THE ADMISSION OF OHIO TO THE UNION
by BENJAMIN H. PERSHING*
"BRUTAL TRUTH DISCOVERED NEAR
150TH BIRTHDAY;
OHIO ASKS STATEHOOD." With this
alarming headline a
metropolitan Ohio newspaper on January
14, 1953, announced the
most unique episode in the history of
the admission of territories
into the federal Union. The article
stated that congress had taken
no action on the constitution prepared
at Chillicothe in 1802.
Consequently Ohio had legally been a
territory and never more
than a territory during all these
years. Yet under the assumption
that Ohio was a state, her citizens had
served as presidents of the
United States, participated in both the
senate and the house of
representatives in Washington as
full-fledged voting members, cast
the deciding vote in momentous
decisions of the United States
Supreme Court, and otherwise enjoyed
all the rights and privileges
of inhabitants of a bona fide state.
Truly this was an amazing role,
a glorious distinction, a singular
achievement among the many ac-
credited to Ohioans. But, alas, it was
no longer to be the portion
of the men and women of the Buckeye
state! Envious of the role
which Ohio had succeeded in playing,
and anxious to insure equality
among all the members of congress in a
democratic nation, congress
on August 7, 1953, declared the
admission of Ohio into the Union
as of March 1, 1803.
Now that the state sesquicentennial has
become history, now that
all the publicity for the state and for
individuals that could be
derived from this fortunate discovery
has been enjoyed, now that
all the jibes which citizens of other
states could cast at Ohioans
have been hurled, now that the way has
been prepared for a
Buckeye governor to serve legally as
chief magistrate and not to
occupy the White House as a flagrant
usurper, it is proper to
examine what really did happen in 1803.
As a distinguished
governor of New York was accustomed to
say, "Let us look at the
record. What does it say?"
* Dr. Pershing is the chairman of the
department of history at Wittenberg College,
Springfield.
240
The Admission of Ohio to the
Union 241
From the very beginning of the republic
on July 4, 1776, the
belief had prevailed that the number of
states was not complete,
but that others would be added from
time to time. In Article XI of
the Articles of Confederation it was
explicitly stated that admission
was possible for Canada and promised to
other colonies if nine states
agreed to the step. Nothing was
prescribed as to the specific man-
ner in which congress was to act. The
resolution of congress of
October 10, 1780, promised admission to
new states formed from
the western lands that the existing
states were solicited to cede to
the national government. Again the
procedure was not defined.
The same assurance was given in
Jefferson's Ordinance of 1784. It
was repeated in the Ordinance for the
Government of the Territory
of the United States Northwest of the
River Ohio of July 13, 1787.
Here, again, while admission of new
states was contemplated, noth-
ing was said about the method in which
congress should do this.
The constitution of the same year,
Article IV, Section 3, clause 1,
provided that "new states may be
admitted by the Congress into
this Union." The only clear
directive in the document under which
congress functioned in 1803 was that
congress should exercise the
prerogative of admission. What the
procedure should be is nowhere
indicated. In such a situation was not
any method which followed
the established rules for congressional
action valid and a fulfilment
of the terms of the constitution for
the admission of new states?
An examination of the procedures in the
cases of the three states
that entered the Union before 1803 is
in order, to discover if prece-
dents had been set that had become controlling
in the process of
admission but which, inadvertently
perhaps, were omitted in 1803.
The first state to be admitted was
Vermont. Here was a region
which had long been in dispute between
New Hampshire and New
York. In the midst of the controversy,
the inhabitants of the region
organized a new state which functioned
in some respects in a
semi-independent manner. On January 10,
1790, this state ratified
the federal constitution as a first
step towards membership in the
Union. The application for admission
was sent to President
Washington, who laid it before congress
in his message of February
9, 1791. In it he stated that the
legislature of New York had con-
242
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
sented to admission. The term
"Territory of Vermont" was used
by the president, who made no
recommendation but laid all perti-
nent papers in his possession
"before Congress, with whom the
Constitution has vested the object of
these proceedings."1
Favorable action by congress speedily
followed. On February 18,
1791, approval was given to the
following bill:
The State of Vermont having petitioned
the Congress to be admitted a
member of the United States,
Be it enacted, &c., That on the fourth day of March, one thousand seven
hundred and ninety-one, the said State,
by the name and style of "the State
of Vermont," shall be received and
admitted into this Union, as a new and
entire member of the United States of
America.
