ANDREW R. L. CAYTON
"A Quiet Independence":
The Western Vision of
the Ohio Company
Speculative schemes and idealistic
visions merged in post-
Revolutionary America to produce many
new towns in the rapidly
expanding Northwest Territory. A group
of New England veterans
of the American Revolution, organized as
the Ohio Company of
Associates, established the first such
community on April 7, 1788, at
the confluence of the Ohio and Muskingum
rivers, some 200 miles
downstream from Pittsburgh. They called
their town Marietta.
Within the next several years, many of
the 594 associates of the
Ohio Company cleared land, built homes,
settled their families, and
sought fortune and security in or near
this city. Above all, they
attempted to protect and stablize their
financial and ideological in-
vestment in what they called "the
western world" by providing
Marietta with a pervasive and enduring
form and character.1
Indeed, the construction of Marietta was
the culmination of a long
contemplated effort by a highly
organized elite to establish a com-
munity designed to secure individual
fortune within the context of
communal order. In a 1790 letter seeking
to obtain increased protec-
tion from Indians, to gain the opening
of the Mississippi River, and
to assuage eastern fears about
depopulation, Ohio Company Super-
intendent Rufus Putnam told Congressman
Fisher Ames that the
"Genus" and
"education" of no other people was "as favorable to a
Andrew R. L. Cayton is a Ph.D. candidate
in history at Brown University and an
Instructor in the history department at
Harvard University.
1. "A Contemporary Account of Some
Events," in James M. Varnum, An Oration
Delivered at Marietta, July 4, 1788 (Newport, 1788), in Samuel Prescott Hildreth,
Pioneer History: Being an Account of
the First Examination of the Ohio Valley and the
Early Settlement of the Northwest
Territory (Cincinnati, 1848), 515.
Hildreth is a
detailed account of the founding of
Marietta by an early resident. For a concise,
modern narrative, see Beverley W. Bond,
Jr., The Foundations of Ohio, Carl Wittke,
ed., The History of the State of Ohio
(5 vols., Columbus, 1941), I, 275-90.
6 OHIO HISTORY
republican Government" as that of
Massachusetts. But in the 1780s
Putnam and his colleagues had been less
sanguine about the "mor-
rals, relegion and policy" of the
East. Then, without the reassuring
presence of Putnam's friend and mentor
George Washington as
president under a strong federal Constitution, some
Americans
appeared to the founders of the Ohio
Company to be repudiating or
distorting the tenets of republican
government as they defined
them. Bitter frustration and disgust
with their perception of the
United States in the 1780s made the
development of Marietta cru-
cial to the associates. Far more than a
source of profit, the city was
to serve as "a wide model" for
the "regular" and "judicious" settle-
ment of the West.2
In the East, the veterans had sensed the
imminent disintegration
of their inseparable personal and public
worlds. Believing them-
selves poorly paid for military service
in the Revolution, outraged at
a perceived loss of status when they had
expected increased respect
and prestige, self-pitying but genuinely
frightened by post-
Revolutionary America, the associates of
the Ohio Company sought
to escape what they saw as the
contentious anarchy of the East and
to bring order and stability to their
lives in a prosperous but control-
led West. Mixing materialism and
idealism inextricably, the
Marietta founders' negative view of
their economic and social posi-
tions in the 1780s nurtured positive
hopes for a certain, harmonious
existence based on a regular city and
landed wealth.
Assuming that stability could be
produced by a relatively
egalitarian dispersal of land among the
virtuous and by the example
of an orderly city, this self-appointed
elite hoped to control the
evolution of western society. In this
task, they clearly failed. For the
boats carrying the people who would
settle and develop the West
generally passed by Marietta, their
passengers perhaps put off by its
very regularity and pretensions and
interested in individual fortune
without the elitist notions of
stability and harmony that guided the
Marietta founders. Yet, if the story of
early Marietta is ultimately
one of failure, it nonetheless provides
a crucial example of the mo-
tives of some early immigrants to the
Northwest Territory.
Historians have generally seen the Ohio
Company, which was
2. Rufus Putnam to Fisher Ames, 1790,
Rowena Buell, ed., The Memoirs of Rufus
Putnam and Certain Official Papers and Correspondence (Boston, 1903),
246; Man-
asseh Cutler, An Explanation of the
Map which delineated that part of the Federal
Lands, Comprehended between
Pennsylvania, the Rivers Ohio and Scioto, and Lake
Erie; confirmed to the United States by sundry Tribes
of Indians, in the Treaties of
1784 and 1786, and now ready for
Settlement (Salem, 1787), 14.
A Quiet Independence 7
organized as a joint stock corporation
by eleven veterans of the
American Revolution on March 1, 1786, in
Boston, as the climax of a
persistent but basically economic effort
by New England officers to
obtain payment for their wartime
service. Certainly, director Man-
asseh Cutler and secretary Winthrop
Sargent's handling of the
purchase of 1,500,000 acres from
Congress in 1787 and their close
association with speculators like
William Duer and speculations
like the Scioto Company tend to confirm
that judgment. No one can
doubt that the associates were
interested in getting land and money.
Many, like Alexander Hamilton, had no
immediate intention of set-
tling in the West. Because the company
seems so much like a spec-
ulative venture, its rhetoric, while not
without defenders, especially
among local historians, has often been
dismissed as propaganda
designed to gain favors from Congress or
to attract settlers to the
purchase. One of the five directors of
the company, Manasseh Cut-
ler, even found something redeeming
about Shays' Rebellion:
"These commotions," he told
Winthrop Sargent, "will tend to pro-
mote our plan and incline well-disposed
persons to become adven-
turers." But it was not merely the
force of their rhetoric that the
associates believed would convince other
people to join. "For," as
Cutler himself noted about Massachusetts
in 1786, "who would wish
to live under a Government subject to
such tumults and confusions."
Generally believing the assumptions and
fears that lay behind
much of their exaggerated public prose
and anxious private letters,
the associates expected many others to
be receptive to their charac-
terizations of eastern society and their
hopes for the West. They did
not reject American society so much as
they wanted to stabilize it.
Largely soldiers or their sons who were
gambling on building, or
rebuilding, a more predictable life, the
active participants in the
westward migration were indeed
speculators - in the future as well
as land. Like Captain Joseph Rogers, who
had "served honorably
through the Revolution" and then
resided some time with his
friends," these veterans believed
that they had "cast" their "Bread
upon the Waters of the Revolution"
in vain, and now, like "many an
Old Soldier," marched "toward
the setting sun in hopes to find it in
the West."3
3. Manasseh Cutler to Winthrop Sargent,
October 8, 1786, quoted in Sidney Ka-
plan, "Veteran Officers and
Politics in Massachusetts, 1783-1787," William and Mary
Quarterly, IX (1952), 43; Joseph Rogers is quoted in George J.
Blazier, ed., Joseph
Barker: Recollections of the First
Settlement of Ohio (Marietta, 1958),
11. The associ-
ates are portrayed as speculative
entrepreneurs in Sidney Kaplan, "Pay, Pension,
and Power: Economic Grievances of the
Massachusetts Officers of the Revolution,"
Boston Public Library Quarterly, III (1951), 15-34, 127-42, and Kaplan, "Veteran
8 OHIO
HISTORY
The earliest origins of Marietta lay in
the increasing material and
social distress felt by its founders.
Insistent upon describing them-
selves as "reputable, industrious,
well-informed" men with status in
society, the members of the Ohio Company
assured congressmen
that "many of the subscribers are
men of very considerable property
and respectable characters." If the
associates were certain that they
were "distinguished for wealth,
education, and virtue," events and
other people appeared to them to be
threatening that crucial self-
image. Long-standing discontents with
the evolution of New Eng-
land society came to a head in the 1780s
as the future Mariettans
saw ubiquitous challenges to their
security and social status.4
Generally sons of substantial farmers
and artisans, most of the
future emigrants came from towns in an
arc around Boston, in east-
ern Connecticut, and in Rhode Island
undergoing the pangs of com-
mercial growth and the disruption of
what seemed in retrospect, at
least, to have been a more personal,
communal world. Such pre-
dominantly agricultural towns as
Pomfret, Connecticut, and
Stoughton, Massachusetts, experienced
increasing population
accompanied by a growing number of
neighborhood disputes and
stronger connections with the more
commercial and cosmopolitan
worlds of Boston and Providence.
