Ohio History Journal

THE STRUGGLE FOR STATEHOOD IN OHIO

BY RUHL JACOB BARTLETT, M. A.

The. admission of Ohio as a state into the Union,

marked the end of a long and bitter political contest

both within and without the Northwest Territory.* It

was that age old conflict between the forces that are

progressive and those that are conservative, for it must

be remembered that the closing years of the 19th cen-

tury marked a period of rapid political transition in

American history. The colonists who had so gallantly

adorned themselves in new garments of political liberty

and equality in 1776 found that their desires had grown

by 1800 to a demand for additional plumage, in the way

of popular government. The pre-Revolutionary leaders

as well as those who had piloted the new government

through its first twelve years of existence, did not look

with favor upon the too rapid growth of democratic

ideals, but were content with the old.

Unaided then, by these Revolutionary fathers, a

great political renaissance had taken place in the minds

of the American people. The Revolutionary War and

the new responsibility after the war was in a great

measure the cause of the change. New England colo-

* This seems to be the best designation for the land that was gov-

erned by the Ordinance of 1787. It was first known as the North-

western Territory and subsequently was legally named The Territory

of the United States Northwest of the Ohio River. Most writers have

adopted either the title, Northwest Territory or simply The Territory;

but Judge Jacob Burnet and William Maxwell write of it as the North-

western Territory.

(472)

The Struggle for Statehood in Ohio  473

nists, who never in their lives had travelled a dozen

miles from their native town, and Virginia colonists,

who had not looked beyond their native valleys, were

brought into contact by the war. Their intellectual and

political horizon was extended and a national conscious-

ness was born, which in its travail brought forth the

desire for a more democratic form of government. This

contest, that was shaking the people of the original

states, inevitably was carried to the rapidly increasing

population of the western lands. The conflict in the

west took the form of a controversy over the admission

of Ohio, as a state into the Union, and extended over a

period of four years, from 1799 to 1803. But the forces

of reform had been brewing before 1799, and therefore

it will be necessary for us to consider briefly the early

history of Ohio, in order to understand fully the feel-

ings of its inhabitants, which caused them to be either

such strong supporters or such fervent enemies of

statehood.

The fertility of the Ohio valley had for a long time

been a matter of common knowledge to the colonists of

America. For its possession the French and Indian

War was fought, and for it also the heroic George

Rogers Clark led his intrepid band to Kaskaskia during

the winter of 1778-9. After the Revolution, settlers

began to migrate to this land, without much regard for

the rights of the states to which it belonged. These

rights, either authentic or fictitious, formed the subject

of much long and bitter discussion among several of the

states, and Congress had at an early time, made an

attempt at conciliation by assuming control, with the

consent of the states, of the disputed Territory.

In 1787 Congress perfected a system of government

474      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

for the Territory of the United States northwest of the

Ohio river. For the purpose of this paper, suffice it to

say, that the government of the new Territory was ad-

ministered by a governor and three judges, appointed

by the President. General Arthur St. Clair was the

choice of President Adams for the first governor of the

Ohio country, and on the 9th of July, 1788, the new

executive completed his long journey across the moun-

tains of Pennsylvania and arrived at Marietta.¹ On

the 15th of the same month, and in the presence of the

small but sturdy band of pioneers who had gathered in

the Campus Martius of Marietta, the Governor assumed

formal possession of the Territory.²

The succeeding ten years of Ohio's history is eco-

nomic and industrial rather than political. It was a

decade of migration, of settlement and development, of

home seeking and home building, and of Indian wars.

Nevertheless this was an important period in the history

of Ohio and of particular significance for the subject

under discussion, for the people who came to Ohio dur-

ing this period were to determine the political character

of the government . Of these immigrants there were

two distinct classes politically; those who came from

the east and those who came from the south. The

pioneers from the Federalist states, Massachusetts and

Connecticut, very naturally settled in eastern Ohio, thus

making the cities of Marietta and Cleveland the centers

of the Federalist party in the Territory, while on the

other hand, the Republicans of Virginia and Kentucky

just as naturally settled in central and western Ohio,

making Chillicothe the center of republicanism.

1 Rardall and Ryan -- History of Ohio, Vol. 2, p. 465.

² Rufus King -- Ohio, p. 199

The Struggle for Statehood in Ohio  475

The government in the Territory from 1788 to 1798

reflects the personality and political theory of Governor

St. Clair. He had been schooled in New England ideas

of government, and of course carried these ideas with

him to the western country. He shared in the political

beliefs of Washington and Adams, which, as men-

tioned at the outset, were considered liberal in 1776 but

became somewhat conservative in 1800. The character

of his government, therefore, was autocratic rather than

democratic. Culprits were punished by fines, the pil-

lory or the stocks, and people were put into prison or

sold into slavery for debt.3  Everywhere and in any

case, the will of the Governor was absolute.

This condition of government made the character

of the emigration to Ohio of great importance. The

people who came from the cities of New England were

accustomed to a strong centralized government and, in

some measure, to the rigorous regulation of lives by

law. Therefore, they did not fret under the sturdy ad-

ministration of Governor St. Clair. On the other hand,

those adventuresome frontiersmen of western Virginia

and Kentucky, who, impelled by the western rush of

population, crossed the Ohio river from the south and

southeast and settled in southern and western Ohio,

were unaccustomed to administrative control, and hence

somewhat dissatisfied with the government. It is of im-

portance, then, to keep these two types of immigrants in

mind, for out of them, were to develop two factions

which dominated the political thought of the Territory

3 Randall and Ryan -- History of Ohio, Vol. 2, p. 466, also Daniel

J. Ryan -- Ohio, p. 49.

476      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

and whose influences can be traced through fifteen or

twenty years of Ohio's history.⁴

The Territory grew so rapidly in population that by

1798 it contained 5000 free male inhabitants, which, ac-

cording to the Ordinance of 1787, was required for the

establishment of a Territorial Legislature.    Accord-

ingly, in December of 1798, Governor St. Clair ordered

an election to be held for the purpose of electing mem-

bers for such a body.⁵ Any freeholder of fifty or more

acres of territorial land, who was a citizen and had re-

sided within the Territory for two years, possessed the

right of suffrage. The candidate for office, however,

was required to be a free holder of 200 or more acres of

territorial land in addition to the qualifications of voters.

Under these conditions twenty-two men were elected to

compose the first legislature of the Territory.

The representatives met at Cincinnati, February 4,

1799.6 Their first duty, in pursuance of the Ordinance

of 1787, was to nominate ten men of the Territory, who

were free holders of at least 500 acres of land, and

from whom the President would select five to compose

the Legislative Council.⁷ Having made these nomina-

tions the legislature adjourned to meet again at the

same place on September 16, 1799.8 On September 24,

1799, the Governor addressed the Legislature, con-

gratulated them on the formation of the new govern-

ment, and called their attention to the problems which,

in his opinion, should receive their attention.⁹ The

4 The influence of the ardent states' rights supporters was shown in

the "Sweeping Resolutions" and the National bank case.

