or opposed to an
appeal to arms.48 Bell failed
to hear from his second brigade, "in
consequence of the prevaluas [sic] of
the Coleare [sic] in this
Section of county at the time they
should have performed
Millatary [sic] duty."49 In
Adams County only twenty-one vol-
unteered. "A want of proper energy
on the part of . . . Officers
has caused the tree of Liberty to blush
in Adams County," and it
was suggested that a specific statement
about what pay could be
42 Andrews to Lucas, April 16, 1835.
43 W. T. Murphy to id., August
26, 1835.
44 James Worthington to id., May
9, 1835.
45 See Robert Bentley to id.,
Mansfield, August 11, 1835; James
Thompson to id.,
Carrollton, August 14, 1835; William
Cameron to id., Lebanon, August 9, 1835; An-
drews to Patrick C. May, August 28,
1835; and Franklin Corwin to Lucas, Lebanon,
September 1, 1835; Andrews to James
Cochran, June 19, 1835; id. to John W. Blakely,
July 2, 1835; id. to Samuel R.
Curtis, March 23, 1835; and id. to Worthington, May
11, 1835.
46 Robert
Jackson to Lucas, March 24, 1835.
47 John W. Blakhetz (?) to id.,
no date.
48 William Hawkins to id.,
McConnelsville, September 21, 1835.
49 John Bell to Andrews, December 9, 1834.
312
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
expected "might have a salutary
effect."50 It was reported in
May, 1835, that of two hundred seventy-five Ohio militia
assembled at Maumee, all but thirty
refused to advance into
the disputed territory.51 The
Detroit Free Press described the
Ohio militia as "heroes in
imagination," who had been "shaken
to pieces by the Fever and Ague, in the
Black Swamp."52 Finally,
when it came to paying off the militia
whom Lucas had called into
service, some irregularities appeared
due to the fact that "some
privates were entirely omitted and
officers were made to rank
to [sic] high and draw too much
pay whilst some of the men
received nothing."53
To Jackson, the controversy between Ohio
and Michigan
was extremely annoying and politically
embarrassing. Both gov-
ernors were Democrats. Michigan insisted
that Ohio was "nulli-
fying" an act of the Federal
Government, and in view of Jack-
son's recent aggressive policy toward
the South Carolina nulli-
fiers, suggested that he deal with equal
vigor with the Ohioans.
Lucas felt it necessary to report
regularly to Washington, and
to send an informal commission to
explain his policy to the
President.
From the first, Jackson counseled
forbearance, until Congress
should meet in December, 1835, on the
ground that "the founda-
tion of a State Government in Michigan
will soon afford an
opportunity for obtaining a judicial
decision." He refused to ad-
mit that the civil authorities needed
military support.54 He was
particularly irritated when both
contestants resorted to the militia,
and he instructed his secretary of state
"to suggest . . . that under
no circumstances, in any part of our
country, can military force
be justifiably used, except in aid of
the civil authority in exe-
cuting civil process."55
Lucas replied that the Harris line would
50 May to Lucas, August 22, 1835. For
similar statements, see letter to Lucas
from Batavia, August 20, 1835; and
William Doan to id., Williamsville, August 24,
1835; and R. C. Bryan to id.,
Coshocton, August 25, 1835.
51 Morning Courier and New York
Enquirer, May 15, 1835.
52 Quoted ibid., May 18, 1835; see also, Western Courier, a
Democratic paper,
which admitted the levy had been a
failure. September 3, 1835.
53 W. W. McKay to Lucas, July 2, 1835.
Two thousand, four hundred and
ninety-three dollars and twenty-one
cents was apparently paid out. See id. to id.,
October 16, 1835.
54 Forsyth (secretary of state) to id.,
March 14, 1835; also Washington (D. C.)
Globe, September 16, 21, 1835.
55 Forsyth to Lucas, March 19, 1835.
OHIO-MICHIGAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE 313
be run, that Ohio would deal only with
the Federal Government,
and that the question was settled, and
"no longer debatable."56
Nevertheless, the Ohio governor received
the President's com-
missioners, and in the end, Lucas,
Jackson, Forsyth, and At-
torney-general B. F. Butler all seemed
to agree that the line might
be surveyed, without necessarily
involving the exercise of juris-
diction in the disputed area. July 4 the
President himself wrote
the Ohio governor "to avoid
forcible hostile collision."57 Ap-
parently, the President gave private
assurances to Lucas' repre-
sentatives in Washington that Mason
would be removed, if he
refused to acquiesce in the compromise
the President's commis-
sion had suggested,58 namely,
running the line, the exercise of con-
current jurisdiction and the
postponement of prosecutions.59 The
Columbus (Ohio) Western Hemisphere credited
Jackson with
the peaceful holding of elections in the
Toledo area in April,60
and the Cincinnati Daily Gazette61
and the Ohio Monitor held
that it was the President's "single
ipse dixit" that stayed the "mili-
tary ardor of the Veteran of Ohio and
the Lad of Michigan."