Officers," 29-57. For discussions
of the congressional negotiations and land grant,
with emphasis on the speculative nature
of the Ohio Company, see Joseph S. Davis,
"William Duer, Entrepreneur,
1747-1799," Essays in the Early History of American
Corporations (2 vols., Cambridge, 1917), II, 131-45; Merrill Jensen,
The New Nation:
A History of the United States during the
Confederation, 1781-1789 (New York,
1950),
355-59; Richard H. Kohn, Eagle and
Sword: The Federalists and the Creation of the
Military Establishment in America,
1783-1802 (New York, 1975), 99-100;
Shaw
Livermore, Early American Land
Companies (New York, 1939), 136-46; and
Frederick Merk, History of the
Westward Movement (New York, 1978), 104-05. Not all
historians have seen the associates as
economic men, however. The most complete
and admiring study of the motives of the
associates is Archer Butler Hulbert's intro-
duction to The Records of the
Original Proceedings of the Ohio Company (2 vols.,
Marietta, 1917). Hulbert viewed the
Company as the democratic, "uniquely unselfish
and thoroughly American" (I, ciii)
carrier of New England idealism, piety, and pat-
riotism to the West. Other writers who
emphasize the communal nature and New
England origins of the company include:
Ray Allen Billington, Westward Expansion:
A History of the American Frontier, 3rd ed. (New York, 1967), 212-20, esp., 218;
Beverley W. Bond Jr., The
Civilization of the Old Northwest (New York, 1934), 9-12;
Daniel Boorstin, The Americans: The
National Experience (New York, 1965), 53-54;
Ralph Brown, Historical Geography of
the United States (New York, 1948), 215-19;
Thomas D. Clark, Frontier America:
The Story of the Westward Movement (New
York, 1959), 149-51; and Malcolm J.
Rohrbough, The Trans-Appalachian Frontier:
People, Societies, and Institutions,
1775-1850 (New York, 1978), 66-70.
4. Varnum, An Oration, 507;
Manasseh Cutler to Nathan Dane, March 16, 1787,
William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins
Cutler, eds., Life, Journals, and Corres-
pondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (2 vols., Cincinnati, 1888), I, 507.
A Quiet Independence |
Certainly, economic difficulties haunted several future associates who came of age in the troubled 1760s. Manasseh Cutler's experi- ence as a young Yale graduate was not uncommon. A native of Killingly, Connecticut, a town beset with "wrangles and church feuds," Cutler unsuccessfully tried life as a merchant on Martha's Vineyard before hesitantly turning to the ministry in the late 1760s. Rufus Putnam and Benjamin Tupper, both the youngest of several sons, found their efforts at farming interrupted by service in the French and Indian War and by the necessity of supplementing their income through milling and tanning. Such insecurity com- bined with land scarcity to cause many future Ohioans to consider migration from New England in the early 1770s. Hoping to receive land as compensation for their military service, the cousins Israel and Rufus Putnam participated in a surveying expedition to the Mississippi River in 1773. They were intensely disappointed by the Crown's decision to refuse their petition.5
5. Ellen D. Larned, Historic Gleanings in Windham County, Connecticut (Provi- dence, 1899), 76; Cutlers, Manasseh Cutler, I, 73, 89. See also, Buell, Rufus Putnam, 7, 53; Samuel Prescott Hildreth, Biographical and Historical Memoirs of the Early Pioneer Settlers of Ohio (Cincinnati, 1852); and Julia Perkins Cutler, The Founders of Ohio (Cincinnati, 1888). The future Mariettans' problems and frustrations were part |
10 OHIO HISTORY
The American Revolution dramatically
raised the expectations of
such frustrated men. Among the first to
respond to Lexington and
Concord, the future emigrants with near
unanimity enthusiastical-
ly participated in the 1775 siege of
Boston. Not only did the war
provide the identifiable enemy and
social solidarity in the battle to
"restore peace, tranquility . . .
Union and liberty" to America, it
confirmed at a critical moment the
future pioneers' previously inse-
cure status as leaders in personal
communities. For the Ohio Com-
pany directors Rufus Putnam and Benjamin
Tupper of Mas-
sachusetts, James Varnum of Rhode
Island, and Samuel Holden
Parsons of Connecticut, arrived at
Boston as chief officers of local
and state militia, indisputable evidence
of their social standing and
the respect and confidence of their
neighbors. Further military ser-
vice, in the officers' minds at least,
only accorded them formal defer-
ence within the strictly hierarchical
society of the army.6
In the end, however, fighting for
American independence and re-
publican ideals seemed to make economic
and social disaster a dis-
tinct possibility for many of the future
emigrants. Sometimes enfee-
bled and rarely paid, many of those who
served their new country
spent family fortunes in mere survival.
The failure of Congress to
pay them, claimed Major-General Samuel
Holden Parsons, was in-
tensely frustrating to men who
"have expended their estates, have
of a larger pattern in New England
society resulting from an expanding population
and declining resources, especially
land. See, Richard Bushman, From Puritan to
Yankee: Character and the Social
Order in Connecticut, 1690-1765 (New
York, 1967);
Philip J. Greven, Jr., Four
Generations: Population, Land and Family in Colonial
Andover, Massachusetts (Cambridge, 1970); Robert A. Gross, The Minutemen
and
Their World (New York, 1976), 10-29, 66-108; James A. Henretta, The
Evolution of
American Society, 1700-1815: An
Interdisciplinary Analysis (Lexington,
1973), 5-39,
114-15; and Kenneth Lockridge,
"Land, Population and the Evolution of New Eng-
land Society, 1630-1790," Past
and Present, No. 39 (April, 1968), 62-80.
6. [James Mitchell Varnum],
"Ministerial Oppression, with The Battle of Bunker
Hill: A Tragedy," [1775], The
Harris Collection, The John Hay Library, Brown Uni-
versity, Providence, Rhode Island. The
future of Mariettans' revolutionary motives
seem to correspond with the patterns
outlined in Rowland Berthoff and John M.
Murrin, "Feudalism, Communalism,
and the Yeoman Freeholder: The American
Revolution Considered as a Social
Accident," Stephen G. Kurtz and James H. Hutson,
eds., Essays on the American
Revolution (Chapel Hill, 1973), 256-88; Richard L.
Bushman, "Massachusetts Farmers and
the Revolution," Richard M. Jellison, ed.,
Society, Freedom, and Conscience: The
American Revolution in Virginia, Mas-
sachusetts, and New York (New York, 1976), 77-124; Gross, The Minutemen, 30-66;
Kenneth Lockridge, "Social Change
and the Meaning of the American Revolution,"
Journal of Social History, 6 (Summer, 1973), 403-09; Stephen E. Patterson, Political
Parties in Revolutionary
Massachusetts (Madison, 1973); Gordon
S. Wood, The Crea-
tion of the American Republic,
1776-1787 (New York, 1969), 46-124;
and Michael
Zuckerman, Peaceable Kingdoms: New
England Towns in the Eighteenth Century
(New York, 1970), 220-58.
A Quiet Independence 11
hazarded their lives and health, and
sacrificed the just expectations
of their families for the salvation of
their country."7
Although their fears were often
exaggerated, the difficulties of
the future associates did seem to
escalate in the 1780s. More crucial
than what was actually happening to
these soldiers was their
perception of what was happening to
them. By their standards, post-
war America seemed unfamiliar and
unfair. A successful lawyer
and a member of the Connecticut
legislature before the war, Par-
sons, for example, believed himself
"nearly impoverished" and in
bad health at its end. Despite his
election to the Connecticut legisla-
ture in the 1780s, his fortune consisted
solely of the government
securities he received in lieu of pay
and his hopes of profiting from
"the future disposal of the
land" he surveyed in 1786 in a "subordin-
ate" position.
"Insolvent" despite his investment in the Ohio Com-
pany, Parsons died in 1789 bewailing
"the multiplied troubles
which have fallen to my lot."8
Unsuccessful "mercantile"
ventures were not infrequent, as the
former soldiers found it difficult to
adjust to a more complex econ-
omy. Colonel Ebenezer Spoat, a prewar
farmer of substantial
means, for example, tried his hand at
"mercantile affairs" in the
1780s. "Being entirely
unacquainted" with trade and having "no
taste for his new business ... in a
short time he failed; swallowing
up his wife's patrimony, as well as his
resources."9
While not all of the future associates
suffered financially in the
1780s, many complained bitterly of poor
opportunities and ineq-
uities. Solomon Drowne, a Rhode Island
veteran and future associ-
ate, spent several years preparing for a
medical career only to find
no demand for his services. Reduced to
running a pharmacy with his
sisters, the ambitious Drowne protested
being "superseded or sup-
planted in so many instances, or to
experience almost every species
of slight and neglect." "Rust
and obscurity" seemed his fate, he
lamented, "after devoting the best
years of my life to study, and
spending a pretty good estate to qualify
myself in the best possible
manner for the exercise of an important
position."10
7. Samuel Holden Parsons to Colonel
Root, August 29, 1779, Charles S. Hall, Life
and Letters of Samuel Holden Parsons:
Major-General in the Continental Army and
Chief Judge of the Northwestern
Territory, 1737-1789 (Binghamton,
1905), 266.