5 Western Spy and Hamilton Gazette, December 8, 1798.

6 W. H. Smith -- The St. Clair Papers, Vol. 1, p. 207.

7 Jacob Burnet -- Notes on the Northwestern Territory, p. 291.

8 Ibid, p. 292.

9 Western Spy, September 31, 1799.

The Struggle for Statehood in Ohio    477

Legislative Council sent an exceptionally laudatory

reply to the Governor, but the reply of the Assembly,

though polite and respectful, obviously lacked the

profuse praise contained in the reply of the Council.¹⁰

In order to understand the subsequent history of the

Territory, we must first analyze the status quo of the

Governor since the establishment of the Legislature.

First and most important of all, he possessed the power

of absolute veto on all legislative acts. His appointive

power extended over all justices of the peace and army

officers, and he licensed all lawyers and innkeepers. In

short, no legislative or administrative act could be com-

pleted without his knowledge and approval.11 These

were not new or additional powers that had been be-

stowed upon him, but the exercise of them in any ar-

bitrary fashion had a new significance owing to the

existence of the Legislature.

It is the opinion of some writers that the Legislature

registered their disapproval of the Governor's regime,

when, in their first official act, they selected William

Henry Harrison to represent the Territory in Congress,

instead of Arthur St. Clair, jr., the son of the Gov-

ernor. There is further significance to this act when

it is understood that Mr. Harrison was a strong Anti-

Federalist and hence a political enemy of the Governor.12

However that may be, the first real clash of authority

between Governor St. Clair and the Legislature was

over the right to subdivide counties and locate their

seats of government.    Until February 4, 1799, the

Governor had undisputed power to establish the bounda-

10 Western Spy, October 8, 1799.

11 Burnet -- Notes on the Northwestern Territory, p. 475.

12 Western Spy, October 8, 1799 -- The President of the first Legis-

lature was Edward Tiffin and the Secretary was John Riley.

478      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

ries of counties and to designate the county seat, but

since the establishment of the Legislature, a good many

people of the Territory, and the majority of the mem-

bers of the Legislature itself, believed that this power

rested no longer with Governor St. Clair.13

Nathaniel Massie seemed to be the leader of the op-

ponents of the Governor on this question. Mr. Massie

had migrated to the Territory from Kentucky,14 which

at that time, was a center of democratic ideals, and un-

der the influence of Thomas Jefferson.¹⁵ He had started

a settlement at Manchester in Adams County, and

wished a county seat to be located at that place. About

the middle of October, 1799, a petition from the citizens

of Adams County was presented to the Legislature, ask-

ing that Manchester be made the county seat.

On November 5, the Legislature granted the peti-

tion, and sent the bill to the Governor for his signa-

ture.¹⁶ The Governor vetoed the measure, as he did six

other bills of similar nature passed during the first legis-

tive session,17 and located the county seat at Adamsville.

He later tersely remarked that the jurisdiction in the

case rested with himself and that after investigation, he

had found Adamsville to be the more suitable place for

a seat of government.18

Other marked differences of opinion arose between

the Legislature and the Governor, and in this connec-

tion, two acts of the Legislature are of significance: 1st,

an act abolishing the property qualifications for voting,

13 Western Spy, October 15; November 5, 1799.

14 David Meade Massie -- Life of Nathaniel Massie, Cincinnati, 1896,

p. 52.

15 Robert Chaddock -- Ohio Before 1850, New York, 1908, p. 221.

16 Western Spy, November 5, 1899.

17 S. P. Chase -- Statutes of Ohio, Vol. 1, p. 29.

18 Western Spy, December 24, 1799.

The Struggle for Statehood in Ohio   479

and thereby extending the suffrage to all free male in-

habitants over twenty-one years of age;19 and 2d, a reso-

lution remonstrating with Congress against the unre-

stricted veto power of the executive.²⁰ The extension

of suffrage bill was promptly vetoed by the Governor.

There was a conflict of authority then, between the

Governor and the representatives of the people, as soon

as those representatives had a legal means to express

their opinions. These differences of opinion concerning

the rights of government in the Territory, were, in

themselves trivial and local, but in their principles, were

fundamental and national. The strong desire on the

part of the people of the Territory for local self govern-

ment was very similar to the democratic movement

which swept through the old states and elected Thomas

Jefferson to the Presidency in the fall of 1800.21

Under the existing conditions in the Territory, there

seemed little chance for reform. The veto of the Gov-

ernor was absolute, the Council was not responsible to

the people, and the Legislature was elected by a limited

suffrage. The leaders of the reform movement, there-

fore, began to look forward to the time when the eastern

part of the Territory would have a sufficiency of popula-

tion to entitle its admission into the Union as a state,

and they made known their desires.

The Governor was not in sympathy with the liberal

movement, but was alive to its existence, and made early

attempts to hinder its progress and prevent its success.

On February 18, 1800, he wrote a letter to the Terri-

torial Representative, Mr. Harrison, in which he pro-

19 Smith -- St. Clair Papers. Vol. 2, p. 447, et seq.

20 Ibid, p. 449.

21 Chaddock -- Ohio Before 1850, p. 234.

480      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

posed a division of the Territory, for the purpose of

government. In view of later events it is important to

know the boundaries of this proposed division. The

eastern division was to include the lands of the Terri-

tory which lie between the Pennsylvania boundary and

a line drawn north from the forks of the Scioto River

to the Indiana boundary, and thence to the northwest

corner of the Connecticut Reserve. The central division

extended westward from the eastern division to a line

drawn north from the falls of the Ohio to the mouth of

the Chicago River.   The western division extended

westward as far as the Mississippi river. The capitals

of these several divisions of land were to be Marietta,

Cincinnati and Vincennes respectively.²² The Governor

went on to state, in his letter to Mr. Harrison, that his

opposition to the use of the Miami and Wabash Rivers

as boundary lines, was based on two points: The eastern

division would be too large, and the Indian claims to

much of the western land was not as yet extinguished.23

However sincere the Governor may have been in

stating his reasons for division to Mr. Harrison, he at

least had other motives which he did not reveal to the

representative. These other schemes he communicated

to his friend, Senator Ross of Pennsylvania, in a letter

dated December, 1799. To the Senator he said: 1st,

that the people of the Territory were in no condition to

form a state government; 2d, that they were too igno-

rant to form a constitution; 3d, that they were too far

removed from Washington to feel the power of the

National Government; 4th, that they were, for the most

22 Western Spy, February 18, 1800; King -- Ohio, p. 276; Smith -- St.

Clair Papers, Vol. 1, p. 215.

