Ohio History Journal

COLUMBUS: OHIO'S CAPITAL*

 

BY ELMER EDWARD NOYES

 

It has been stated by some authorities that Columbus was

born a capital,¹ that Lucas Sullivant, an early surveyor who laid

out Franklinton in 1797, foresaw       the future political possibilities

of the district.² At the same time, it is claimed by another au-

thority that this was hardly possible, since state lines had not

yet been drawn at that early date.³ In any   case, the seat of

government was moved to Columbus in October, 1816,4 and the

legislature convened there on December 2, 1816.⁵

The towns of Columbus and Franklinton were now con-

nected by an "elegant bridge" thrown across the Scioto River.6

Furthermore, by the next year, local papers contained accounts

of the pleasing development of the capital, these claiming that

in 1817 there were nearly 200 houses--"elegant mansions" re-

placing log cabins.⁷ The embryo city also supported two news-

papers, and an "academy for young ladies in which are instructed

most of the branches of polite literature of that class of schools,

in the seaports and principal towns."⁸ The same source claimed

that Columbus was a place where one could enjoy good health

and cheap living. One could find refreshment and relaxation

in the tavern owned and operated by J. B. Gardiner, this estab-

 

* This article is based upon a revised chapter taken from a Master's thesis

written in 1940 at the Ohio State University and entitled, "The Selection of a Site

for the Permanent Location of Ohio's Capital."  The content of the chapter has

been left intact, but the form and expression have been altered slightly. The writer

has felt it advisable to omit a number of footnote references in his revision.

1 Alfred E. Lee, History of the City of Columbus, Capital of Ohio (New York,

1892), I, 201. Hereafter this work will be cited as Lee, Hist. of Col.

² Joseph Sullivant, A Genealogy and Family Memorial (Columbus, 1874), 115; Lee,

Hist. of Col., I, 135.

3 General John Beatty, "Franklinton-An Historical Address," Ohio State Ar-

chaeological and Historical Quarterly, VI, 61.

4 Ohio Laws, XIV, 245.

5 Item in Chillicothe, Ohio, Supporter, Dec. 6, 1816.

6 Ibid.; Lee, Hist. of Col., I, 218, for a discussion of bridge and tolls, etc.

7 Zanesville, Ohio, Muskingum  Messenger, June 26, 1817, quoting item  from

Columbus Ohio Monitor.

8 For this material the writer has referred to an item from Ohio Monitor, quoted

by Muskingum Messenger, June 26, 1817.

(72)

• 1
 

COLUMBUS: OHIO'S CAPITAL                       73

 

lishment being known as "The Rose Tree in Full Bearing."9

Furthermore, the public buildings were completed, and were in

most respects deemed satisfactory, although one of the authorities

cited above claimed that the "penitentiary . . . is deficient in size

and strength."¹⁰ Nor was this the only disdainful remark made

about the civic and cultural attractions of Columbus, for Dr.

John Cotton, physician of Marietta, had the following to say of the

new capital:

It [Columbus] is of only three year's growth. . . . The people have

been collected from every quarter and having great diversity of manners

and habits . . . do not make the most agreeable company. An elegant

state house is here being erected. . . . One thing seems truly ridiculous.

Inscriptions are set up over the doors on beautiful slabs of marble taken

from Joel Barlow's Columbiad, holding forth the detested principles of

the French Revolution. There is a state prison also, or, as it is here

called, a penitentiary, for convicts, though quite too small, one would be

apt to judge for that purpose.11

But not all the criticism applied to Columbus was of so

adverse a nature, and perhaps Governor Thomas Worthington

voiced the happiest outlook for the future of the new capital

when he said:

The beauty and advantages of the site fixed . . . are more apparent

as it progresses in improvement. You may be subject to some inconveniences

. . . but there is every reason to expect that . . . the growth of the town

will remedy these. . . .12

Thus the daily life of the capital went on. Seldom was there

any open indication during the years immediately following 1816

that the seat of government should be moved elsewhere, although

during that year there was probably some smoldering feeling in

this respect. For instance, on May 16, 1816, a letter appeared

in the Western Intelligencer addressed to "All Lovers of Good

Roads," in which the point was made that certain towns--Zanes-

ville, Lancaster, and Chillicothe--hoped to change the course

of the "Great National Turnpike Road" so that the road would

 

9 Advertisement in Supporter, Dec. 17, 1816.

10 Muskingum Messenger, June 26, 1817, quoting item from Ohio Monitor.

11 Rufus King, Ohio First Fruits of the Ordinance of 1787 (New York, 1888),

340, quoting diary of Dr. Cotton based on his trip to Columbus in 1815.