8. Hall, Samuel Holden Parsons, 581;
Parsons to his wife, October 18, 1788, Hall,
Parsons, 533.
9. Hildreth, Biographical and
Historical Memoirs, 235.
10. [William Drowne], "A Brief
Sketch of the Life of Solomon Drowne, M.D.," The
Drowne Papers, The Rhode Island
Historical Society, Providence, R.I.; Solomon
Drowne to Theodore Foster, July 25,
1790, William Drowne, "A Brief Sketch," 71. See
12 OHIO HISTORY
Not the lack of profit but the lack of
prestige that followed from
his relative poverty was what really
rankled Drowne. A graduate of
Brown University, a man who had studied
in Philadelphia and
Europe and dined with Thomas Jefferson,
Drowne fretted that his
economic failure was undoing his quest
for social prominence. Some
historians have criticized the
associates of the Ohio Company for
their seemingly crass pursuit of land,
their angry demands for pay
from Congress and the states, and their
careful attention to the
fluctuations in the price of the
securities they received in lieu of pay.
The associates were indeed frantic for
money, but their "grasping"
was essentially the pursuit of "a
quiet independence" that would
accord them a position consonant with
the standing they believed
they held, or should hold, in society.
To Commodore Abraham Whip-
ple, a future Mariettan, his approaching
"misery and ruin" were
incompatible with his election to the
Rhode Island legislature in the
1780s. A respected man hardly mortgaged
his farm "for a temporary
support," had it sued out of his
possession, and then faced the pros-
pect of being "turned out into the
world ... destitute of a house or a
home," even if he had lost much of
his money fighting for his coun-
try's independence. To Whipple, his land
was the foundation of his
personal independence, of his position
as a recognizable community
leader.11
In 1783, feeling neglected and slighted,
the officers of the Con-
tinental army organized the Society of
the Cincinnati, partly to
serve as a lobbying agency to get some
sort of payment from Con-
gress, but primarily to perpetuate the
formal status they had held as
army officers into a socially and
economically uncertain postwar
society. The medal given to each of its
members revealed their in-
tense longing for order, tranquility,
and respect. The decoration
also, Julia Perkins Cutler, Life and
Times of Ephraim Cutler (Cincinnati, 1890), 15;
and Rufus Putnam to George Washington,
April 5, 1784, Buell, Rufus Putnam,
224-25.
11. "Petition of settlers of
Belpre, Ohio to George Washington," March 14, 1793,
The Samuel Prescott Hildreth Papers, I,
The Dawes Memorial Library, Marietta
College, Marietta, Ohio; "Copy of
an Address from Abraham Whipple to Congress,"
The Whipple Papers, The Rhodes Island
Historical Society. Status anxiety was sug-
gested as a motive for the associates'
migration in Jacob Burnet, Notes on the Early
Settlement of the Northwestern
Territory (Cincinnati, 1847), 45. For
other examples of
the postwar difficulties of veterans,
see, Frederick S. Alvis, Jr., ed., Guide to the
Microfilm Edition of the Winthrop
Sargent Papers (Boston, 1965), 10;
Roger J. Cham-
pagne, Alexander McDougall and the
American Revolution in New York (Schnectady,
1975), 199-200, 216; Cutlers, Manasseh
Cutler, I, 155; and especially, George
Washington to the Secretary of War,
October 2, 1782, Louise B. Dunbar, A Study of
"Monarchical" Tendencies in
the United States from 1776 to 1801 (New
York, 1970),
47. Kohn, Eagle and Sword, contains
an unsympathetic analysis of the officers'
response to their problems; see Kohn,
9-39.
A Quiet Independence 13
featured Cincinnatus, the Roman hero, in
a field and "his wife
standing at the door of their cottage;
near it with a plough and
instruments of husbandry." Three
senators were offering Cincinna-
tus a sword, calling him back to the
defense of the Roman republic.
Around the edge of the whole ran the
inscription, "OMNIA RELI-
QUIT SERVARE REM PUBLICAM." On the
reverse was pictured
the sun rising over an "open
city" with "Fame crowning Cincinna-
tus" and the legends "VIRTUTIS
PRAEMIUM" and "ESTO
PERPETUA."12
The importance of Cincinnatus as an
ideal figure to the partici-
pants in the Ohio Company was immense.
Of the eleven men who
met in Boston in March 1786 to organize
the company, six were
members of the society, as were four of
the company's five directors
and its secretary. To the associates,
Cincinnatus was a model of
ideal behavior in an ideal world - for
Cincinnatus, living on the
land far away from the tumult and
corruption of cities and sacrific-
ing his happiness so that the republic
might survive the chaos of
war and enjoy the pleasure and
prosperity of peace, made a powerful
comparison with their own positions.
Cincinnatus was the embodi-
ment of the independent virtuous
republican. Firm fighters for the
American republic in war, the Cincinnati
envisioned themselves as
its staunchest farmer-citizens in peace.
They had had, claimed
Mariettan Joseph Barker, "a second
education in the Army of the
Revolution, where they heard the precept
of wisdom and saw the
example of Bravery and Fortitude. They
had been disciplined to
obey, and learned the Advantages of
subordination to Law and good
order in promoting the prosperity and happiness
of themselves and
the rest of Mankind." A
self-proclaimed elite in the defense of
harmonious republicanism, the Cincinnati
sternly warned that they
would expel any member "who, by
conduct inconsistent with a gen-
tleman and a man of honor, or by opposition
to the interests of the
community in general, or the society in
particular, may render him-
self unworthy to continue a
member."13
To their disgust, however, the officers
believed that the Revolu-
tion had not only threatened the
economic base on which their sta-
12. [C. M. Storey, ed.], Massachusetts
Society of the Cincinnati: Minutes of all
Meetings of the Society up to and
including the meeting of October 1, 1825 (Boston,
1964), xxviii.
13. Blazier, Joseph Barker, 50;
[Storey], Massachusetts Society, xxvi. On the rela-
tionship of the associates of the Ohio
Company and the Society of the Cincinnati see,
Mrs. L. A. Alderman, The
Identification of the Society of the Cincinnati with the First
Authorized Settlement of the
Northwest Territory at Marietta, Ohio, April 7, 1788
(Marietta, 1888), 24; and Hulbert, The
Records of the Original Proceedings, I, xl-xlii.
14 OHIO HISTORY
tus rested, it had released anarchic
and insubordinate elements.
Only symptomatic was the virulent scorn
directed at the Cincinnati,
as the pretensions and hereditary
characteristics of the society
raised a storm of protest throughout
New England. Mass meetings
and memorials condemned the
organization as anti-republican and
elitist. Shocked at such treatment,
Samuel Holden Parsons found
the veterans of Connecticut exposed to
"daily Insults" and "con-
temptuous malignant Neglect."
"Without honor," he said, they
could no longer live in New England and
were seeking homes in
New York or farther west. To these
veterans, it seemed clear that
something had gone wrong in the course
of revolution.14
Everywhere they looked in the
mid-1780s, the associates of the
Ohio Company found ingratitude and
growing anarchy in the East
making a prospective settlement in the
West alluring and idyllic. To
Samuel Holden Parsons, the West
represented "the Rewards of our
Toils" in the Revolution and
"a Safe Retreat from the Confusions
and Distress into which the Folly of
our Country may precipitate
us." The essential problem with
the East, according to Major
General James Varnum, was that too
rapid change and local pre-
judices were leading to disorder and
potential despotism. Indeed, the
prevalence of the former made the
latter almost necessary. Man-
asseh Cutler summarized the general
feeling when he wondered to
Winthrop Sargent, the company
secretary, in 1786 if "mankind are
in a State for enjoying all the natural
rights of humanity and are
possessed of virtue sufficient for the
support of a purely republican
government." "Dishonesty,
Villainy, and extreme ignorance" were
rampant. America, he complained,
"is the first nation" that could
make "a fair experiment of equal
liberty in a civil Community," but
it seemed to be failing in its
calling.15
Benjamin Tupper, who believed in 1787
that monarchy was "abso-
lutely necessary" to save the
United States from total chaos, saw, as
did many of the associates, a climax to
his personal and public
discontents in Shays' Rebellion in late
1786. Coming after the
actual formation of the Ohio Company,
the rebellion only confirmed
14. Samuel Holden Parsons to Alexander
McDougall, August 20, 1783, quoted in
E. James Ferguson, The Power of the
Purse: A History of American Public Finance,
1776-1790 (Chapel Hill, 1961), 156fn. On the public reaction to
the Society, see
Wallace E. Davies, "The Society of
the Cincinnati in New England, 1783-1800,"
William and Mary Quarterly, V (1948), 3-25.