²³ Ibid, February 18, 1880.

The Struggle for Statehood in Ohio      481

part, people who had no ties connecting them with the

people of the East, and that it would be very inexpedient

to have another state formed whose inhabitants were as

Republican as those of Kentucky.²⁴

Governor St. Clair's real intentions regarding the

future of the Territory, are, it seems, rather clear. He

knew that sooner or later states would be formed out

of the Territory, but desired to prolong that process,

and thereby his own regime, as long as possible. The

smallness of his proposed eastern division would pre-

vent it from having, for some time to come, a sufficient

population to be admitted as a state, and after being

admitted, it would, in all probability, be a Federalist

state; the inhabitants of the Connecticut Reserve coun-

try, and the people in and about Marietta being for the

most part Federalists.²⁵

The House of Representatives had already appointed

a committee to investigate conditions in the Northwest

Territory, and Mr. Harrison was made chairman of the

committee.26 In its report, the committee recommended

a division of the Territory for the purpose of a more

satisfactory government; the rapid increase of settle-

ment over so great an area made government from one

place difficult and almost impossible.  The committee

then advised Congress to divide the Territory by an

imaginary line, drawn north from a point on the Ohio

River opposite the Kentucky River, to Fort Recovery,

and thence to the Canadian boundary.²⁷

24 Massie, Nathaniel Massie, p. 69; King -- Ohio, p. 277.

²⁵ According to the Ordinance of 1787, 60,000 free male inhabitants,

or less conditionally, were necessary for statehood.

26 Smith --St. Clair Papers, Vol. 1, p. 214.

27 Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society Publications, Vol. 4,

p. 130; Western Spy, June 11, 1800; Smith -- St. Clair Papers, Vol. 1, pp.

214-216.

Vol. XXXII -- 31.

482      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

On May 7, 1800, Congress passed an act dividing

the Territory as recommended by the committee. The

act was to take effect July 4, 1800, and the western di-

vision was to be called Indiana Territory, with its cap-

ital at Vincennes. William Henry Harrison was ap-

pointed to be the first Governor and John Gibson, of

Pennsylvania, was the first secretary. The capital of

the eastern division, which was still to be called the

Territory of the United States northwest of the Ohio

river, was removed from Cincinnati to Chillicothe, be-

cause the latter place was nearer the center of the Ter-

ritory.²⁸

The removal of the capital from Cincinnati caused

quite a stir among the discordant elements in Ohio.

Governor St. Clair expressed his belief that Congress

had exhausted its power in dividing the Territory with-

out its consent, but the fact that Chillicothe was the

center of the Anti-Federalist element, no doubt biased

the Governor's opinion of congressional privilege to no

small degree. Nevertheless there was enough contro-

versy over the subject to influence Mr. Harrison to write

a letter dated May 7, 1800, to the people of the Terri-

tory, in which he attempted to defend himself and ex-

plain his reasons for recommending the removal of the

capital.²⁹ The controversy assumed a political aspect

and many heated controversial letters appeared in the

Cincinnati newspapers of the period.30

The second session of the first Territorial Legisla-

ture met at the call of the Governor at Chillicothe, No-

vember 3, 1800, and was addressed by him on Novem-

28 Western Spy, June 11, 1800, Letter from Mr. Harrison to the

People of Ohio.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid -- July 9, August 13, August 27, September 20, September 27.

The Struggle for Statehood in Ohio      483

ber 5.31 After having chosen a territorial representative

to Congress,³² Mr. Harrison having been made Gov-

ernor of Indiana Territory, the question of county

boundaries and seats of government was again taken

up.33 A committee, composed of Messrs. Massie, Go-

forth and Worthington, drew up and presented to the

Governor a petition, requesting him to reconsider the

stand he had taken concerning his right to establish

county boundaries, and to return vetoed bills to the

House from which they had originated.³⁴ To this peti-

tion or remonstrance, the Governor replied in a very

polite and gentlemanly manner, but was adamant in his

refusal to concede authority.³⁵

At this session of the legislature a resolution was

also introduced, which might be called the forerunner

of the Division Bill of 1801. The resolution provided

for the holding of the legislature at Marietta, Chilli-

cothe and Cincinnati, consecutively, but it was lost by a

vote of eight to ten.³⁶

On the 2d of December the Governor notified the

Assembly that his term of office would expire on the

9th instant, and owing to the fact that the Secretary, in

his opinion, could not legally take his place, the Legisla-

ture would be prorogued on that day. Jacob Burnet,

who was always a friend and supporter of Governor

St. Clair, mentioned how significant it was that this

notice of dissolution was given at a time when the Sec-

3¹ Western Spy, November 12, 1800.

32 Mr. William McMillan was appointed to Congress until March 4,

1801, and Mr. Paul Fearing was appointed for the two years following.

33 Western Spy, November 19, 1800.

34 Western Spy, December 12, 1800.

35 Ibid -- January 7, 1801. In the reply he made counter propositions

which the Legislature would not accept -- Burnet, Notes, p. 325.

38 Ibid, December 10, 1800.

484       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

retary, Mr. Byrd, was absent from the capital,37 and it

was common knowledge that the Legislature would have

been called back into session had the Secretary received

notice of their dissolution before they had dispersed to

their homes. It was generally accepted that such au-

thority rested with the Secretary.³⁸

The Legislature, although not agreeing that the

Governor had a right to dismiss them, knew that he had

the power to do so, and did not attempt to remain in

session. This arbitrary exercise of authority by the

Governor, in connection with the older questions of

county boundaries and the absolute veto, caused much

unfavorable criticism of him and his regime, and turned

the attention of the people toward the formation of a

state government. The pages of the Western Spy dur-

ing the fall and winter of 1800 were fairly replete with

discussions of the political situation. Each issue con-

tained one or more letters from subscribers, who were

in favor of or against the administration. Such literary

pseudonyms as Delector, Bystander, Palladius and the

like made very frequent appearance.

Owing to the fact that the Governor had not been

reappointed at the expiration of his term, the Anti-Fed-

eralists decided to make the best of their opportunity in

an attempt to accomplish his removal. Accordingly,

Thomas Worthington was sent to Philadelphia for that

purpose.39 The Federalists knew of the movement on

37 Burnet, Notes, p. 327; Smith -- St. Clair Papers, p. 252.

38 Randall and Ryan -- History of Ohio, Vol. 3, p. 84.

Mr. Byrd, who at that time was in Cincinnati, had heard rumors

that the Legislature was to be prorogued on the 9th, but he thought that

it was a trick to prevent certain petitions, praying for the dismissal of

the Governor, being sent to the President; if the Governor's term ex-

pired on the 9th, his reappointment would be made before the petitions

could reach Philadelphia -- See references in note (37).

