Ohio History Journal

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.