15. Samuel Holden Parsons to Winthrop
Sargent, June 16, 1786, The Winthrop
Sargent Papers, The Massachusetts
Historical Society (microfilm); Manasseh Cutler
to Winthrop Sargent, November 6, 1786,
The Sargent Papers. See also, Wood, The
Creation of the American Republic, 391-467.
A Quiet Independence 15
the disillusionment and fears of the
associates. In such a crisis,
Tupper cried, "The old Society of
the Cincinnati must once more
consult and effect the salvation of a
distracted country." The Cincin-
nati did pledge their support of the
Massachusetts government,
partly because the uprising threatened
the value, even the exist-
ence, of the securities on which rested
the hopes of many to recoup or
build fortunes. But their personal
economic problems symbolized a
more general imperiling of the
republican experiment in freedom.
Not all of the Ohio Company associates
merely decried the rebellion.
Many, such as Rufus Putnam and Benjamin
Tupper, actively joined
General Benjamin Lincoln "against
the Insurgents." Others sold
their farms in utter disgust. Cutler was
right when he argued that
"these commotions will tend to
promote our plan and incline well
disposed persons to become adventurers
for who would wish to live
under a Government subject to such
tumults and confusions."16
In short, the veterans sought the
security of a well-ordered life.
Escaping the conflicts of an
increasingly unfamiliar and contentious
society, they would find "the
assaults of passion ... subdued by the
gentler sway of virtuous affection"
in the West. Solomon Drowne
hoped that "much-eyed Peace"
would "wave her Olive-branch over
the earth and at last compose the
dispositions of perverse mankind!"
Above all, "infatuated
mortals" would "learn that happiness is not
the offspring of contention, but of
mutual concession and accomoda-
tion." Marietta, Varnum argued,
would be "a safe, an honorable
asylum" where equal protection
under the law and "the labor of the
industrious will find the reward of
peace, plenty, and virtuous
contentment."17
Thus, unrewarded service, personal
economic insecurity, and a
frightening perspective on the events of
the 1780s led the associates
of the Ohio Company to forsake what they
perceived as an in-
creasingly perverse world. In the West
they would build anew along
the guidelines of eastern models, but
with control and stability
inherent in the structure of society. In
the 1790s, when the United
States seemed more secure under
Federalist rule and the associates
confronted new problems in the West,
they would find much more to
praise in the East. But on the eve of
their actual migration, disgust
and disillusionment prevailed. When
Winthrop Sargent met some
old war friends on a surveying trip in
the West, they determined, in
16. Benjamin Tupper to Henry Knox,
April, 1787, quoted in Kaplan, "Veteran
Officers," 55; Beull, Rufus
Putnam, 103; Manasseh Cutler to Winthrop Sargent,
October 6, 1786, quoted in Kaplan,
"Veteran Officers," 43.
17. Varnum, An Oration, 505, 508;
Solomon Drowne to Dr. Levi Wharton, January
21, 1792, William Drowne, "A Brief
Sketch," 80; Varnum An Oration, 506.
16 OHIO HISTORY
summarizing the feelings of the
associates, that the lands of the
Ohio would be a place "where the
veteran soldier and honest Man
should find a Retreat from
ingratitude" and vowed, once settled,
never again to visit the East "but
in their children and like Goths
and Vandals to deluge a people more
vicious and villainous than
even the Praetorian Band of Ancient
Rome."18
The pioneers, however, were well aware
that migration and rhet-
oric would not solve their problems, for
social and economic chaos
could travel west just as easily as
virtue. Reform must begin at the
foundations of society. As Samuel Holden
Parsons declared, "the
habits of an old world are in some
degree to be corrected in forming a
new one of the old materials. The
different local prejudices," he
added, "are to be done away and a
medium fallen upon which may
reconcile all." Thus, the
particular value of the Ohio Country for
erecting a more stable society was that
it was largely virgin land.
There, proclaimed Manasseh Cutler,
"in order to begin right ... will
be no wrong habits to combat, and
no inveterate systems to overturn
--there is no rubbish to remove, before
you can lay the foundation."
In Ohio, the associates planned to
create an orderly society based on
equality and security of property, and
on the institutions of the
school, church, and government, all
firmly entrenched in the purity
of a natural, regular setting.
Rhetorically, the founders of Marietta
articulated their version of hopes and
ideals that had echoed in New
England for a century and a half.19
There were to be no economic jealousies,
inequities, or insecur-
ities in the West. Near equality would
mark company holdings and
the virtue of all men would be firmly
grounded in the "quiet inde-
pendence" of landed property. The
price of an individual share was
set as $125 in gold or $1000 in
continentals, each share entitling the
owner to a city lot and farm acreage of
proportional size. The com-
pany further decreed that no person was
to own more than five
18. Winthrop Sargent, "Diary,"
July 19, 1786, The Sargent Papers. New England
society looked more appealing to the
associates in the 1790s, perhaps because it
seemed more stable. See, for example,
Gross, The Minutemen, 153-88; and Van Beck
Hall, Politics Without Parties;
Massachusetts, 1780-1791 (Pittsburgh, 1972), esp.
347-50.
19. Samuel Holden Parsons to William S.
Johnson, November 24, 1788, Hall,
Parsons, 534; Cutler, An Explanation . . ., 20. See also,
Henry Nash Smith, Virgin
Land: The American West as Symbol and
Myth (Cambridge, 1975). A harmonious,
orderly, corporate society had, of
course, long been a goal in New England society.
See, for example, Bushman, From
Puritan to Yankee, Kenneth Lockridge, A New
England Town: The First Hundred Years
(New York, 1970), and Zuckerman, Peace-
able Kingdoms.
A Quiet Independence 17
shares - within the ranks of the elite,
all were to be as economically
equal as possible. After the area had
been surveyed, plots and num-
bers were drawn and matched by lot;
again the design was to insure
a rough equality. Natural leaders would
be recognized on the basis
of merit rather than wealth and every
member of society would have
an independent stake in the perpetuation
of order. To a large extent,
the goal of equality of holdings was
achieved, at least on paper. In
1796, when the Ohio Company had
virtually ceased to exist, it in-
cluded 594 stockholders owning a total
of 496 shares. The average
share per person was .835 with a majority
of stockholders owning
one share; only forty men owned more
than three shares.20
Also of supreme importance was a
traditional New England
emphasis on education and religion.
Marietta, Solomon Drowne said
in 1789, presented a "noble
opportunity for advancing knowledge of
every kind," and for training
"rising sons of science." Just as import-
ant, associate Thomas Wallcut declared,
religion was "the most
solid foundation" and "the
surest support of government and good
morals." Thus, one of the first
orders the company gave was for the
directors to pay close attention
immediately "to the Education of
Youth and the Promotion of Public
Worship." Even a university was
planned.21
As for government, Rufus Putnam extolled
it in his charge to the
first grand jury in Marietta,
"Government is absolutely necessary
for the well being of any people, and
the General Happiness of
Society", he said, "and I
believe it will be found true that all nation-
al prosperity in every age of the world
has generally, if not always,
been enjoyed in proportion to the
rectitude of their government and
the due administration of its
Laws." Hoping to dominate the West
ideologically and materially, the people
of Marietta futilely begged
Major General Arthur St. Clair, first
governor of the Northwest
Territory, to live in Marietta rather
than Cincinnati.22
Manasseh Cutler summarized the feelings
of the associates in a
sermon delivered during his short visit
to Marietta in August, 1788.
He spoke of the coming "bright
day" when "science, virtue, pure
20. Hulbert, The Records, I,
6-10, 23-39, II, 234-42.
21. Solomon Drown[e], An Oration,
Delivered at Marietta, April 7, 1789 in Com-
memoration of the Commencement of the
Settlement Formed by the OHIO COMPANY
(Worcestor, 1789), in Hildreth, Pioneer
History, 522; George Dexter, ed., "Journal of
Thomas Wallcut," Massachusetts
Historical Society, Proceedings, XVII (1879-1880),
191; Hulbert, The Records, I, 40.