39 Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio, Vol. 3, pp. 85-88.

The Struggle for Statehood in Ohio             485

foot and wanted to send Judge Todd of Trumbull

County to advocate their cause, but were restrained

from   doing so by reason of insufficient funds.⁴⁰        How-

ever Mr. Worthington was unsuccessful in his mission

and on December 22, 1800, President Adams recom-

mended the Governor's reappointment for a term of

three years, and the Senate confirmed the appointment

February 3, 1801.41

During the summer of 1801 and especially about

election time, there was great agitation over the ques-

tion of statehood. The inhabitants of Marietta met in

a mass meeting and resolved that the people of the Ter-

ritory should not concern themselves in an attempt to

form a state government until they had better provision

for their wants, better schools, more improvements, and

a larger surplus of money in the Treasury.⁴² On the

other hand it was shown that the expenses of the Terri-

tory for the year 1800 were $15,440.00, while the

revenue was $27,926.00.⁴3 Some writers were of the

opinion that a state government would attract men of

wealth to the Territory, and others thought that the

poor who were to work on the farms were more desir-

able than men of means.⁴⁴

⁴⁰ W. E. Gilmore, Life of Edward Tiffin, p. 28.

41 Western Spy, February 11, 1801.

⁴2 Ibid.

43 Scioto Gazette, October 24, 1801.

44 Western Spy, February 11, 1801: A person from Chillicothe call-

ing himself "A Friend of the People" and writing in the "Scioto Gazette"

October 24, 1801, said in part: "Let a change take place. Let a govern-

ment congenial to Americans be adopted, and it will be like opening the

flood gates of a mill, wealth will flow in upon us, improvements and

agriculture will adorn our lands; the creeks and rivers emptying into

the Ohio will roll along the Mississippi conveying food to thousands

suffering from want; manufactures will spring up in the wilderness;

proper arrangements for education will be perfected; a new Athens with

other seminaries of learning will discover their towering steeples above

the lofty oaks, and soon send forth into the world youths ornamental to

human nature. Our prolific plains covered with herds, our farms loaded

486        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

In October 1801 the members of the second Terri-

torial Legislature were elected and they met in session

at Chillicothe November 24, 1801.45        Edward Tiffin was

chosen President of the Assembly and John Riley Secre-

tary.⁴⁶  During the early days of this session bills were

passed incorporating Cincinnati, Dayton and Chilli-

cothe, and establishing a University at Athens, but the

most important measure of the Assembly was an act

to establish the boundaries of the first three states to

be   formed    out of the     Northwest Territory.47  The

boundaries and capitals of these states as proposed in

the act were practically the same as those authorized

by Governor St. Clair in his letter to Mr. Harrison,

February 18, 1800.48

The passage of this act produced great excitement

in Chillicothe. When the provisions of the bill became

known, mobs broke out and the rioting lasted for two

days.⁴⁹ Such a mob gathered and threatened to enter

the house of Captain Gregg, in which the Governor and

several of his friends lodged,⁵⁰ and, had it not been for

from the lap of plenty gladdening their owners' hearts, and our govern-

ment like the tree of liberty extending its branches over all our citizens,

and with paternal care sheltering and defending them from tyranny and

oppression, will cause the astonished traveller to contemplate our rising

greatness with amazement and cry out in the language of the venerable

Franklin, 'Here dwells liberty -- here's my Country'."

45 Western Spy, December 12, 1801; Smith -- St. Clair Papers, Vol.

1, p. 222.

46 Ibid, December 12, 1801.

47 Ibid, December 26, 1801. The vote on the measure was 12 to 8,

St. Clair Papers, Vol. 1, p. 222.

48 Cutler -- Life of Ephraim Cutler, p. 55.

Thus it will be noticed that the Legislature sustained the Governor

in his ideas of Territorial division. But, it must be remembered that

this Legislature was elected by a restricted suffrage and no doubt the

minority believed that the real popular will rested with them on this

subject. The vote was 12 to 8.

49 Robert Oliver, in a letter to Griffin Greene, December 29, 1801,

quoted in Ohio Centennial Celebration Proceedings -- Ohio Arch. and

Hist. Society Publications, gives a full account of the affair, also Burnet

-- Notes, p. 328.

The Struggle for Statehood in Ohio    487

the timely interference of Mr. Worthington, serious

violence might have been done.51 It seems that the idea

of attacking the house developed when some one had

overheard Mr. Putman give this toast:      "May the

Scioto have the borders of two great and flourishing

states."52

The next day the Governor gave the names of some

of the rioters to Judge Samuel Findley and ordered him

to arrest them. The Judge refused to comply with the

Governor's order, and being threatened, he imme-

diately resigned.⁵3 The Governor then sent a note to

Mr. Tiffin relative to the outbreaks in the city, and re-

quested him to have certain men put in custody for

trial.⁵⁴ The remainder of the time that the Legislature

was in session was without further disturbance. There

was a minority resolution, signed by those who did not

favor the Division Bill and an act was passed removing

the seat of the Legislature to Cincinnati.⁵⁵

The feeling in the Territory over the question of

statehood and the conduct of the Governor was at fever

heat. The Anti-Federalists put all persons who could

possibly act under requisition to ride throughout the

Territory with petitions praying Congress to admit

Ohio as a state. The Governor's public and private

life was vilified, his appointments were found fault

with, and his arbitrary conduct was censured.⁵⁶ Benja-

min Van Cleve characterized the whole country as

being "in ferment."57

50 Cutler, Ephraim Cutler, p. 55.

51 Van Cleve, Memoirs, p. 64.

52 Cutler -- Life of Ephraim Cutler, p. 55.

53 Western Spy, January 2, 1802.

54 Ibid, January 2, 1802.

55 Ibid.

56 Randall and Ryan, Ohio, Vol. 3, p. 93; Van Cleve, Memoirs, p. 66.

57 Van Cleve, Memoirs, p. 64.

488      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Governor St. Clair, in a letter to Senator Ross, had

spoken of the Democratic-Republican party as being "a

damned faction that was dragging the country into

ruin." So, on account of this statement and also by

reason of the Governor's well-known Federalistic ten-

dencies, his opponents thought that President Jeffer-

son could be induced to remove him from office.⁵⁸ Ac-

cordingly, Messrs. Worthington and Baldwin were dis-

patched to Washington to oppose the passage by Con-

gress of the late territorial act for the division of the

Territory, and to secure the removal of the Governor.59

For the furtherance of the last purpose the Anti-

Federalists decided to draw up a formal list of griev-

ances against the Governor and present them to the

President. Nathaniel Massie and Edward Tiffin drew

up the list during the early days of February, 1802, and

Thomas Worthington presented them to the President

on February 20, 1802.60 The Governor was alleged to

have usurped legislative power, mis-used the veto

power, endeavored to influence the Judiciary and to be

generally hostile to the Republican government.