The Detroit Journal and Courier, on
the other hand, referred to
the "Ministers Plenipotentiary and
Extraordinary, from Andrew
the First, of the Empire of Uncle
Sam."62
Mason was dismissed, and succeeded by
Horner, and the
secretary of state promptly informed
Lucas of this action as
evidence of Jackson's eagerness to preserve
peace.63 The new
governor of Michigan was burned in
effigy, publicly insulted, and
had the windows of his hotel stoned by a
mob,64 but he carried
out his orders from Washington without
flinching, and pardoned,
even before a trial, those under
indictment or in Michigan jails
as a result of conflicts of jurisdiction
in the Toledo area. Horner
kept Lucas informed of his activities,65
and apparently, Ohio
56 Lucas
to Forsyth, March 25, 1835; also March 20, 1885.
57 Jackson to Lucas, July 4, 1835.
58 Report of Commission to id., July
11, 1835.
59 See Mason to Richard Rush and
Benjamin C. Howard, May 1, 1835; Rush and
Howard to Mason; Forsyth to id.,
March 17, April 20, 1835; House Documents, no. 7,
p. 83, 86, 316-9.
60 April 15, 1835.
61 March 31, 1835.
62 April 29, 1835, quoting the
Cincinnati Daily Gazette.
63 Forsyth to Lucas, August 29, 1835.
64 Western Hemisphere, November 11, 1835.
65 John S. Horner to Lucas, October 6,
1835; B. Hinkson to id., October 14, 1835.
314
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Congressmen frequently conferred in
Washington with the Presi-
dent and his Cabinet, and reported the
results confidentially to
the Ohio governor. Jackson assured Lucas
he would veto a bill
for statehood for Michigan if passed
before the boundary was
settled.66 Horner had to act in defiance
of newly elected Michi-
gan state officials, and on November 2, 1835, he wrote a curious
letter to Lucas, marked
"private," in which he asked Lucas to
notify him the moment the line had been
surveyed, so that he
could leave for Washington to defend
himself before the Presi-
dent against charges made against him by
Brown, and especially
"this man Norville [John
Norvell, newly elected United States
Senator from Michigan] who is the biggest Rascal in America."
Horner worked in harmony with Lucas'
representative, and made
no apologies for having "taken the
Bull by the Horns."67
In spite of an acrimonious discussion
between Lucas and
the Washington Government, the President
and the Ohio gov-
ernor had come to a working agreement.
But Lucas continued
to distrust the secretary of state, and
the attorney-general, and
against Cass the secretary of war, a
former governor of Michigan
territory, he had a special grievance.
He charged that the Michi-
gan militia had received arms and
ammunition from an United
States arsenal, and Cass went to great
lengths to explain that
this had occurred on the authority of a
local subordinate, and
that the arms had been promptly returned
as soon as the error
was discovered. Cass was somewhat
equivocal, however. He
denied giving advice to anyone in
Michigan during the con-
troversy, except in private letters
expressing his "hope as a pri-
vate citizen," and "in a
private way." He held that Michigan was
entitled to the area in dispute, until
possession had changed by
action of the rightful authority. In
this matter, his views and
66 See R. T. Lytle to id.
March 14, 1835; Thomas L. Hamer to id., March 14,
1835. Hamer argued with the President
that the Federal Government had no right to
interfere--"that Ohio had the same
rights that Congress possessed to construe the
Constitution . . . that Congress was no
more Supreme over Ohio than the latter was
over Congress, that they stood upon a
perfect equality. To this he did not assent,"
but counseled forbearance.
Grandiloquently, Hamer continued to Lucas: "If he had
intimated . . . that force would
be used--I should have told him to his teeth--that
if an armed man dared to pollute
the soil of Ohio--he should be blotted from the
face of the Earth;--and, that the first
crack of a rifle would bring 200,000 freemen to
the Border!" It is evident that Hamer did not use such
strong language to the
President.
67 Horner to id., November 2,
1835.