On March 2 an act was approved
"that, from and after the third
day of March next, all the laws of the
United States, which are not
locally inapplicable, ought to have,
and shall have, the same force
and effect within the State of Vermont
as elsewhere within the
United States." Provision was made
for the organization of a dis-
trict court in the state.2
The second state, Kentucky, called for
a different procedure.
Legally this was not the admission of a
territory to statehood.
The people residing in the region that
became Kentucky were
already incorporated into the Union
when Virginia ratified the
constitution in 1788. Here was a
situation that called for the appli-
cation of the constitutional provision
that no new state should be
formed from the area of an existing
state without the consent of the
parent state. The movement for a
separate state in that part of
Virginia west of the mountains had been
agitated for some years.
A series of conventions to this end had
been held in Kentucky, and
a number of enabling acts passed by the
assembly of Virginia.3 The
assembly authorized separation on
December 18, 1789. Separation
was approved by the Kentucky convention
of July 28, 1790, which
also memorialized congress for
admission. June 1, 1792, was
1 James D. Richardson, ed., A
Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Pres-
idents, 1789-1897 (10 vols., Washington, 1896-99), I, 95.
2 Annals of Congress, 1 cong., 3 sess., 2311, 2318-2319.
3 Thomas D. Clark, A History of Kentucky (New York, 1937),
110-137.
The Admission of Ohio to the
Union 243
designated as the date when admission
should take place.4 The
cordiality with which the president
referred the proposal in his
message of December 8, 1790, amounted
to a recommendation.5
Congress was in a receptive mood. A
resolution which passed the
senate on January 12, 1791, was
accepted by the house of repre-
sentatives on January 28. The
resolution was to the effect "that a
new State be formed within the
jurisdiction of the Commonwealth
of Virginia, and admitted into this
Union, by the name of the State
of Kentucky."6 As with
Vermont here was another case which
differed from the admission of a
territory formed from the public
lands.
In Tennessee still a different
situation arose. After the death of
the abortive state of Franklin, North
Carolina finally ceded the
western area to the national government
in negotiations that ended
in 1790. The Ordinance for the
Territory of the United States South
of the River Ohio gave territorial
status to this western region. The
provisions of the Ordinance of 1787
were made operative in the
territory.7 Here for the
first time was the opportunity for congress
to act on the admission to statehood of
a territory that had been
organized on the public domain.
Seldom have the people of a territory
which was rapidly growing
in population remained satisfied with
their political status. The
Ordinance of 1787 had indicated that
territorial status was but a
station on the road to statehood. The
inhabitants of Tennessee
were no exception. Men soon were
demanding that they be given
full membership in the Union. Here a
propitious situation existed,
since both the territorial governor,
William Blount, and the terri-
torial delegate in congress, James
White, were in favor of such an
advance. That White was not inactive is
shown by a letter of his
to Governor Blount on March 19, 1795.
It was written from
Philadelphia and apparently reflected
congressional opinion among
at least some members of the body that
must take the decisive step.
4 Annals, 1 cong., 3 sess., 1774.
5 Richardson, Messages, I, 81.
6 Annals,
1 cong., 3 sess., 2309.
7 Clarence E. Carter, comp. and ed., The
Territorial Papers of the United States
(18 vols., Washington, 1934--), IV, 18.
244
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
In a former Letter I informed you that I
did not see upon trying the
question privately that it would prove
of any effect to attempt preparing the
way for the admission of the Territory into the list of
the States. I found that
nothing would be done by Congress till
we should come forward with a
petition for the purpose. Permit [me] to
mention that it has been Suggested
to me that if it is found the wish of
the People to appear in the Union as a
State, it would be proper to call a
Convention for the formation of the
Proposed Government to take effect
immediately after the Congressional act
of Admission.8
Observe the procedure here outlined as
the congressional wish: The
people should form a constitution and
apply for admission. Con-
gress would then act.