There was considerable fear on the part of the

friends of the Governor that his removal would be ac-

complished. Paul Fearing wrote to Ephraim Cutler,

January 18, 1802, saying that he was afraid the Gov-

ernor would be removed, "for he should have been more

cautious in his words to Judge Findley." Return J.

Meigs also thought he would be removed and said that

the conduct of the Governor was such that none could

defend it. John Cleve Symmes said that Congress be-

58 W. E. Gilmore, Life of Edward Tiffin, p. 38; Randall and Ryan,

Vol. 3, p. 93.

59 Cutler, Ephraim  Cutler, p. 58.

60 Randall and Ryan -- Ohio, Vol. 2, p. 98.

The Struggle for Statehood in Ohio  489

lieved the people of Ohio were wise enough to make

good Republicans, once Governor St. Clair, "that

aristocratic old sinner," was out of the way.61

Governor St. Clair knew of this strong movement

on foot to effect his removal and he wrote a letter to the

President in self defense. He denied the charges made

against him by his opponents; asked the President to

remember his long service in the Territory during its

formative period; and explained the deep humiliation

that removal at this time would cause him. He then

made a journey to Washington, and the President,

prompted by sympathy, or persuaded by political ex-

pediency, did not remove him from office.

During all of this controversy at Washington, the

question of statehood was being debated vigorously in

the Territory. Those who favored the early admission

of Ohio as a state, gave the following reasons: the peo-

ple were not enjoying the political rights belonging to

freemen; neither the Governor nor the Legislative

Council were responsible to the people; the appointive

power of Congress was being abused; and the Governor

controlled the will of the Assembly. On the other hand,

the Federalists contended that the grievances were

theoretical and not actual, that the appointive power of

Congress was compensated for by the payment of the

salaries of those appointed, and that statehood should

be deferred for at least two years.⁶²

Over these questions there was considerable political

oratory during the summer of 1802. Edward Tiffin

said that on account of the present government, wealthy

61 Letter of Symmes to Griffin Greene, quoted in Ohio Centennial

Celebration Proceedings, p. 87.

62 Burnet, Notes, p. 100.

490      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

and influential people were prevented from coming into

the Territory.⁶³  Mr. Worthington spoke of the Gov-

ernor as "Arthur the First."64 General Darlinton said

that the people would be able soon "To shake off the

iron fetters of the aristocracy in the downfall of the

Tory party in the Territory."65 Judge Symmes said,

"We shall never have fair play while Arthur and the

Knights of the Round Table sit at the head." At an-

other time Edward Tiffin pictured the Territorial Gov-

ernment as being ill adapted to the genius and feelings

of Americans; as having been formulated at a time

when civil liberty was not so well understood as it was

in 1802; and as contemplating a government of a few

over the many.⁶⁶

A writer in the Western Spy said that he hailed the

day when aristocracy would "receive a vulnerable jab

and from its ruins will appear a free and pure repub-

licanism like the sun of glory rising triumphantly and

shining forth in voluptuous splendor to illuminate the

western hemisphere."67 Space does not permit to men-

tion even briefly the numerous men who wrote or spoke

during the summer of 1802, but the above examples are

fairly typical.⁶⁸

Thomas Worthington's activity at Washington, and

the great number of petitions praying for statehood,

which were collected by Messrs. Massie and Tiffin must

have had a great influence on the House, for that body,

on January 27, 1802, rejected the Territorial Division

63 Gilmore, Life of Edward Tiffin, p. 37.

64 Hinsdale, The Old Northwest, p. 310.

65 Hinsdale, The Old Northwest, p. 310.

66 Smith, St. Clair Papers, pp. 225-227.

67 Western Spy, June 16, 1802. Article written by "Plain Truth."

68 Articles against statehood in Western Spy for February 20, March

15, 1802.

The Struggle for Statehood in Ohio        491

Bill by a vote of eighty-one to five.⁶⁹ Thereupon, Rep-

resentative Giles of Virginia made a motion to form a

committee which would report on the advisability of ad-

mitting Ohio as a state, and if favorable, to draw up a

plan for admission. From the private correspondence

of Mr. Cutler, Mr. Fearing and Mr. Giles, it is evident

that even the friends of Governor St. Clair were tired

of the discussion and aware of the growing sentiment

in Congress for the admission of Ohio, and hence the

apparent futility of further contention.⁷⁰

The House committee appointed January 27, made

its report on March 20, 1802.71 This committee, headed

by Mr. Giles, went into a detailed discussion of those

provisions of the Ordinance of 1787, which provided

for the admission into the Union, as a state, or any part

of the Northwest Territory, and arrived at the con-

clusion that the eastern part of that Territory had ful-

filled those conditions necessary for admission.      The

committee, therefore, made the following recommenda-

tions: 1st, provision should be made to enable the in-

habitants of the eastern part of the Northwest Terri-

tory to form a state government and constitution; 2nd,

the boundaries of the proposed state should be defined;

3rd, a constitutional convention for this Territory

should be arranged; 4th, the number of its members,

their proper apportioning, and the qualification of their

electors should be determined; 5th, and finally, the new

69 Burnet -- Notes, p. 335; Gilmore -- Life of Tiffin, p. 48; Annals

of Congress, 1802, p. 832.

70 Cutler -- Life of Ephraim Cutler, p. 65 and 86; Gilmore, Life of

Tiffin, p. 30.

71 Annals of Congress, March 20, 1802, p. 1098, et. seq. At this time

Congress was rather strongly Republican and therefore willing to sponsor

an Anti-Federalist measure. Also they were not adverse to the possibil-

ity of having additional Republican electors at the next presidential elec-

tion.

492      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

state should have one delegate in Congress, until its

next session.⁷²

On March 30, 1802, an Enabling Act was introduced

into the House, which embodies, substantially at least,

the suggestions of the committee.⁷³ The act may be

briefly summarized as follows: 1st, to permit the in-

habitants of the eastern division of the Territory of the

United States northwest of the Ohio River to form a

constitution and state government and to be admitted to

the Union on equal footing with the original state; 2nd,

the new state was bounded as follows: on the east by

the Pennsylvania line; on the west by a line drawn due

north from the mouth of the Great Miami River until

it should intersect an east and west line drawn through

the southerly bend of Lake Michigan; on the north by

an extension of the latter line to Lake Erie, and then by

Lake Erie to the eastern boundary; and on the south by

the Ohio River; 3rd, all other territory east of the di-

vision line of 1800 was to be a part of Indiana Terri-

tory; 4th, the suffrage for the election of the delegates

to form a constitution was extended to all male citizens

who had paid territorial or county tax and had resided

within the Territory for one year. These delegates

were to be apportioned at the ratio of one for each 1200

inhabitants and the election was to be held on the sec-

ond Tuesday of October, 1802; 5th, the seat of the con-

vention was named and its first duties were designated;

6th, the Constitution formed by the convention should

provide for a Republican government not repugnant to

the Ordinance of 1787; 7th, and finally, there were at-

⁷² Annals of Congress, Enabling Act introduced into Congress,

March 30, 1802, p. 1098.