OHIO-MICHIGAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE 315
those of the President were identical,
as well as in his plea to
refrain from violence and the use of
force.68 When Jackson re-
moved Mason, Cass hurried a letter to
the deposed governor, to
soften the blow, and to assure him that
the Washington (D. C.)
Globe would carry the proper version of the incident.69 As
late
as December, 1835, an Ohio Congressman
wrote to Lucas from
Washington: "Governor Cass is very
uneasy. He called the
Ohio delegation together night before
last and read us your
letter and his. ... He did not ask us
for an opinion, as to his
guilt or innocence, but merely to hear
him."70
That party politics complicated the
question at issue was to
be expected. In Michigan, Homer could
get no one at Detroit,
Monroe or Ypsilanti to carry out his
orders because all the Michi-
gan politicians expected to be elected
to state offices at the No-
vember election. Lucas' correspondence
shows a constant con-
cern with the prospects of his party in
the elections, and the
effect the boundary question had on the
outcome.71 The Whigs
were accused of using the incident to
embarrass both the State
and the National Administration.
Charles Hammond, stalwart
Whig, described the incident in his
Cincinnati Gazette as "an-
other fishing for Glory to be given to
President Jackson, for the
ultimate use of Martin Van Buren,"
and believed the Federal
mediators had been sent primarily to
"get a sop from the Treas-
ury," and in return, to "give
a lift to the Baltimore May Con-
vention" which was to nominate Van
Buren. "President Jack-
son is an alchymist [sic] that
turns every thing to the profit of
his parasites and to the advantage of
his party."72 The Whig
Ohio State Journal (Columbus, Ohio) believed Jackson merited
the "execration" of the
people of Michigan,73 yet accused the
Administration paper in Columbus of
siding with Michigan.74
Apparently some Ohio Whigs would not
have been unwilling to
force the Democratic governor into a
conflict with the United
68 Cass to Forsyth, November 19, 1835;
War Department to Lucas, October 23,
1835; also House Documents, no.
7, p. 41-2; Toledo Gazette, March 25, 1835.
69 Hemans, op. cit., 165-70.
70 Thomas L. Hamer to Lucas, December
11, 1835.
71 William McKay to id., October
16, 1835; Joseph McCutcheon to id., March 10,
1835; Andrews to id., April 29,
1835; Andrew Palmer to id., April 5, 15, 1835.
72 Cincinnati Gazette, April 14,
1835.
73 October 30, 1835.
74 Western Hemisphere, June
24, 1835.
316 OHIO
ARCH/EOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
States Government, in order to sow
dissension in the party.75
Duff Green's Whig United States
Telegraph (Washington, D.
C.), on the other hand, intimated that
the Michigan authorities
were encouraged by the Democrats in
Washington to resist
Ohio.76 A Pickaway County
editor charged that Lucas' "Plenipos"
to Washington had cost the State
Treasury $1300,77 and the
Democratic organ in Columbus blamed
Congress for all the trou-
ble--"where unprincipled demagogues
set themselves up as gladi-
ators to fight for the largesses yearly
distributed from that mam-
moth of all corruption, the United
States Bank, by way of per-
petual loans or fees for
counsel."78 In the Federal House of
Representatives, ex-President Adams
pleaded the cause of Mich-
igan, but felt certain Ohio would win
out, because Ohio, In-
diana and Illinois had thirty-five
electoral votes to cast in 1836,
and Michigan but three. William Allen
wrote from Chillicothe
to Van Buren with perfect frankness:
"The truth is the Presi-
dent must agree to the proposed terms or
all is lost with his
friends in this state, beside the more
important consequences to
the general welfare of the State and the
Union."79
In addition to the politicians, the
speculators took a keen
interest in a proper solution of the
controversy. By 1835, plans
were under way to complete a canal from
Cincinnati through
Piqua, and to the lake. Toledo was the
logical terminus, and
people living in the disputed area
became convinced that it would
be to their advantage to live in Ohio. A
canal of two hundred
seventy-five miles was in progress, with
more than a million
dollars already spent, and "at or
near the Maumee bay, even-
tually, must rise a large city."80
The Toledo Gazette explained
75 W. T. Murphy to Lucas, August 8, 1835; Hinkson to id., April 27,
1835. See
also, D. T. Disney to id. (Cincinnati),
September 7, 1835: "The Whigs here had all
sorts of stories in circulation, one day
you in their phrase 'had backed out', the next
bloodshed was inevitable, the President
had played false and was in fact secretly sus-
taining Michigan--the 'plenipo' had been
duped, etc., etc.--manifesting however all
the time a most anxious desire to
produce a collision." An editorial in the Western
Hemisphere of July 15, 1835, on "The Whigs Whiggled"
commented: "These are
the patent, Whig, nullifying patriots,
who have so suddenly been converted into
fighting heroes, 'Ohio party' sages, and, eulogists of the
Governor."