In a territory in which the governor was
a sponsor of the move-
ment for admission this was very
feasible. Blount did not delay
action when a territorial act of July
11, 1795, showed that the
population was 77,262.
There was some opposition, which was led
by Arthur Campbell.
Writing to President Washington on
February 18, 1796, he declared:
The convention was called in haste and sat
a very short time. From the
mode the people have been enumerated, it
is probable that the numbers have
been much exaggerated. A delay of one or
two years more of being admitted
as a Member of the Union, may disappoint
a few aspiring Spirits; but it will
be found to accord with the interest and
safety of the people.9
The convention to which Campbell
referred had been called by
Governor Blount to meet at Knoxville on
January 11, 1796.10 The
constitution then prepared was at once
reported to Secretary of State
Timothy Pickering. Upon examination of
all the pertinent docu-
ments pertaining to admission of new
states, namely, the Ordinance
of 1787, the deed of cession of North
Carolina, and the Ordinance
of 1790, Pickering found that all had
been done in proper order
and so wrote the governor on March 12,
1796:
I see that your letter and the copy of
the Constitution for the Tennessee
8 Ibid., 385-386.
9 Ibid., 420.
10 Ibid., 407.
The Admission of Ohio to the
Union 245
Government will be proper to be laid
before Congress, for their information
and examination, in order to decide on
the admission of the State of Ten-
nessee into the Union.11
All was proceeding nicely despite the
opposition of the Campbell
faction.
The approval of President Washington
was given in a message
of April 8, 1796:
Among the privileges, benefits, and
advantages thus secured to the in-
habitants of the territory south of the
river Ohio appear to be the right of
forming a permanent constitution and
State government, and of admission as
a State, by its Delegates, into the
Congress of the United States, on an equal
footing with the original States in all
respects whatever, when it should have
therein 60,000 free inhabitants;
provided the constitution and government
so to be formed should be republican,
and in conformity to the principles
contained in the articles of the said
ordinance.
As proofs of the several requisites to
entitle the territory south of the river
Ohio to be admitted as a State into the
Union, Governor Blount has trans-
mitted a return of the enumeration of
its inhabitants and a printed copy of
the constitution and form of government
on which they have agreed, which,
with his letters accompanying the same,
are herewith laid before Congress.12
In the meantime an election for
governor took place in Tennessee
on March 29, 1796, without waiting for
acceptance by congress.
John Sevier, who was elected governor,
took the oath of office the
next day. Blount reported to the
secretary of state that in his judg-
ment this terminated the existence of
the territory south of the river
Ohio. He considered his duties as
territorial governor at an end.13
Since Blount became one of the first
senators from Tennessee, his
personal interest in the statehood
movement is readily perceived.
In congress a committee of the house of
representatives recom-
mended admission on April 12. There was
some opposition but the
bill passed on May 6. A different bill
passed the senate on May 28.
Here the weight of the Campbell
faction, which questioned the
accuracy of the census, found a more
receptive hearing. There was
11 Ibid., 421,
422.
12 Richardson, Messages,
I, 197.
13 Carter, Territorial Papers, IV,
422.
246
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
also a disposition to accept the
argument that North Carolina must
first form the new state, which could
then apply for admission.
Consequently the final senate act
differed from that of the house.
In the conference committee the house
stood firm and the senate
accepted the final conference report on
May 31.14
The act which was signed by the
president on June 1 is in keeping
with the later practice of a formal
declaration by congress. In part
it read:
That the whole of the territory ceded to
the United States of America by
the State of North Carolina, shall be
one State, and the same is hereby de-
clared to be one of the United States of
America, on an equal footing with
the original States, in all respects
whatever, by the name and title of the
State of Tennessee.15
It will readily be seen that the
momentum which thus brought
Tennessee into the Union was provided in
large part by the terri-
torial governor and the territorial
delegate in congress. It will
scarcely be contended, however, that
this formed a precedent that
was to be followed in every subsequent
case to constitute a legal
and complete admission.