73 Ibid, March 30, April 8, 1802, pp. 1106-1161, Senate, p. 297.

The Struggle for Statehood in Ohio    493

tached certain propositions concerning school land, salt

springs and the taxation of government land within the

state.

This act was considered in the House March 30 and

31, 1802.⁷4 Debate was opened by Mr. Fearing, the Ter-

ritorial Representative, who, although declaring himself

opposed to the measure, did not make an extended argu-

ment. Mr. Griswold (Connecticut) argued that Con-

gress had neither the power nor the right to pass such

an act, and asked what would be the result should Con-

gress attempt to interfere with the actions of any state

in like manner. This speech was answered by Repre-

sentative Nicholson, who pointed out the difference in

Congressional authority when dealing with states and

when dealing with territories. Mr. Griswold again took

the floor and made a very strong point of the fact that

the Legislature of the Territory, which was the closest

representative body of the people, did not favor the

change in government. Mr. Williams (North Caro-

lina) answered this with the statement that nine-tenths

of the people of Ohio desired a state government, but

a petition for the same would never come from its

Legislature, as long as there existed an assembly elected

by a limited suffrage and controlled by a council and an

executive whose offices would expire with the creation

of a state government.

The debate in the House was continued on April 8,

1802. There was nothing essentially new presented in

the way of argument for or against the measure.

Wayne County, which had been included in the eastern

⁷⁴ Annals of Congress, 1802, pp. 1106-1156. The northern boundary

of Ohio is the subject of a long story by itself. See T. B. Galloway,

Ohio-Michigan Boundary Line, Ohio State Archaeological and Historical

Society, Publications, Vol. 4, p. 204.

494       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

division of the Territory by the division line of 1800,

was the subject for some discussion, but when a motion

was made to alter the northern boundary to include

Wayne County, the motion was lost by a vote of 44 to

27.75

The Enabling Act was voted on by the House and

passed on April 9, 1802. The vote shows that in gen-

eral the representatives from the south favored, and

those from the New England states opposed, the

measure.   Out of the 47 yeas, Virginia cast 15, Massa-

chusetts 4, and Connecticut none. While out of the 29

nays, Virginia cast 1, Massachusetts 5 and Connecticut

cast her entire vote. The south cast 27, the middle

states 14, and the New England states 6, of the favor-

able votes, but of the unfavorable votes, New England

furnished 15.76

The passage of the Enabling Act was an important

event for the future of Ohio. The state, as bounded by

this act, is one of the most compact in the Union, but

if the Division Bill passed by the Territorial Legislature

in 1801, had been successful, Ohio would be a compara-

tively insignificant state. By this latter bill, the eastern

state would have been only one-half as large as the

central state, and the western state would have con-

tained 3,259,200 acres more land than the other two.77

In the political comment which appeared in the

75 Annals of Congress, 1802, April 9, p. 1161.

⁷⁶ Annals of Congress, 1802, April 9, p. 1161. Passed by the Senate

April 28th. This vote is a fairly accurate indication of the political con-

dition of the United States in 1802. The Federalist party was declining

as a political power, but it was yet strong in New England. The opposi-

tion of New England to the admission of new states reached its highest

point at the time of the Hartford Convention, when the delegates de-

manded no further admission of western states into the Union.

77 Thomas Worthington, Address to the People of Ohio, Chillicothe,

1802.

The Struggle for Statehood in Ohio    495

Western Spy during the summer of 1802, there is a

noticeable amount of anti-slavery agitation. The ma-

jority of the writers were in favor of a state govern-

ment, but they appealed to the voters to elect delegates

to the Constitutional Convention, who were opposed to

slavery. There were some writers, and among them

Judge Burnet, who depreciated the strength of the pro-

slavery element within the Territory. Nevertheless it

seems reasonable that there would not have been so

much concern over the question, had there been no

cause. The anti-slavery articles which appeared in the

Western Spy generally advanced one or all of three

arguments: Slavery was wrong by having been placed

under a divine anathema; the institution was econom-

ically unsuited for a state as far north as Ohio; and it

was a moral evil. Biblical references and the principles

of the Bill of Rights were the common proofs of the

arguments.78

Benjamin Van Cleve said, in his diary, that the peo-

ple of the Virginia Military district believed that Con-

gress had unconstitutionally prohibited slavery there

and that many well-to-do Virginians and Kentuckians

would come to the Territory, if slavery was allowed.

"It was known," he continued, "that there were many

in the Scioto country who were strongly in favor of the

admission of slavery and that these things influenced

many to oppose entering into a state government for

fear lest the slave interests, which they supposed had

taken the lead, should predominate.⁷⁹

78 Western Spy, June 26; July 3, 10, 24, 31; August 7, 25; September

11; October 2, 9, 15, 27 and November 17, 1802.

79 Van Cleve, Memoirs, p. 54; "The Republicans openly advocated

slavery and the Federalists opposed it;" * Julia Cutler, Life of Ephraim

Cutler, p. 67.

496      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

One writer declared that the project of statehood

was started by Congressmen who owned vast tracts of

land near Chillicothe and desired the capital of the state

at that place, in order to enhance the value of their

land.⁸⁰ There was also a series of five articles in oppo-

sition to statehood, written for the Western Spy, under

the signature of Frank Stubblefield. His main opposi-

tion seemed to arise over the voting regulation; the

election of the delegates to the convention and the selec-

tion of the county officers occurred on the same day

but at different places.⁸¹ In reality, however, this ob-

jection was insignificant.⁸²

Notwithstanding all this discussion, with the En-

abling Act passed, the state party in Ohio had compara-

tively clear sailing, for the flank of the Federalists was

turned and they were powerless. The framers of the

act had been exceedingly careful to prevent the Gov-

ernor from having a voice in the subsequent proceed-

ings.   Congress had    defined the qualifications for

suffrage in the election of the convention, had appor-

tioned the delegates to the inhabitants of the Territory,

divided them among the counties, determined the day

and place for the elections, and finally had issued

instructions to the delegates when elected.⁸³

The Constitutional Convention met at Chillicothe

November 1, 1802, and organized for business by select-

ing Edward Tiffin for its President and Thomas Scott

Secretary.⁸⁴ There were thirty-five members, two of

80 Western Spy, September 1, 1802.

81 Ibid, July 31, 1802.

82 Ibid, August 7, 1802 -- For Articles in favor of statehood see Spy

for July 3, 10, 24, 31 and October 2, 25; Nov. 17; June 26, 1802.