22. Rufus Putnam, "Charge to the
Grand Jury at the September Term, 1788,"
quoted in Arthur L. Buell, "A
History of Public Address in the First Permanent
Settlement of the Northwest Territory
from 1788 to 1793," (doctoral dissertation,
Ohio University, 1965), 152.
18 OHIO HISTORY
religion, and free government shall
pervade the western hemis-
phere" and argued that the settlers
could not overlook the "cultiva-
tion of the principles of religion and
virtue" if they intended to
insure their "civil and social
happiness." Religion and education
provided "the greatest aid to civil
government" and "lay the founda-
tion for a well-regulated society."
Only with such cultivation would
people "conform to ... the
community's laws and regulations" out of
"principles of reason and
custom."23
But the greatest advantage of the West
in building a more profit-
able, equitable, and thus stable,
society was its natural setting. Like
Cincinnatus, the associates hoped to
draw virtue and prosperity
primarily from the soil. In fact, these
New Englanders were ecstatic
about the advantages of an agricultural
regime both in attracting
settlers and in ordering society. In a
hyperbolic promotional pamph-
let, Manasseh Cutler praised "the
deep, rich soil" that would yield
riches for an industrious, agricultural
people and the natural water-
ways that would convey their productions
to markets. "The toils of
agriculture," he wrote, will in
Ohio "be rewarded with a greater
variety of productions than in any part
of America." The possibili-
ties of the land were often the most
significant thing settlers noted
upon arriving in the West. Associate and
merchant John May, for
example, journeying home to New England
for a visit, whiled away
the tedious trip by remembering that
"delightful country whose
swelling soil will doubly reward the
industrious planter."24
The land received its fullest tribute in
a speech by Solomon
Drowne on April 7, 1789 - the first
anniversary of the founding of
Marietta. Drowne's address was an
extended paean in praise of
agriculture. Indeed, he credited the
"virgin soil" with luring the
settlers "from your native
homes" with "charms substantial and
inestimable." The Ohio Country,
said Drowne breaking into verse,
was far from the chaos of the East:
The rage of nations and the crush of
states
Move not the man who from the world
escaped,
In still retreats and flowering
solitudes
To nature's voice attends from month to
month.
23. Manasseh Cutler, "Sermon at
Marietta," August 24, 1788, Cutlers, Manasseh
Cutler, I, 344.
24. Cutler, An Explanation ...,
14; John May, August 10, 1788, Dwight L. Smith,
ed., The Western Journals of John
May: Ohio Company Agent and Business Adven-
turer (Cincinnati, 1961), 73.
A Quiet Independence 19
Husbandry, Drowne continued, is
"the best occupation of mankind"
and "the country['s] . . . most
estimable" virtue was that it could be
practiced "under the auspices of
firmly established liberty, civil and
religious, and the mild government of
natural laws." Like Cutler,
Drowne noted that agriculture was a
"profitable" enterprise. But
more important, it was an
"honorable . . . art" that had been "the
delight of the greatest men."25
Agricultural isolation, however, was not
the goal of the early
Mariettans. As detailed in Cutler's
pamphlet, they envisioned a
wide-ranging commerce for their
settlement with the East, Florida,
and the West Indies. The bulk of their
exports down the Mississippi
or back across the mountains would be
agricultural products like
"corn, flour, beef, lumber,
etc." Yet Cutler noted the advantages of
small-scale manufacturing, as long as it
was guided by a landed
elite. "Instead of furnishing other
nations with raw materials," he
argued, "companies of manufacturers
from Europe could be intro-
duced and established in this inviting
situation, under the superin-
tendence of men of property." Far
from turning their backs on profit,
commerce, and industry, the associates
embraced its orderly and
regular development. As in all other
things, the early Mariettans
did not reject commercial development so
much as they wanted to
prevent its potentially disruptive and
perverting side effects. Their
effort was not to create an insulated
asylum, but to restructure the
world they had grown up in to make it
more stable, predictable, and
fair. And to achieve that goal, the
associates believed that society's
leading members had to ground their
lives, ideals, and fortunes
securely, if not exclusively, in the
land. For farming was the most
independent of pursuits and a clear
antidote to social contention and
economic upheaval. "To have a good
farm," Manasseh Cutler told his
Ohioan son in 1797, "to establish a
good landed interest in prefer-
ence to trade, or any other
object," was of supreme importance, "for
there is nothing in this country that
will render a man so completely
independent and secure against the
difficulties which arise from the
changes which the times, the state of
the country, and other contin-
gencies may occasion, and which are and
always will be taking place
in the world." "Freedom and
tranquility," concluded Solomon
Drowne, "may be enjoyed to
perfection, if a person be qualified with
virtue and a competence." The years
of uncertainty and contention
would end in the solid, predictable
rhythms of farming.26
25. Drowne, An Oration, 519, 523.
26. Cutler, An Explanation ..., 13.
20; Mannaseh Cutler to Ephraim Cutler, 1797,
Julia Cutler, Ephraim Cutler, 35fn;
Solomon Drowne, December 26, 1799, William
20 OHIO HISTORY
With the philosophy of republicans and
the institutions of educa-
tion, religion, and government firmly
founded on economic quality
and the practice of husbandry,
Mariettans seemed to have little to
do but build their model society along
the guidelines enunciated in
their rhetoric. While "rejoicing
nature all around us glows," they
would watch
. . . the spires of Marietta rise,
And domes and temples swell to the
skies;
Here, justice reigns, and foul
dissensions cease,
Her walks be pleasure and her paths be
peace ...
In harmony and social virtue blend
Joy without measure, rapture without
end.
In sum, said the inhabitants of Marietta
to Governor St. Clair in the
summer of 1788, "May we here find a
peaceful and happy retreat
after the toils of a calamitous war! May
we enjoy the richest fruit of
a glorious revolution!"27
Nowhere was the nature of the society
the Ohio Company en-
visioned better reflected than in the
physical plan of Marietta. Be-
cause the city was to dominate and
epitomize the new world, on
nothing more than its structure did the
nature and future of the
associates' hopes depend. The plan of
Marietta was drawn in Boston
in the fall of 1787. If not radically
innovative, the design nonethe-
less reflected the associates' strong
emphasis on regularity and
order. The agents of the company
reserved 5,760 acres of the
1,500,000 they had purchased from
Congress at the confluence of
the Ohio and Muskingum rivers for a city
of sixty rectangular
blocks in the general form of ten blocks
wide and six deep. All the
streets were to be 100 feet wide except
for a main one of 150 feet. Of
the sixty blocks, the agents
appropriated four for public use, while
Drowne, "A Brief Sketch," 120.
See Ephraim Cutler's comments on the relationship
of land and character in Julia Cutler, Ephraim
Cutler, 89-90. On the nature of the
early American farms and the
relationship of commerce and virtue see, respectively,
James Henretta, "Families and Farms: Mentalite in
Pre-Industrial America," Wil-
liam and Mary Quarterly, 35 (1978), 3-32; and Drew R. McCoy, "Republicanism
and
American Foreign Policy: James Madison
and the Political Economy of Commercial
Discrimination, 1789-1794," William
and Mary Quarterly, 31 (1974), 633-46.
27. Return Jonathan Meigs,
"Fragment of a Speech on July 4, 1789," Buell, "A
History of Public Address," 149;
"Inhabitants on the Muskingum to Governor St.
Clair," July 16, 1788, Clarence E.
Carter, ed., The Territorial Papers of the United
States (26 vols., Washington, 1934), II, 133. On the early
government of Marietta, see
Rohrbough, The Trans-Appalachian
Frontier, 368-70; and on the early government of
the Northwest Territory, see Jack
Ericson Eblen, The First and Second United States
Empires: Governors and Territorial
Government, 1784-1912 (Pittsburgh,
1968).
A Quiet Independence 21
the other fifty-six were to be divided
into "house Lots" of 90 by 180
feet.28
In the Ohio Country, Rufus Putnam laid
out the basic gridiron
pattern specified by the agents, but in
so doing he took advantage of
"the situation of the Ground"
and put it to use as a virtuous founda-
tion for the orderly city. The most
striking feature of the land the
Ohio Company bought was a group of
ancient Indian mounds. The
huge piles of dirt, relics of the
civilization of the Adena group of
mound-builders and more than a thousand
years old, intrigued the
New Englanders. Winthrop Sargent, for
example, spent days
measuring and preparing descriptions of
the mounds. The first
thing Cutler went to see when he arrived
for his brief visit in the fall
of 1788 was the most curious of the
ancient monuments, a large
cone-shaped mound surrounded by a
ten-foot moat. The early
Mariettans were obsessed with
speculation about the origins of the
mounds. Solomon Drowne, interested in
attaching some classical
virtue to them, suggested that they were
not unlike the burial
mounds of the ancient Trojans, the
ancestors of the Roman republi-
cans. Certainly there had been an
elaborate civilization on the spot
of the Ohio Company settlement, and the
Mariettans felt a primi-
tive nobility exuding from its remnants.