If this was to be the accepted form of
procedure, it would
obviously be impossible to follow it if
the territorial governor op-
posed statehood. Such was the case in
Ohio. The opposition of the
Federalist governor, Arthur St. Clair,
to a new state that would
probably be controlled by the
Jeffersonian Democrats was well
known. He made no effort to conceal his
position.6 The same was
the case with the Federalist, Paul
Fearing, who then represented the
territory in congress.7
In the face of such political opposition
by men in high places the
followers of Jefferson were forced to
formulate a new procedure.
This they set themselves to do. Two of
the leaders, Thomas
Worthington and Michael Baldwin, went to
Washington. They
14 Annals,
4 cong., 1 sess., 916, 1300, 1328,
1463, 1487, 1473-1474, 1489.
15 Carter, Territorial Papers, IV,
424-425.
16 See, for example, the address of St. Clair before the constitutional
convention.
William H. Smith, ed., The St. Clair Papers (2
vols., Cincinnati, 1882), II, 592-597.
17 For Fearing's position, see Annals, 7 cong., 1 sess., 1349-1351.
The Admission of Ohio to the
Union 247
succeeded in enlisting the support of
William B. Giles of Virginia,
a political lieutenant of President
Jefferson. Jefferson, himself, was
not adverse. The scheme devised was
that of an enabling act that
would authorize a convention to form a
constitution and apply for
admission. The enabling act, which was
approved by the president
on April 30, 1802, authorized the
calling of a convention of dele-
gates elected by the people.18 Such
a convention was to decide if
statehood was desirable. If these
elected delegates decided that the
people of the eastern division of the
territory northwest of the river
Ohio wished to become a state, they
might either call another con-
vention to form a constitution or
themselves proceed at once to
write one.
The preamble to the enabling act of
1802 bears quotation, since
it sheds some light on the thoughts of
political leaders during a
period in which reference was being
officially made to the eastern
division of the territory as the
"State of Ohio" while at the same
time the territorial officials were
still active. The preamble read:
That the inhabitants of the eastern
division of the territory northwest of
the river Ohio, be, and they are hereby,
authorized to form for themselves
a constitution and State government, and
to assume such name as they shall
deem proper, and the said State, when
formed, shall be admitted into the
Union upon the same footing with the
original States in all respects
whatever.19
The wording of this act would seem to
indicate that at some point
and by some act the state of Ohio came
into existence before it
became a member of the federal Union.
What this point was may
lead one into a maze of metaphysical
speculation in political theory
which is not germane to the present
discussion. An anomalous
situation was seen by some men, as will
be evident later.
The convention thus authorized met in
Chillicothe on November
1, 1802. It was overwhelmingly
controlled by the Jeffersonians, who
knew exactly what they wanted and
pressed unhesitatingly towards
their objective. By a large majority
they voted in favor of statehood.
18 Daniel J. Ryan, ed., "From
Charter to Constitution," Ohio State Archaeological
and Historical Quarterly, V (1897), 74-78.
19 Ibid., 74-75.
248
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
Then it was decided that they should at
once take up the task of
writing a constitution. The people who
elected them, it was as-
sumed, also had confidence in their
abilities as constitution makers.
There was no need to brook the delay
that a new election would
require or to ask the taxpayers to
assume the cost of a second
election. The work was carried out with
dispatch and earnestness.
By November 29 they were ready to
adjourn. Thomas Worthington
was deputized to carry the constitution
to Washington. As he
journeyed to Washington with the
precious document, he carried
with him copies of a letter signed by
Edward Tiffin, president of
the convention, to be presented to the
president of the United
States, the president of the senate,
and the speaker of the house of
representatives. It indicated that in
the opinion of the members
of the convention the new state was
already in existence. In part
it read:
The convention of the State of Ohio,
duly appreciating the importance of
a free and independent State government,
and impressed with sentiments of
gratitude to the Congress of the United
States for the prompt and decisive
measures taken at their late session to
enable the people of the Northwestern
Territory to emerge from their colonial
government and to assume a rank
among the sister States, beg leave to
take the earliest opportunity of an-
nouncing to you this important event.