83 Enabling Act, Annals of Congress, 1802; W. E. Gilmore, Life of

Edward Tiffin, p. 63.

84 Journal of the Convention, Chillicothe, 1802, p. 5.

The Struggle for Statehood in Ohio     497

whom came from Trumbull County, seven from Fairfield

and Ross, and twenty-six from Hamilton, Clermont,

Adams, Washington, Belmont and Jefferson.⁸⁵ Accord-

ing to Ephraim Cutler, there were ten Federalists and

twenty-four Democrats in the Convention.⁸⁶ On one

of the most important committees, the Judiciary, eight

of the sixteen members were from Virginia.87 Mr.

Worthington was a member of six committees and

Chairman of two, and Nathaniel Massie, who was an

open enemy of the Governor, was the chairman of the

executive committee.⁸⁸

The character of the convention and its hostility to

the existing government was shown on the second day

of its session, when a motion was made to permit

"Arthur St. Clair, Esq. to address the convention on

those points which he deemed of importance," there

were fourteen unfavorable votes cast.⁸⁹      Whatever

may have been the feeling of the delegates toward the

Governor, this action was not commendable, for he was

yet the highest official in the Territory. With seeming

malice aforethought, his title as Governor was omitted,

and his right to speak questioned.

Having received their consent, the Governor spoke

to the convention at some length, and this speech proved

to be his undoing. He declared his sense of gratitude

to God when he contemplated the great progress of the

Territory during the fourteen years of its existence,

and sought to impress upon the minds of the delegates

85 Washington, Belmont and Trumbull counties were Federalist, the

others were along the Ohio River or near Chillicothe and were Republican.

86 Gilmore, Life of Edward Tiffin, p. 68.

87 Cutler, Life and Times of Ephraim Cutler, p. 70.

88 Chaddock, Ohio Before 1850, p. 66. Journal of the Convention,

Nov. 2, 1802, p. 5.

89 Randall and Rvan, History of Ohio, Vol. 3, p. 120.

Vol. XXXII -- 32.

498      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

the magnitude of the task before them, which, he said,

they should consider with "candid patriotism and united

good will."90 In concluding, he made a violent declama-

tion against the National Government, saying that Con-

gress had over-stepped its authority in at least two

ways: in calling a convention without the consent of

the Territorial Legislature, and in "bartering" away

Wayne County like "sheep at a market."⁹¹ President

Jefferson characterized the speech as "intemperate and

indecorous," and Judge Burnet said it was "sensible and

conciliatory."92

On the next day, with only one negative vote,93 the

convention decided to form a constitution, and a plan

for the same was drawn up. It was to be composed of

eight articles and a schedule, each article being drafted

by a special committee, read three times before being

read for final passage, and treated in passage as a sep-

arate bill.⁹⁴

The principal discussions of the convention were

over the questions of negro suffrage, the number of

legislative sessions (annual or biannual), the submis-

sion of the constitution to the people, the salaries of the

officials, the qualifications of voters, and the apportion-

ment of Senators and Representatives.⁹⁵ The conven-

tion left no detailed record of its debates, hence in-

formation as to actual events is exceedingly scarce.

Even that which has been handed down from the mem-

bers of the convention is extremely liable to be biased

and prejudiced.

90 Hinsdale, Old Northwest, p. 321.

91 Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio, Vol. 3, p. 122.

92 Cutler, Life and Times of Ephraim Cutler, p. 78.

93 Journal of the Convention, p. 7.

94 Ibid.

95 Patterson Constitutions of Ohio, p. 30.

The Struggle for Statehood in Ohio    499

The third or Judiciary article seems to have been

the hardest contested provision of the constitution.⁹⁶

It came from the pen of Judge Byrd, and, in substance,

was a copy of the Virginia code as then practiced. It

left final decisions in all cases of considerable moment,

to be settled by a general court sitting at the capital of

the state.  After much discussion, and considerable

labor on the part of Ephraim Cutler, the draft was am-

ended to allow sittings of the general court at dif-

ferent places throughout the state.⁹⁷

The slavery question arose at two different times;

with the discussion of electoral qualifications and again

with the discussion over the Bill of Rights. By the

fourth article suffrage was extended, with certain

qualifications, to all white male inhabitants. A motion

was made to strike out the word "white" but lost by a

vote of 14 to 17. Thus, it will be noticed that fourteen

men of the convention favored equal suffrage regard-

less of race.⁹⁸ However, the friends of the negroes got

through an amendment to this article, which allowed the

negro a vote, if he was a resident and had made a record

of his citizenship within six months after the passage of

the act. This latter provision carried by a vote of 19

to 15.

The negro supporters thus encouraged, attempted to

make provision for the descendants of the negroes who

were enfranchised under the above provision. They

proposed "that the male descendants of such negroes

and mulattoes as shall make record of their citizenship,

shall be entitled to the same privilege."   One can

96 Cutler, Life and Times of Ephraim Cutler, p. 72.

97 Ibid, Life and Times of Ephraim Cutler, p. 75.

98 Journal of the Convention, pp. 19-20; also Massie, Life of

Nathaniel Massie, p. 86; also Hickok, The Negro in Ohio, p. 34.

500      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

imagine the warmth of the debate over this measure,

for when it came up for final reading, the vote stood

seventeen on each side, and the measure was finally

stricken out by the casting vote of the President.

The question of slavery again came up when the

Bill of Rights or the eighth article was under discus-

sion. The committee which was to draft the eighth

article, met with Mr. Tiffin.  Mr. Browne proposed

that, "no person shall be held in slavery, if a male, after

he is thirty-five years of age, or a female after she is

twenty-five years of age."99 Ephraim Cutler, who was

a member of the committee, said that he believed the

"handwriting to be that of President Jefferson." He

probably meant that such a proposition was in accord

with the President's wishes, for the latter had expressed

such a desire to Mr. Worthington.100 However that

may be, the proposal made by Mr. Browne was changed

so as to prohibit the holding, under pretense of in-

denture or otherwise, of any male person over twenty-

one years of age, or any female of eighteen years of

age. This provision was adopted by the committee by

a vote of 5 to 4, and was passed by the convention by

a vote of 16 to 15.101

On November 13, the convention decided, by a vote

of 27 to 7 that they would not submit the completed

constitution to the people for their approval or disap-

proval.¹⁰² This decision called forth a considerable

amount of criticism from the anti-state party, who ac-

cused the Democrats of being more autocratic than they

had so recently said the Federalists were, and cited,

99 Cutler, Life and Times of Ephraim Cutler, p. 77.

100 Ibid.

¹⁰¹ Journal of the Convention, p. 22.