What the agents resolved
about the future of the cone-shaped
mound applied for all of "the
ancient works." "Every prudent
measure," they decided, "ought to
be adopted to perpetuate the figure and
appearance of so majestic a
Monument of Antiquity." Eventually,
they made it the center of
their cemetery.29
More than merely preserving the mounds,
however, Putnam built
the town around them, superimposing the
regular plan of the com-
pany on the Indian ruins. The larger
mounds became the centers of
public squares. Naming these blocks
proved simple, for there was no
better way to secure the prominence of
virtue than to mark the
relics of primitive grandeur and
nobility with names from the Ro-
man republic. The agents named the land
around the burial mound
Conus, and reserved blocks called
Capitolium and Quadranou focus-
28. Hulbert, The Records, I, 15,
20. See also, John Reps, Town Planning in Fron-
tierAmerica (Princeton, 1969) 282-91. The comments of Manasseh
Cutler and Winth-
rop Sargent on contemporary cities
reveal an intense appreciation of"regularity" and
a dislike of the "haphazard"
in urban planning. See, for example, Cutler's 1787
observations in his diary in Cutlers, Manasseh
Cutler, I, 215, 248, 285, 306-07, 393,
429; Sargent, "Diary," July 4,
1786, The Sargent Papers; and G. Turner to Sargent,
November 6, 1787, The Sargent Papers.
29. Drowne, An Oration, 522;
Hulbert, The Records, II, 209. For travellers'
observations on Indian mounds, see John
A. Jakle, Images of the Ohio Valley: An
Historical Geography of Travel, 1740
to 1860 (New York, 1977), 68-71.
22 OHIO HISTORY |
|
ing on two rectangular mounds. Putnam and the agents established the final of the requisite four public squares at the confluence of the rivers and named it Cecilia. Completing the reminders of ancient Rome, the New Englanders christened their temporary stockade Campus Martius.30 The company did not rely altogether on what the land provided, however, to mark their city. They planned a large role, for example, for trees that they would plant. The agents in Boston had ordered rows of mulberry trees placed along both sides of the city streets. Placed ten or fifteen feet from the houses, the trees' duties, accord- ing to Cutler, were "to make an agreeable shade, increase the salubrity of the air, and add to the beauty of the streets." The rows of trees would also create natural sidewalks, leaving streets of the 30. Hulbert, The Records, I, 51. See also, Reps. Town Planning, 285. |
A Quiet Independence 23 |
|
spacious width of seventy feet. The importance of trees in adding to the beauty and regularity of the city was most clearly reflected in the strict rules for the temporary leasing of the public squares for clearing and other improvements until the danger of Indian attacks had passed. A "Mr. Woodbridge," for instance, was given a lease on the Capitolium in 1791 for eight years on the condition that he "surround the whole with Locust Trees, except at each corner there shall be an Ash - that the lines a, a, a, be Mulberrys and the lines b, b, Weeping willows, that the trees be set out within two years." The elevated mound on the Capitolium, moreover, "with the As- cents leading to the same," was to be "immediately put into Grass and hereafter occupied in no other way."31 The names of the city streets were chosen to reinforce the virtue of the residents of the regular city by perpetuating the fame of its founders and their contemporaries. While the associates gave the streets parallel to the Muskingum River numerical names, the names of modern Cincinnati marked the perpendicular avenues. 31. Manasseh Cutler to Ebenezer Hazard, September 18, 1787, Cutlers, Manasseh Cutler, I, 331; Hulbert, The Records, II, 80. |
24 OHIO HISTORY
Appropriately, the Mariettans called
their main street Washington.
Those streets to the south of it they
named Knox, Worcester, Scam-
mel, Tupper, Cutler, Putnam, Butler, and
Greene; to the north were
St. Clair, Warren, Montgomery, and
Marion. The only break in the
ranks was Sacra Via, which ran in two
parallel strips from Quadra-
nou west to the Muskingum River just
above Washington Street,
and preserved part of the noble Indian
works.
Idealistically, the associates
envisioned a diffusion of themselves
and the institutions of republican
virtue throughout the city. The
random drawings of house lots would
place the associates through-
out the city to watch over new arrivals
and to lead by example. A
church and a courthouse were planned and
built away from the
main street and the central mounds and
public square, unlike a
typical New England town where
everything focused on the central
green. The virtuous elite and
institutions were to be omnipresent so
that no sore could fester into
degeneracy and chaos.32
The final component of the Marietta plan
was the agricultural
one, for most of the pioneers intended
to become, or to reassume a
role as, Jefferson's virtuous laborers
"in the earth." While they
would live, or at least maintain a home,
in Marietta, the sharehold-
ers would farm their land for the
inseparable goals of profit and
independence. No matter how noble
farming was, however, it re-
quired markets to make it economically
secure. Many had moved to
Marietta explicitly "to live in a
Country where they can maintain
their families from the produce of their
lands better than where
they" had lived. For the first few
years Putnam and Cutler looked to
"the Constant coming in of new
settlers" to provide "a good market."
By 1800, Mariettans were building ships
and trying to develop an
ocean-going commerce. With a cargo of
flour and pork, Commodore
Abraham Whipple temporarily quit his
farm in 1800 to pilot "the
first rigged vessel ever built on the
Ohio River" to New Orleans,
Havana, and Philadelphia. By 1808,
approximately twenty ships of
150 to 450 tons had cleared from the
"port" of Marietta. By provid-
ing an outlet for agricultural products
and a means of securing other
items, this trade was designed to
reinforce both the viability and
pervasiveness of an essentially agrarian
life and the commercial
hegemony of Marietta.33
32. The church was built at Front and
Putnam Streets; the courthouse at Second
and Putnam. Quadranou was located at the
head of Sacra Via, and Capitolium at
Fifth and Washington Streets.
33. E. Haskell to Winthrop Sargent,
February 28, 1786, The Sargent Papers; Hil-
dreth, Biographical and Historical Memoirs, 160-61.
On the early commercial de-
A Quiet Independence 25
The Ohio Company greatly emphasized the
equality of the quanti-
ty of the land each associate received.
The agents divided the land
grants into several plots rather than
one large farm in order to
make their settlement in "the most
compact manner," and to equal-
ize land grants in terms of both actual
size and distance to Marietta.
The associates were very sensitive about
reassuring that their goal
of equality was realized. When Rufus
Putnam and some of the first
group of settlers argued that "the
first actual Settlers should take
their choice" of sixty-four acres
"of the best land on the Ohio and
other navigable streams," they were
abruptly overruled. Later, af-
ter the agents had been in Ohio for a
while and seen the contours of
the land with which they were dealing,
they resolved that they
should have the power to divide the land
"as equal[ly] as may be, by
dividing greater Quantities of Land to
some Lots, and less to other
Lots, to do more equal Justice."
But they later rescinded this resolu-
tion on the ground that equalizing
quality would require arbitrary
decisions and might lead to favoritism
and corruption. Eventually,
most felt, the company would build
"10 or 12 Towns" up the Musk-
ingum "which will give handsome
farms to every right in the
Propriety." Return Jonathan Meigs
told fellow associate Thomas
Wallcut that "the plan" was
"to proceed regularly down the Ohio
and up the Muskingum" in expanding
the hegemony of the com-
pany. The point, as always with the Ohio
Company, was that a
rough egalitarianism was to be preserved
at all times among the
associates. The "perfect
harmony" of the Jeffersonian idea was to be
maintained by a democracy of independent
farmers guided by the
example of an elite and the order and
beauty of the town.34
Indeed, Marietta fulfilled all the
requirements necessary for the
"perfect harmony" enunciated
in the rhetoric of its builders. The
gridiron pattern of the city gave it
regularity, order, and predictabil-
ity. These same values, as well as the
ideal of controlled egalitarian-
ism, were reinforced by the uniformity
of the house lots and the land
grants. Only the preservation of the
mounds broke up Marietta's
regularity, but even they were made to
serve the same functions.
velopment of the Ohio Valley, see,
Randolph C. Downes, "Trade in Frontier Ohio,"
The Mississippi Valley Historical
Review, XVI (1930), 467-94; Archer
Hulbert, "West-
ern Ship-building," American Historical Review,
XXI (1915-1916), 720-33; Rohr-
bough, The Trans-Appalachian
Frontier, 93-114; and William T. Utter, The Frontier
State, 1803-1825, Carl Wittke, ed., The History of the State of Ohio (5
vols., Columbus,
1942), II, 146-82, 229-62.