Worthington also carried with him
certain propositions that the
convention wished congress to consider
relative to land grants in
the new state.20 The
proposals called for certain alterations in the
enabling act, which became the subject
for debate in congress. The
congressional debates, however, had no
reference to the admission
procedure.
Congress had convened for the short
session at the usual time in
December, which was shortly after the
adjournment of the con-
vention in distant Chillicothe. A few
days later Thomas Worth-
ington arrived and congressional action
started. The course of
action in the senate will be first
described.
On January 5, 1803, a motion was
offered for the appointment
20 Ibid., 127,
78-80, 154.
The Admission of Ohio to the
Union 249
of a committee "to bring in a bill
for giving effect to the laws of
the United States within the State of
Ohio."21 The use of the term
"State of Ohio" is of
interest. Two days later President Jefferson
sent to congress a letter from
Worthington which was signed,
"T. Worthington, agent for the
State of Ohio." In a biographical
directory of the American congress Ohio
is listed among the states
for this session of congress, but no
names are given for senators
and representatives. A footnote reads,
"Admitted as a State into
the Union, November 29, 1802, from
territory known as the
'Northwest Territory', which was
originally ceded to the United
States by the State of Virginia."22
Ohio was also named on Feb-
ruary 16 among the states from which
the militia was to be called
out if necessary to defend the right of
navigation of the Mississippi
River. It was brought forward by
Senator James Ross of Penn-
sylvania.23 No action was
taken on this motion.
A substitute motion for that of January
5 was offered the next
day, January 6. It proposed that a
committee be appointed to
inquire whether the people of the
eastern division of the Territory North-
west of the river Ohio have formed a
constitution and State government
agreeable to the Constitution and laws
of the United States, and the Ordi-
nance of Congress for the government of
the Territory of the United States
Northwest of the river Ohio, and make a
report thereon.24
Evidently the letter of January 7 as
presented by President
Jefferson answered the question before
the senate. On that day the
senate adopted the motion, "Resolved,
That a committee be ap-
pointed to inquire whether any, and, if
any, what, Legislative
measures may be necessary to admitting
the State of Ohio into the
Union, or for extending to that State
the laws of the United
States."25
The members of this committee were John
Breckinridge of Ken-
21 Annals, 7 cong., 2 sess., 20.
22 A Biographical Directory of the American Congress,
1774-1927, House Document
783 (Washington, 1928), 70 and footnote.
This repeated the practice in earlier
directories.
23 Annals, 7 cong., 2 sess., 20.
24 Ibid., 20-21.
25 Ibid., 22.
250
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
tucky, Gouverneur Morris of New York,
and Joseph Anderson of
Tennessee. It was an able committee
fully competent to decide the
matter placed in its hands. Its report
would presumably be the
answer to the question whether any
action was ever taken by con-
gress to admit Ohio into the Union.
The report was presented on January 19.
As adopted by the
senate and accepted by the house of
representatives and signed by
President Jefferson it became the
official act for the reception of Ohio
as a state. In part it read:
Whereas, the people of the eastern
division of the Territory Northwest of
the river Ohio, did, on the
twenty-ninth day of November, one thousand
eight hundred and two, form for
themselves a constitution and State govern-
ment, and did give to the said State
the name of the "State of Ohio," in
pursuance of an act of Congress,
entitled, "An act to enable the people of
the eastern division of the Territory
Northwest of the Ohio, to form a
constitution and State government, and
for the admission of such State into
the Union on an equal footing with the
original States, and for other pur-
poses," whereby the said State has
become one of the United States of
America; in order, therefore, to
provide for the due execution of the laws
of the United States within the said
State of Ohio--
Be it enacted, &c., That all the laws of the United States which are not
locally inapplicable, shall have the
same force and effect within the said
State of Ohio, as elsewhere within the
United States.
The act further created the state as
one judicial district, provided
for the appointment of a judge and
other necessary court officers,
and regulated the time of holding the
courts.26
Here is a declaration as plain as words
could express it that the
state of Ohio was one of the states of
the Union. The bill had its
third reading and passed the senate on
February 7. After its ap-
proval on February 19, 1803, no further
legislation was considered
necessary.