102 Ibid, p. 33.

The Struggle for Statehood in Ohio     501

not without a hint of irony, the preamble of the consti-

tution which began with "We the People." It may be

noted in passing, however, that in refusing to submit

the constitution to a referendum, the convention had

ample precedent; nine of the original states did not sub-

mit their constitutions to the people.103

The convention lasted from November 2 to 29, 1802.

Altogether there were twenty-five days spent in fram-

ing a constitution, and with a total expense of $4,556.75.

Its success was undoubtedly due to the ability of the

delegates, their small number and their desire to work

with method and accuracy. When a new constitution

was framed in 1851, the convention lasted one hundred

and thirty-five days and cost the state $93,364.29.104

A copy of the constitution was sent to Washington,

and on January 7, 1803, a committee was appointed by

the Senate to enquire whether or not Legislative action

was necessary for the admission of Ohio as a state.1⁰⁵

The committee reported that the constitution for the

state of Ohio conformed to the regulations as provided

in the Ordinance of 1787, and, in their opinion, Con-

gress had no other duty than to establish a district court

within the state to carry out the laws of the United

States therein. Accordingly, such a bill was framed,

and was passed by the Senate on February 7, by the

House on February 12, and signed by the President on

the 19th, 1803. Pursuant to the schedule of the con-

stitution, the election of the Governor, General As-

sembly and a sheriff and coroner for each county, was

103 These states were Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York,

North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia and New Hamp-

shire.

104 Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio, Vol. 3, pp. 123-124.

105 Annals of Congress, 1803; also Gilmore, Life of Edward Tiffin,

p. 90.

502      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

to be held on the second Tuesday of January, 1803.

Edward Tiffin was the nominee of the Anti-Federalists,

and Governor St. Clair was the choice of the Federal-

ists. However, the Governor refused the nomination,

and no other choice was made by his party.¹⁰⁶ This, of

course, threw the election to Mr. Tiffin.

When did Ohio become a state? This is an old

question for debate, for at least four different dates

have been championed vigorously. It is held by some

people, that Ohio was a state as soon as the Enabling

Act was passed April 9, 1802.    Others adhere to

November 29, 1802, when the constitution for Ohio was

completed. I. W. Andrews, at one time President of

Marietta College, has written a lengthy argument in

favor of February 19, 1803, at which time Congress

passed the act to provide for the execution of the Na-

tional laws within the "State of Ohio." Finally it has

been said that Ohio was not a state until the first meet-

ing of the General Assembly, March 1, 1803.

No doubt there are arguments in support of any of

these dates, and perhaps the whole question is futile or

of comparatively small importance. Nevertheless, it

will not be out of place to mention two exceptionally

good points in behalf of the latter date. Mr. Fearing,

the Territorial Representative to Congress, retained, by

express permission of the House, his seat with that body

until March 4, 1803. Secondly, Judge Meigs, a Terri-

torial Judge, asked for and received his salary as a

Judge, from the Territorial Government until March 1,

1803. Thus, from the viewpoint of Congress, as well

as from the Government of Ohio itself, the transition

106 Western Spy, December 8, 1802.

The Struggle for Statehood in Ohio  503

from Territorial Government to statehood did not take

place before March 1, 1803.

There is one more event of note in the story of

Ohio's struggle for statehood; the dismissal of Gov-

ernor St. Clair. It has been noted elsewhere that the

Governor's speech at the opening of the convention was

considered "intemperate and indecorous" by President

Jefferson. The President evidently considered this "in-

decorum and tendency toward a disorganizing spirit," a

sufficient reason for the Governor's removal, and such

an order was sent to him by the Secretary of State,

James Madison, on November 22, 1802.

The letter of dismissal was not sent to him direct,

but was sent to Mr. Charles Willing Byrd, the Secre-

tary of the Territory, who became acting Governor.

Governor St. Clair and Secretary Byrd were open and

avowed enemies, the latter having made personal at-

tacks upon the Governor through the pages of the

Western Spy.¹⁰⁷ Naturally, the Governor's humiliation

at being thus dismissed was very deep and his resent-

ment exceedingly keen.

For us today it is not so very important that Ohio

was admitted to the Union when it was, but it is vastly

important that it was admitted as it was. Had the state

been carved out of the extreme eastern division of the

'Territory, it could not have played the part that it has

in the affairs of our Nation. Those early pioneers who,

driving the Indians before them, planted their cabins in

the forests of Ohio, were true apostles of the free polit-

ical and social institutions that Americans love.

107 Western Spy, October 9, 1802.

504       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Secondary Authorities

Abbott, J. C. History of Ohio. Detroit, 1878.

Albach, James R. Annals of the West. Pittsburg, 1857.

Atwater, Caleb. History of the State of Ohio. Cincinnati, 1838.

Chaddock, Robert. Ohio Before 1850. New York, 1908.

Chase, Salmon P. Sketch of the History of Ohio. Cincinnati,

1888.

Cutler, Julia Perkins. Life and Times of Ephraim Cutler, Cin-

cinnati, 1890.

Gilkey, Elliot H. Ohio's Hundred Year Book. Columbus, 1901.

Gilmore, William Edward. Life of Edward Tiffin. Chillicothe,

1897.

Hickok, Charles Francis. The Negro in Ohio. Cleveland, Ohio,

University Studies. Cleveland, 1896.

Hildreth, S. P. Pioneer History of Ohio. Cincinnati, 1848.

Hinsdale, B. A. The Old Northwest. New York, 1884.

Massie, David Meade. Life of Nathaniel Massie. Cincinnati,

1896.

McDonald, John. Biography of Nathaniel Massie. Chillicothe,

1891.

McMaster, John Bach. History of the People of the United

States. Volume 2. New York, 1903.

Randall, Emilius Oviatt and Ryan, Daniel J. History of Ohio,

Volume 3. New York, 1912.

Ryan, Daniel J. The First Constitution of Ohio, in Centennial

Celebration. Columbus, 1903.

Ryan, Daniel J. History of Ohio. Columbus, 1888.

Whittlesey, Charles. History of Cleveland. Cleveland, 1867.

Sources

Annals of Congress, 1801-1802. Edited by Joseph Gales. Wash-

ington.

Burnet, Judge Jacob. Notes on the Early Settlement of the

Northwestern Territory. Cincinnati, 1847.

Chase, Salmon P. Statutes of Ohio. Cincinnati, 1832.

Journal of the Constitutional Convention of the Territory North-

west of the Ohio River. Chillicothe, 1802.

Journals of the House of Representatives of the Territory of the

United States Northwest of the Ohio River. Cincinnati,

1799-1801. Chillicothe, 1801-1802.

Patterson, Isaac Franklin. The Constitution of Ohio. Cleveland,

1912.