34. Buell, Rufus Putnam, 106;
Hulbert, The Records, I, 83; Samuel Holden Par-
sons to Manasseh Cutler, August 24,
1787, The Sargent Papers; Return Jonathan
Meigs to Thomas Wallcut, February 26, 1790,
Dexter, "Journal of Thomas Wallcut,"
190.
26 OHIO HISTORY
Unlike other western and New England
cities, Marietta focused on
the natural setting for ideological
reasons as well as convenience.
Not only did this put tangible virtue on
display, it also gave no
particular part of the city exclusive
status. Certainly Washington
Street was the "main" one, but
why live there when one could live
facing the public squares or along the
rivers? The institutions of
republican virtue were spread throughout
the city. Marietta had no
"center," in a New England
sense.
Above all, the Ohio Company's city had
space and an intended
simple elegance. The broad avenues,
lined with trees, many of them
named after modern Cincinnati, and the
several open, naturally
ornamented squares emphasized the
natural setting and the beauty
of the area, uniting classical virtue
and primitive nature. A con-
scious effort was made to hide vice and
unlovely things like stables
in alleys. Finally, the inhabitants of
the city were to perform agri-
cultural functions and own their own
land to maintain a secure
independence. Not a radical innovation
in urban planning, Marietta
represented a readjustment of the
virtues and flaws of contemporary
cities fitted to a powerful natural
setting in an attempt to preclude
anarchy and institutionalize order in
the physical structure of
society.
More was necessary to make the
Mariettans' world complete,
however, for they saw themselves as the
progenitors of a stable
society. Their efforts would be
successful only if they converted
everyone coming west to the philosophy
of order and agrarian inde-
pendence. Regular Marietta, with its
mounds, avenues, and com-
mercial hegemony was to serve that role.
In this spirit, James Varn-
um reminded Mariettans in the summer of
1788 that their "bright
example" must "add to the
felicity of others" who "having formed
their manners upon the elegance of the
simplicity, and the refine-
ments of virtue, will be happy in living
with you in the bosom of
friendship."35
The confederation government heartily
approved of the notion
that Marietta should "serve as a
wide model for the future settle-
ment of all the federal lands."
Congress had long been concerned
about people crossing illegally into the
Ohio Country from Pennsyl-
vania and Virginia without paying for
the government-owned lands
of the Northwest Territory. Wanting the
money from land sales to
help pay off the war debt, the
government as early as 1785
35. Varnum, An Oration, 507.
A Quiet Independence 27
dispatched Ensign John Armstrong and a
troop of soldiers to drive
such "squatters," "a
banditti whose actions are a disgrace to human
nature," back across the Ohio
River. Later, forts were erected along
the Ohio, including Fort Harmar at the
mouth of the Muskingum
River, to prevent further intrusions.36
On a 1786 surveying trip to the Ohio
Country, Winthrop Sargent
feared that this "powerful and
dangerous" "lawless Banditti" would
steal "the most eligible situations
and valuable Tracts of land on the
Ohio." Without the army, the land
would have no "Security" what-
soever. Fearful of anarchy and disorder
pursuing them to the West,
the associates discovered that these
supposed evils were beating
them there. Cutler hoped that settling
so near Pennsylvania would
leave "no vacant lands exposed to
be seized by such lawless bandit-
ti." In general, the Mariettans
could only have faith, as Thomas
Wallcut put it, that "our people
will be the means of introducing
more ambition and better taste,"
and that their prosperous and
regular settlement would still make the
Ohio Country, in Cutler's
words, "the garden of the world,
the seat of wealth, and the centre of
a great Empire." As such, Marietta
would epitomize "the ideas of
order, citizenship, and the useful
sciences." To preserve their status
and exercise the leadership reserved for
society's elite, precluding
the growth of anarchy in the West was
both a duty and a necessity.37
But the prolongation of the Indian wars
to 1795 kept the associ-
ates from executing their plans as
quickly as they would have liked.
The company gave land to settlers
willing to protect its purchase
from both Indians and squatters.
Sometimes, the Mariettans acted
more forcefully. When, in 1797, an
unauthorized group of people
settled near present-day Athens, Ohio,
some fifty miles to the north-
west of Marietta, Rufus Putnam
immediately dispatched a contin-
gent of "men possessing firmness of
character, courage, and sound
discretion" to prevent the land
from being "overrun" and "to estab-
lish a peaceable and respectable
settlement." Not the least of the
Mariettans' worries was that they had
long ago set aside the Athens'
township for a university that
"promised most important results."
The "substantial men" Putnam
sent pushed out a "large portion of
36. Cutler, An Explanation . . .,
14; Ensign John Armstrong to Colonel Josiah
Harmar, in Harmar to President of
Congress, May 1, 1785, William H. Smith, The
Life and Public Services of Arthur
St. Clair (Cincinnati, 1882), II, 4fn.
37. Winthrop Sargent, "Diary,"
September 7, 1786, The Sargent Papers; Cutler,
An Explanation . . . , 14; Thomas Wallcut to George Minot, [draft], October 31,
November 3, 1789, Dexter, "Journal
of Thomas Wallcut," 175. On the general rela-
tionship of squatters, government, and
land companies, as well as the early settle-
ment of the Ohio Country, see John D.
Barnhart, Valley of Democracy: The Frontier
versus the Plantation in the Ohio
Valley, 1775-1818 (Lincoln, 1970),
121-47.
28 OHIO HISTORY
the disorderly population," and
established Athens' "character as an
orderly and respectable community."
They introduced, in sum, "a
mild and refined state of manners and
feelings," and gave order to
an area that was being developed with no
other principle than that
"might makes right."38
Marietta, however, was not itself always
a paragon of virtue.
Squabbles over land and personal grievances
had split the company
directors until the deaths of Varnum and
Parsons in 1788 and 1789.
More crucial was unanticipated trouble
within the new city. The
members of the Ohio Company had settled
on their arrival in 1788
in a stockade about a mile up the
Muskingum River from the Ohio
to avoid floods, but a group of
buildings soon grew up at the conflu-
ence of the rivers, built by a mixture
of discontented associates and
itinerants who were allowed temporary
housing. These people
erected walls and named the cluster the
Picketed Point. Attuned to
river traffic, the Point became
blatantly commercially oriented,
sporting a store and a tavern.
To the associates lodged up the
Muskingum in Campus Martius,
the Point seemed reminiscent of the East
they had fled in disgust. In
February, 1790, a Marietta grand jury
debated four grievances
arising from events at the Point. The
jury resisted a demand for the
abolition of duelling on the ground that
the practice "would discour-
age cowards, and we want brave
men." But a second demand, for the
incorporation of the city to provide for
"the poor and sick strangers,"
passed, as did a request for a law
"licensing and regulating taverns."
The jury also condemned the practice of
slavery. In the same year,
Thomas Wallcut felt outraged enough by
behavior at the point to
write to Governor St. Clair complaining
about a particular tavern
keeper. Wallcut wanted "the
inordinate passions of oppressive,
cruel, and avaricious men"
restrained. The "disorderly, riotous, and
ill-governed house"of Isaac Mixer,
Wallcut concluded, was "destruc-
tive of peace, good order, and exemplary
morals upon which not only
the well-being but the very existence of
society so much depends." It
was not the pursuit of profit that
annoyed the associates, but the
lack of control and regularity that
characterized the point in their
eyes. Thus, what Wallcut requested from
St. Clair was simply a law
"licensing and regulating taverns."39
38. Ephraim Cutler, "The First
Settlement of Athens County," Hildreth, Biog-
raphical and Historical Memoirs, 410, 408, and 413.
39. Thomas Wallcut, February 2, 1790,
Dexter, "Journal of Thomas Wallcut," 181;
Wallcut to Arthur St. Clair, [draft],
1790, Dexter, 182fn. Picketed Point is described
in Hildreth, Pioneer History, 325.