76 Western Hemisphere, August 19,
1835, quoting the Albany (New York) Argus.
77 Western Hemisphere, July 29,
1825.
78 Quoted in ibid, April 1, 1835.
79 Quoted in Roseboom and Weisenburger, op. cit., 165; see also
Horner to Lucas
(private), December 18, 1835.
80 Western Hemisphere, March 16, 1836. Mason in March, 1835, had
written to
Jackson: "The inhabitants of Toledo
. . . are actuated by a desire to obtain the
OHIO-MICHIGAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE 317
that unless the Ohio claims were
allowed, important commercial
towns like Chicago, Michigan City,
Toledo, Painesville, and Fair-
port would lie in Michigan; Ohio would
be deprived of almost
her entire coast on Lake Erie; and there
would be nothing left
to do except withdraw from the Union.81
The immigrant tide
was turning from Detroit and Monroe to
Ohio, and Toledo was
destined to become a great lake port. It
was repeatedly charged
that the Michigan authorities were
trying to block Ohio's pro-
gram of public works by circulating
false tales of the "low,
marshy and unhealthy" section
around Toledo, "the sluggish and
filthy" streams, and "the
billious and intermittent fevers,"
"which prevailed upon them the
whole year round."82 Lucas
referred to "the great and powerful
city of Detroit" trying "to
oppress and weaken the small village of
Toledo,"83 and the West-
ern Hemisphere advocated the immediate sale of canal bonds and
the development of public works on the
Maumee, to counteract the
tactics of Michigan. "Commerce is
not a fickle mistress," the
editor added, "that will yield
herself to every new wooer--she is
a sober, settled, steady matron, who
adheres with fidelity to her
first attachment."84
On November 2, 1835, the newly created
state government of
Michigan, set up without warrant of
Congress, began to function,
although on the advice of Cass and
Mason, the Legislature agreed
to pass as little legislation as
possible.85 Two newly elected Sen-
ators and one Representative were in
Washington when Congress
met. With an eye on the election, both
the Whigs and the Dem-
ocrats wanted to give Ohio what she
wanted; business interests
clamored for a settlement, and as John
Quincy Adams said, the
air was "perfumed" with
electoral votes.86 Long debates and
termination of the Ohio canal at their village. Their
movements are purely governed
by self-interest." See House
Documents, no. 7, p. 27.
81 Quoted in Ohio State Journal, April
4, 1835; also Toledo Gazette, quoted in
Cincinnati Daily Republican, April
7, 1835.
82 See
Palmer's "The Replication," published in Toledo Gazette, extra,
March
10, 1835.
83 Message to Ohio Legislature, June 8,
1835, in House Documents, no. 7, p. 166.
84 December
26, 1835. The Wheeling (Virginia, now West Virginia) Gazette
pointed to the strategic value of the
mouth of the Maumee for inland commerce, and
commented: "Speculators see its
importance, and have vested large sums in land in
the neighborhood." Quoted in
Cincinnati Daily Republican, May 19, 1835.
85 Cass to Mason, quoted in Hemans, op.
cit., 187.
86 Senator Lucius Lyon (Michigan) wrote
to Dr. Zina Pitcher, a Detroit Whig, on
March 12, 1836: "All parties are
courting the electoral votes of Ohio, Indiana and
Illinois and poor Michigan must be
sacrificed. We shall probably be allowed to come
318
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
hearings followed, turning to a
considerable extent on the in-
teresting question whether people could
make a state by them-
selves, and without an enabling act from
Congress.87 On June
15, 1836, Jackson signed a bill, to
admit Michigan, if she ac-
cepted certain boundaries which gave the
disputed area of four
hundred square miles to Ohio, and as
compensation, offered to
Michigan nine thousand square miles, in
the western part of the
Upper Peninsula. Ohio papers denounced
the whole statehood
movement as unprecedented, "illegal
and void,"88 and a mass
meeting at Detroit resolved it did not
want "the sterile region
on the shores of Lake Superior, destined
by soil and climate
to remain forever a wilderness."89
A special convention, meeting at Ann
Arbor in September,
1836, rejected the compromise settlement
by a majority of seven,
as an unconstitutional interference with
the rights of a state.