12 Worthington, Ohio, Western Intelligencer, Dec. 5, 1816, quoting Governor's Mes-

sage of Dec. 3; House Journal, 10 Assem., 1 Sess., 12, Proceedings, Dec. 3, 1816.

• 2
 

74      OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

run through them. A change like this, so the letter stated, might

result in the capital's being removed from Columbus to one of

these towns.    One way, according to the writer, to keep the

capital in a central location and at Columbus, was to do every-

thing possible to have the road go through the capital. Although

the writer claimed that removal of the capital from Columbus was

impossible, the mere fact that he used the hopes of the towns

mentioned above as a threat shows that the deplorable condition

of the roads leading to Columbus was being offered as adverse

criticism of the site.¹³

Furthermore, the possibility arose in January, 1817, that the

penitentiary might be removed from       Columbus to Muskingum

County, since a report of a committee which was investigating

penitentiary affairs claimed that the country near Zanesville af-

forded more advantages than any other place for the location of

a new prison. Accordingly, a resolution was drawn on January

21, 1817, for a bill to authorize the erection of a new penitentiary

in the town of Putnam (formerly known as Springfield), or on

the banks of the Muskingum River.14 Nothing came of this at-

tempt to withdraw one of the most important state buildings from

the capital. Such a withdrawal might have led to further similar

actions resulting in the possible final changing of the seat of

government itself, but, as has been stated, the effort to move

the penitentiary failed.

The next indication that the capital might be removed from

Columbus either temporarily or permanently came in the autumn

of 1822. The Cleveland Herald of December 12, 1822, stated

that the

Columbus papers contain a notice that petitions will be presented to

the present legislature for the removal of the seat of government across

the river to Franklinton. It is also said that attempts will be made for its

removal to Zanesville; and we do not know but Steubenville will . . . be

thought of, by one person at least, as the most eligible and central spot for

the state capital.15

13 Western Intelligencer, May 16, 1816, quoting letter of "An Old Fashioned

Fellow."

14 Senate Journal, 15 Assem., 1 Sess., 157-60, Proceedings of Jan. 4, 1817.

15 Annals of Cleveland, A Digest and Index of the Newspaper Record of Events

and Opinion (Multigraphed by Cleveland W. P. A. Project 16823, 1937), V, 217,

abstract 304 quoting Cleveland Herald, Dec. 12, 1822.

• 3
 

COLUMBUS: OHIO'S CAPITAL                        75

 

It is true that the Columbus press did contain notices praying

for the removal of the seat of government from Columbus to

Franklinton, but no mention is made of any other location.¹⁶ A

few days after the appearance of the first of these petitions, an

editorial from the Steubenville Gazette was quoted in the Co-

lumbus Gazette as making the following statement:

From   the sickness that has prevailed the present season, in . . .

Columbus, we learn that it will become a serious question, at the ensuing

sessions of the legislature, whether a more eligible and healthy situation

cannot be found, if not for the permanent, at least for the temporary,

seat of government of this state. Zanesville is the place spoken of as

the place pointed out by nature of our seat of government; and it is

predicted that there it must come at last.17

It is hardly necessary to say that this editorial aroused com-

ment from several sources. The Columbus Gazette, in reply to the

Steubenville editor, stated that there was no truth in the statement,

that there had been but ittle sickness in Columbus during the

past season, and that

we were well aware of Mr. Wilson's hostility towards our place, but had

never indulged the belief that he was actuated by so base and fiendlike

disposition. . . . And we confess that we are extremely sorry to see so

great a Statesman and so good an Editor, sacrificing truth to satisfy his

hellish appetite. We say from such a man "Good Lord deliver us."18

This somewhat vitriolic denunciation of Editor Wilson and

his motives was softened by a milder reply coming from the Ohio

Monitor on November 23, 1822. In this statement, it was ad-

mitted that charges were made by various sources that Columbus

was an unhealthy place.¹⁹ It was maintained, however, by the

same source that

we hardly believe . . . Zanesville enjoys more health than Columbus.

Besides, the Legislature sits in Columbus in the winter and the health of

Columbus will then compare with that of any place in the world.

In referring to the health of the legislature the paper stated,

 

16 Notice in Columbus Gazette, Oct. 31, Nov. 7, 21, 1822.

17 Columbus Gazette, Nov. 21. 1822, quoting editorial in Steubenville Gazette. See

also Muskingum Messenger, Nov. 19, 1822.