A Quiet Independence 29 |
|
Despite several efforts, the company did not gain control over the point until the conclusion of the Indian wars in 1795 and the begin- ning of serious building. The hegemony of the virtuous elite within orderly Marietta was then relatively secure. They brought their plan to fruition and suppressed "the lawless Banditti" in or near their settlement. According to Samuel Prescott Hildreth, an early Marietta physician and historian, with the end of the Indian wars "few events of interesting character transpired .... Each man took possession of his lands, and commenced clearing and cultivating his farm."40
To an extent, then, the Ohio Company succeeded in obtain- ing financial independence for many of its associates and in build- ing a harmonious city. But physical structure could not insure that the example of Marietta would lead the entire West to a consis- tently ordered existence. The second goal was as crucial to the associates as the first. If Marietta failed to set the "tone" of the West, it would remain a utopian oasis, and a fragile one at best. Yet, the "banditti" were not easily controlled outside the confines of the
40. Hildreth, Pioneer History, 345. |
30 OHIO HISTORY
Ohio Company purchase. Organic growth,
controlled by a self-
proclaimed elite, was simply out of
place in the West, as the develop-
ment of the ironically named Cincinnati
- the second permanent,
American settlement in the Ohio Country
- testifies.
Founded in 1788, Cincinnati grew rapidly
because of its position
as the center of government and military
operations against the
Indians. The development of the city
quickly became uncontrolled
and haphazard. Commercially-oriented
Cincinnati grew along the
river with waterfront land at a premium.
Like Marietta and other
western cities being built in this era,
Cincinnati had a gridiron
pattern. But neither it nor any other
community could match the
Mariettans' obsession with virtue and
regularity. The preservation
of the Indian mounds and their
incorporation in the Marietta plan,
for example, were almost unique in
American town planning.
The speculators and profit-oriented
merchants who began to
dominate Cincinnati seemed to the
Mariettans to lack the requisite
intense commitment to the secure
independence of landed property
and controlled, organic growth.
Consequently, Winthrop Sargent,
moving to Cincinnati in 1791 to assume
the position of secretary of
the Northwest Territory, found the
situation not unlike the East in
the 1780s. He despaired that the people
of Cincinnati and Marietta
"seem never to have been intended
to live under the same govern-
ment - the latter are very like our
Forefathers and the former
(generally) very licentious and too
great a portion indolent and ex-
tremely debauched." To protect
himself, Sargent found it necessary
to surround his Cincinnati home with, of
course, a garden. John
Reps, the historian of American town
planning, concludes that an
1815 "plan of Cincinnati . . .
reveals nothing very remarkable. In-
deed, it shows every indication of being
laid out... as a speculative
enterprise and little more."
"What is more," says Reps, "in its de-
sign," Cincinnati "resembled
hundreds of similar towns that were
soon to spring up throughout southern
and central Ohio as the re-
gion began to attract land hungry
settlers from the east." Commer-
cial and haphazard Cincinnati, not
agrarian and regular Marietta,
became the model for western
development.41
People going to cash in on the
prosperity of booming towns like
Cincinnati and Louisville passed
Marietta in growing numbers in
the 1790s. The soldiers at Fort Harmar,
across the Muskingum from
Marietta, counted the passing flatboats
into the thousands. Cincin-
41. Winthrop Sargent to Timothy
Pickering, September 30, 1796, quoted in Ben-
jamin Pershing, "Winthrop Sargent: A Builder of
the Old Northwest," (doctoral dis-
A Quiet Independence 31
nati, and not Marietta, became the
center of the Ohio Valley, large-
ly for geographic and economic reasons.
Moreover, the controlled
and systematic development of Marietta
to secure an elite's notion
of virtue and stability was
anachronistic, and no doubt contributed
to its failure to dominate the West.
Even by the early nineteenth
century, many people believed that
making money and pursuing
their own best interest would lead to
virtue and communal improve-
ment. The "invisible hand" of
laissez-faire economics, not the self-
appointed members of the Cincinnati, nor
Indian mounds, nor
regular streets, would bring out the
best in society.
By 1824, the year of Rufus Putnam's
death, George Ogden, a
Quaker merchant from New Bedford,
Massachusetts, had found evi-
dence to support that contention on a
trip down the Ohio River.
Ogden praised Marietta for its
"delightful" location, but little else.
The city, claimed Ogden, "was until
within a few years one of the
most flourishing towns in the
state," rivalling Cincinnati in "ele-
gance" and "enterprising
spirit." But now Marietta wore "quite a
different aspect, and" was
"rapidly declining." It lacked "commer-
cial energies," and thus,
"grandeur," Ogden complained. Cincinnati,
in contrast, was the "largest and
the handsomest town in the state,"
the product of its "flourishing
energies." For Ogden, Cincinnati had
prospered, whatever its origins;
Marietta had declined, despite its
noble beginnings - the better place was
obviously the city that was
wealthy and successful. The worst fears
of the Ohio Company had
come to pass.42
The first Mariettans belonged to a world
of community and of a
harmonious, regular society that was
dying - if it ever had really
existed - as Marietta was being designed
to institutionalize it.
Only aged comrades understood any more,
including the Marquis de
Lafayette who during his 1825 tour of
America stopped in Marietta
and walked over the graves of his fallen
friends in Mound Cemetery.
"I knew them well," Lafayette
told their descendents, "I saw them
fight for their country. They were the
bravest of the brave. Better
men," he concluded wistfully,
"never lived." If so, they held an
archaic vision in which regularity,
order, and communal virtue
counted for as much as individual gain,
where even merchants built
sertation, University of Chicago, 1927),
46-147; Reps, Town Planning, 292. On early
urban experience in the Northwest, see
Jakle, Images of the Ohio Valley, 122-57, esp.
143-56; Rohrbough, The
Trans-Appalachian West, 352-60, esp. 353-54; and Richard
C. Wade, The Urban Frontier (Chicago, 1959),
esp. 11, 15-16, 19-20, 22-30.
42. George W. Ogden. Letters from the
West (New Bedford, 1823); Reuben G.
Thwaites, ed., Early Western Travels,
1748-1846 (32 vols., Cleveland, 1904) XIX,
34-135.
32 OHIO HISTORY
homes first for "the benefit of the
community" and then for them-
selves and "profit." A
contemporary account of the July 4, 1788,
festivities in Marietta emphasized that
the inhabitants were in
"high spirits, and extremely
happy" and only needed "their tender
companions, whom they have left beyond
the mountains, to partici-
pate with them in the rising glories of
the western world." Happy
and hopeful the original Mariettans may
have been, but those glor-
ies were to be of a kind that they could
never imagine and thus
would go to others.43
43. Lafayette is quoted on a tablet in
Mound Cemetery, Marietta, Ohio; John May,
July 11, 1788, Smith, Journal, 62;
"A Contemporary Account of Some Events," Hil-
dreth, Pioneer History, 515.
ANDREW R. L. CAYTON
"A Quiet Independence":
The Western Vision of
the Ohio Company
Speculative schemes and idealistic
visions merged in post-
Revolutionary America to produce many
new towns in the rapidly
expanding Northwest Territory. A group
of New England veterans
of the American Revolution, organized as
the Ohio Company of
Associates, established the first such
community on April 7, 1788, at
the confluence of the Ohio and Muskingum
rivers, some 200 miles
downstream from Pittsburgh. They called
their town Marietta.
Within the next several years, many of
the 594 associates of the
Ohio Company cleared land, built homes,
settled their families, and
sought fortune and security in or near
this city. Above all, they
attempted to protect and stablize their
financial and ideological in-
vestment in what they called "the
western world" by providing
Marietta with a pervasive and enduring
form and character.1
Indeed, the construction of Marietta was
the culmination of a long
contemplated effort by a highly
organized elite to establish a com-
munity designed to secure individual
fortune within the context of
communal order. In a 1790 letter seeking
to obtain increased protec-
tion from Indians, to gain the opening
of the Mississippi River, and
to assuage eastern fears about
depopulation, Ohio Company Super-
intendent Rufus Putnam told Congressman
Fisher Ames that the
"Genus" and
"education" of no other people was "as favorable to a
Andrew R. L. Cayton is a Ph.D. candidate
in history at Brown University and an
Instructor in the history department at
Harvard University.
1. "A Contemporary Account of Some
Events," in James M. Varnum, An Oration
Delivered at Marietta, July 4, 1788 (Newport, 1788), in Samuel Prescott Hildreth,
Pioneer History: Being an Account of
the First Examination of the Ohio Valley and the
Early Settlement of the Northwest
Territory (Cincinnati, 1848), 515.
Hildreth is a
detailed account of the founding of
Marietta by an early resident. For a concise,
modern narrative, see Beverley W. Bond,
Jr., The Foundations of Ohio, Carl Wittke,
ed., The History of the State of Ohio
(5 vols., Columbus, 1941), I, 275-90.