A review must now be made of the
proceedings in the house of
representatives. Here the letter from
Edward Tiffin was read and
referred to a committee headed by John
Randolph. In the house
Paul Fearing still occupied a seat as
the delegate from the eastern
26 Ibid., 1559-1560.
The Admission of Ohio to the
Union 251
division of the Northwest Territory.
Was he legally entitled to do
so? Since a territory did not have a
delegate in the senate, this
question could not arise there.
Evidently the inconsistency now
apparent was recognized by some
congressmen, for on December 29
Representative Thomas T. Davis of
Kentucky questioned whether
Fearing as "territorial delegate
could represent a State." He an-
nounced that if Fearing did not resign
he would move to vacate
his seat.27 One may ask
whether, if Ohio had already become a
state, the office of territorial
delegate had not automatically
terminated.
That others thought as Davis did is
shown by a motion of January
24 which ordered the committee on
elections to consider the
question:
Resolved, That, inasmuch as the late Territory of the United
States North-
west of the river Ohio have [sic], by virtue of an act of Congress passed on
the first day of May, one thousand eight
hundred and two, formed a Con-
stitution and State Government, and have
thereby, and by virtue of an act
of Congress aforesaid, become a separate
and independent State by the name
of "Ohio," that Paul Fearing,
a member of this House, who was elected by
the late Territorial Government of the
Territory Northwest of the river Ohio,
is no longer entitled to a seat in this
House.28
The chairman of the committee on
elections was John Bacon of
Massachusetts. On January 31 his
committee reported that in its
judgment "Paul Fearing, the
delegate from the Territory Northwest
of the river Ohio, is still entitled to
a seat in this House."29 No
action was taken on this report. A few
days later the house received
the senate bill of February 7 already
discussed. It was debated in
committee of the whole and passed
without amendment.30 When
signed by President Jefferson it became
the act of February 19, 1803.
In the meantime, while in Washington
reference was being made
in acts of congress to Ohio as a state
and Paul Fearing was still
serving as a territorial delegate in the
house of representatives,
27 Ibid., 290, 296.
28 Ibid., 413.
29 Ibid., 447-448.
30 Ibid., 515.
252 Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
Charles Willing Byrd was performing
official acts as acting ter-
ritorial governor and secretary as late
as January 15, 1803. As
entered in the journal of executive
proceedings there were appoint-
ments of minor officials.31
Legal sanction to this duality of political
status was given by act of congress of
February 21, 1806, which
directed that the salaries of the
governor, secretary, and judges of
the territory be paid until the first
Tuesday of March 1803.32 If
this was not logical it was at least
practical politics.
For the sake of clarity, note must be
taken of the committee of
which John Randolph was chairman, to
which the convention's
propositions for alterations in the
enabling act were referred.
These related to the reservations of
land for public education in
the United States Military Tract, the
Connecticut Reserve, the Vir-
ginia Military District, and Indian
lands not yet ceded; the location
of the college township in the Symmes
Purchase; and the expendi-
ture of three percent of the receipts
from the sale of public lands
in Ohio for roads within the state. If
congress would agree to these
modifications, the state of Ohio would
exempt from local taxation
all public lands for five years after
sale.33 Congressional approval
to such modifications was given.34
It will readily be seen that the
Randolph committee had nothing to do which
directly related to
the admission of Ohio.
Confident that congressional approval
would be given to the
constitution it had prepared and that
favorable action would be
taken in regard to the modifications in
the enabling act, the con-
vention at Chillicothe took steps to
set up a state government. The
constitution prescribed that writs of
election should be issued by
the president of the convention to the
sheriffs of the several
counties for the election of a
governor, members of the general
assembly, sheriffs, and coroners on the
second Tuesday in January
31 Carter, Territorial Papers, III, 535.
32 Annals, 9 cong., 1
sess., 1228.
33 The propositions of the Ohio constitutional convention may be found in
Ryan,
"From Charter to
Constitution," 78-80. (See footnote 18 above.) For the report
of Randolph's committee on February 2
which became the basis for the act of March
3, 1803, see ibid., 159-162.