Suddenly it became apparent that the
Federal Government was
about to distribute the surplus in the
United States Treasury
among the states, and that Michigan
would not get her share of
nearly $400,000 unless she officially
entered the Union. On De-
cember 14, another convention known as
the "Frostbitten Con-
vention" assembled at Ann Arbor,
under the leadership of Dem-
ocratic politicians. It was not called
by the Legislature, but met
as a result of informal personal calls,
petitions, and public meet-
ings calling for reconsideration. It
agreed to accept the proposal
of Congress. Jackson reported the event
to Congress, and that
body engaged in another discussion of
the legality of the second
convention. Some Ohio Congressmen still
objected, and there
was the usual oratory about "the
sanction of the law," but by
this time the presidential election was
over, Michigan had three
electoral votes ready to cast for Van
Buren, who in any case
did not need them to be elected, and on
January 26, 1837, Con-
gress formally admitted Michigan to the
Union.
into the Union if we surrender our
rights, but the Union of gamblers and pick-
pockets, to a poor traveller who has just been robbed,
is hardly to be desired." Quoted
ibid., 217.
87 For a convenient summary of the
Congressional debates, see Soule, "Southern
and Western Boundaries of
Michigan," loc. cit., and J. B. McMaster, History of the
People of the United States (New York, 1914), VI, 303-7.
88 Western Hemisphere, August 5, 1835; Cleveland Herald, cited in Western
Courier, November 19, 1885.
89 Hemans, op. cit., 199.
OHIO-MICHIGAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE 319
On February 9, a big celebration was
held in Detroit, with
cannon, parades, and a "grand
illumination" consisting of a
tallow candle in every window. Eight
months earlier, Toledo
had staged her celebration of the
settlement of the boundary
dispute. Cannons and bells greeted the
sunrise of June 25, 1836,
banners fluttered from all the
buildings, and firing continued
throughout the morning. At 3 P.
M., a parade made its way
through the village streets. Then the
celebrants returned to the
Mansion House for dinner, and after the
tables were cleared,
celebrated the occasion, in the bibulous
fashion of our forefathers,
with twenty-six toasts, in which no one,
from the President to the
local authorities of the booming lake
town, was forgotten.90
90 Toledo Gazette, July 2, 1836.
THE OHIO-MICHIGAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE
RE-EXAMINED*
By CARL
WITTKE
A hundred years ago, the "sovereign
and independent state"
of Ohio and the Territory of Michigan
mobilized their forces
to settle a long-standing dispute over a
slice of territory some
seven miles wide at its western end and
some eleven miles at
its eastern end, stretching across the
State of Ohio from its
western boundary to Lake Erie, and
comprising the valuable
harbor at the mouth of the Maumee River.
In the "Toledo War," "Old
Governor" Robert Lucas was
ready to defend the claims of Ohio's
"million freemen" with ten
thousand militia, and Stevens T. Mason,
"the Boy Governor" of
Michigan, was prepared to welcome them
"to hospitable graves."
The story of the Ohio-Michigan boundary
dispute has been ade-
quately told elsewhere, and only a brief
review of the main
events is needed here.1
Bad maps sometimes produce a lot of
history. In I755, amid
a crop of new maps, appeared John
Mitchell's detailed map of
the West, prepared for the British Lords
of Trade. Mitchell
was an M. D., a Virginia botanist, and a
fellow of the Royal
Society, and so his map was regarded as
authoritative for the
Proclamation Line of 1763, and by the
peace commissioners of
1783. In 1778, Mitchell's map,
with little variation, received
the stamp of approval of Thomas
Hutchins, "geographer-general
to the United States."
Unfortunately, Mitchell drew the south-
* Read before the Tri-State Meeting of
the Library Associations of Indiana, Ohio
and Michigan, at Toledo, Ohio, October
17, 1986.
1 See Annah M. Soule, "The Southern
and Western Boundaries of Michigan," in
Michigan Political Science Association Publications
(Ann Arbor, 1895-), II (1896);
Arthur M. Schlesinger, "Basis of
the Ohio-Michigan Boundary Dispute," in The Ohio-
Michigan Boundary--Final Report of
the Ohio Cooperative Topographic Survey
(Mansfield, 1916), I, 59-70; and
Schlesinger's Bibliography, ibid., 113-5; W. V. Way,
The Facts and Historical
Events of The Toledo War of 1835 (Toledo,
1869); Lawton
T. Hemans, Life and Times of Stevens
Thomson Mason, the Boy Governor of Michi.
gan (Lansing, 1920); E. H. Roseboom and F. P. Weisenburger,
A History of Ohio
(New York, 1934) 161-6.
(299)