18 Columbus Gazette, Nov. 21, 1822. (Mr. Wilson, the "one person" referred to

in citation 15 and in this note was the grandfather of President Woodrow Wilson.)

19 For this material and the two quotations following, the writer has referred to

an editorial appearing in the Ohio Monitor and Patron of Industry, Nov. 23, 1822.

• 4
 

76     OHIO ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

"They have held six sessions in this place, averaging nine weeks

each year; and, out of one hundred men, ONE only has died,

during the whole period."

Nor was Zanesville silent during this give-and-take between

Columbus and Steubenville. Taking a somewhat cynically amused

attitude, the editor of the Muskingum Messenger and Democratic

Republican stated that

anything which we, here about Zanesville, could say in favor of a removal

of the seat of government, would have but little effect with those who

have the power to accomplish the object . . . that we were actuated by

interested and selfish motives.20

This comment was followed by a statement supporting the legality

of such a transfer of the seat of the government, and it was main-

tained that the "People of Franklin County have to admit the

legality of such a move because of their attempts to have the

seat of justice for their county which had been permanently fixed

at Franklinton removed to Columbus."21

At this time notices were appearing in the local Columbus

press praying for the removal of the seat of justice of Franklin

County from Franklinton to Columbus.²² A few days later the

Muskingum Messenger stated further that the "People of Colum-

bus seemed greatly alarmed over the removal because they would

lose their business and their property would depreciate."23

The statement then goes on "We, of Zanesville would reap

so many advantages--our business would flourish still more,

and we should be blessed with the neighborship of many of our

Columbus friends."

From  an analysis of the above statements, it can be seen

that Zanesville was very likely still suffering from the sting caused

by the removal of the capital from Zanesville to Chillicothe in

1812, that there was considerable dissatisfaction felt toward Co-

lumbus as the capital city, and that this dissatisfaction was ex-

pressed chiefly through charges that the site of the capital was in

an unhealthy place. Naturally, the Columbus inhabitants defended

 

20 Editorial in Muskingum Messenger and Democratic Republican, Nov. 19, 1822.

21 Ibid.

22 Notice in Columbus Gazette, Nov. 13, 1822.

23 From this and the following excerpt the writer is indebted to an editorial

appearing in the Muskingum Messenger, Dec. 3, 1822.

• 5
 

COLUMBUS: OHIO'S CAPITAL                 77

 

their city with as much vigor as they could, but it must be stated

here that an altogether true picture of the town's state of health

was not presented in the newspapers. In fact, for over a year

Columbus had been suffering from much sickness, as can be shown

by the following excerpts from letters written by Mrs. Betsy

Green Deshler, a member of one of the early families of Columbus,

to various relatives of hers.

On March 17, 1821--over a year before the charges made by

Editor Wilson--Mrs. Deshler wrote to her father:      "Almost

everybody here has been sick owing to the disagreeable weather."24

A few months later she wrote again: "There has been this

season, considerable sickness in Columbus. . . ."  A few weeks

after that, in October, 1821, "It is, and has been, more unhealthy

this season than for many years. . . . The most that appears to

occupy the minds of the people this year is sickness, taking care

of the sick, going to funerals. . . ."

Finally, just prior to the time of the charges made by Editor

Wilson, Mrs. Deshler remarked: "There has been much more

sickness this season than has ever been known since the settlement

of Franklin County. Our burying ground has averaged ten new

graves per week, for a number of weeks past. . . ."

Judging by the contents of the above letters, it would seem

that Editor Wilson's charges were not so far from the truth, and

since Mrs. Deshler's letters continue in much the same vein until

the spring of 1826, it would seem too, that the statements made

by Columbus newspapers to the effect that there had been but

little sickness in Columbus during this period were somewhat

erroneous,²⁵ if not untrue.

Such was the momentary flurry in the fall of 1822 when the

smouldering resentment and dissatisfaction felt toward the capital

city flared into open flame. Aside from the comments made by

various newspapers, nothing of further importance developed in

connection with the issue. Although the chief criticism of the

capital was directed at its unhealthy situation, little more was

heard of this despite the fact--as has been shown--that a great deal

 

24 For these letters the writer is indebted to Lee, Hist. of Col., I, 269-71.

25 Editorial in Columbus Gazette, Nov. 21, 1822.

• 6
 

78     OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

of sickness prevailed in Columbus for several years following

1822. Certain it is that Editor Wilson had some basis for his

charges, but nothing ever came of them. It was not until the

latter part of the next decade that the fourth and final stage

of the contest over the permanent location of the capital of Ohio

began.

• 7