34 Annals, 7 cong., 2 sess., 1588-1590.
The Admission of Ohio to the
Union 253
1803.35 On that day Edward Tiffin was
the choice for the office of
chief executive of the state of Ohio.
He took the oath of office on
March 3, 1803. The first legislature
selected Thomas Worthington
and John Smith as senators. Jeremiah
Morrow was elected at a
special election on June 21 as the one
member of the house of
representatives to which Ohio was
entitled. Thus Ohio made
ready for full representation in the
session of congress which met
in October 1803.
When the next state, Louisiana, was
ready for admission, congress
passed an enabling act modeled on that
for Ohio in 1802. It did,
however, later approve a formal
declaration of admission: "That
the said State shall be one, and is
hereby declared to be one, of
the United States of America, and
admitted into the Union on an
equal footing with the original
States."36
When Indiana, the next state from the
Northwest Territory, was
ready for admission, congress approved
a resolution for a committee
similar to the one of January 7, 1803,
in regard to Ohio.37 This
committee, evidently following the
procedure in the case of
Louisiana in 1812, recommended a
declaration that "the said State
shall be, and is hereby declared to be
one of the United States of
America, and admitted into the Union on
an equal footing with
the original States in all respects
whatever."38
Students of our territorial history are
familiar with the practice
of congress of copying preceding acts.
After Louisiana became a
state, a declaration of admission
became standard procedure. When
these declarations are compared with
the act of February 19, 1803,
it is quite evident that the difference
is one of wording and not of
true intent and meaning. This
difference, however, furnished the
basis for all the fun in the
sequicentennial year and for the joint
resolution of congress of August 7,
1953.39
35 Ryan, "From Charter to Constitution," 152.
36 Annals, 12 cong., 1 sess.,
2264-2265.
37 Ibid., 14
cong., 2 sess., 9.
38 Ibid., 18. For a more extended
discussion of the congressional proceedings re-
lating to the admission of Indiana, see
Carter, Territorial Papers, VIII, 448-451.
39 For the passage of H. J. Res. 121, see Cong. Record, 83 cong., 1
sess., 5296,
11067-11068. Presidential approval was
given on August 7.
THE ADMISSION OF OHIO TO THE UNION
by BENJAMIN H. PERSHING*
"BRUTAL TRUTH DISCOVERED NEAR
150TH BIRTHDAY;
OHIO ASKS STATEHOOD." With this
alarming headline a
metropolitan Ohio newspaper on January
14, 1953, announced the
most unique episode in the history of
the admission of territories
into the federal Union. The article
stated that congress had taken
no action on the constitution prepared
at Chillicothe in 1802.
Consequently Ohio had legally been a
territory and never more
than a territory during all these
years. Yet under the assumption
that Ohio was a state, her citizens had
served as presidents of the
United States, participated in both the
senate and the house of
representatives in Washington as
full-fledged voting members, cast
the deciding vote in momentous
decisions of the United States
Supreme Court, and otherwise enjoyed
all the rights and privileges
of inhabitants of a bona fide state.
Truly this was an amazing role,
a glorious distinction, a singular
achievement among the many ac-
credited to Ohioans. But, alas, it was
no longer to be the portion
of the men and women of the Buckeye
state! Envious of the role
which Ohio had succeeded in playing,
and anxious to insure equality
among all the members of congress in a
democratic nation, congress
on August 7, 1953, declared the
admission of Ohio into the Union
as of March 1, 1803.
Now that the state sesquicentennial has
become history, now that
all the publicity for the state and for
individuals that could be
derived from this fortunate discovery
has been enjoyed, now that
all the jibes which citizens of other
states could cast at Ohioans
have been hurled, now that the way has
been prepared for a
Buckeye governor to serve legally as
chief magistrate and not to
occupy the White House as a flagrant
usurper, it is proper to
examine what really did happen in 1803.
As a distinguished
governor of New York was accustomed to
say, "Let us look at the
record. What does it say?"
* Dr. Pershing is the chairman of the
department of history at Wittenberg College,
Springfield.
240