THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF ARTHUR
ST. CLAIR
By ALFRED B. SEARS
Arthur St. Clair perhaps came naturally
by his aristocratic
attitudes for he was descendant of
Norman-Scot nobility who
were noted for their monarchical
loyalty.
Born in Thurso, Caithness County,
Scotland, in 1734, the
son of a younger son, he inherited
nothing, but was able to enter
Edinburgh University to prepare for the
medical profession. In
1756 he was indentured to a celebrated
London doctor, William
Hunter. A year later he purchased his
freedom and secured an
ensign's commission in the Sixtieth
Regiment, or Royal American
Foot. In May, 1758, he arrived in
America with General Jeffery
Amherst and participated in the capture
of Louisburg. In April,
1759, he was made a lieutenant, assigned
to the command of
General James Wolfe, and was with him at
the capture of Quebec.
Here he was garrisoned until after the
capture of Montreal in
1760.
During a furlough to Boston he married
Phoebe Bayard,
the daughter of Belthazer Bayard and
Mary Bowdoin, the latter
a half-sister of Governor James Bowdoin.1
She brought him a
dowry of £I4,000, with which, having
sold his commission,2 he
purchased an estate in Ligionier Valley,
western Pennsylvania.
Here, near Fort Ligonier, built by
General John Forbes in 1758,
he erected a fine residence and
gristmill. In this western country
he held many offices while pursuing his
private affairs and was
perhaps the best known gentleman and
official in the region.3 He
of course sided with Governor John Penn
against Lord Dun-
1 William H. Smith, ed., The Life and
Public Services of Arthur St. Clair
(Cincinnati, 1882), I, 1-12.
2 Ellis
Beals, "Arthur St. Clair, Western Pennsylvania's Leading Citizen,"
Western Pennsylvania Historical
Magazine (Pittsburgh), XII
(April-July, 1929), 76.
3 Ibid., 81. He received 700 acres from the king for services in
the army.
Ibid., 77.
(41)
42
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
more in the disputed claims over western
Pennsylvania in I773-
1774, and was regarded by the governor
as a very able and loyal
official, withal a little hasty and
hot-headed.4
With the outbreak of the Revolution,
this loyal officer of
the king and proprietary had no little
difficulty in throwing his
lot with the rebels; in I775 he pledged his
"loyalty and fidelity"
to George III but denounced a
"wicked ministry and corrupted
Parliament," and helped organize
the militia to oppose the ex-
tension of the coercive acts. He hoped
the Pennsylvania "Asso-
ciation" would motivate a return to
the happy situation existing
before the Stamp Act. In May he
deprecated the vigilante com-
mittees forming in western Pennsylvania;
he wrote, "If some
conciliating plan is not adopted by the
Congress, America has
seen her Golden days, they may return,
but will be preceded by
scenes of horror."5 He was able to
get the association to take a
stand against "any
innovations"; to pledge allegiance to the laws
and to go on record for a restoration of
conditions as they were
before the Stamp Act.6 In
July, he wrote, "I have not a word
to say about public matters, the people
are all mad, and I hate to
think of the consequences. Heaven
restore peace to this distracted
country!"7 In December his troops elected him colonel, and
shortly after he was commissioned by
Congress with the same
rank to lead the second battalion, one
of five raised in Pennsyl-
vania, in the invasion of Canada. He had
decided to regard the
colonies as the object of his devotion,
"his country"; he wrote,
"be the sacrifice ever so
great," my services "must be yielded upon
the altar of Patriotism."8 He
held, however, that "Independence
was not the interest of America" if
her liberties "could be other-
wise secured," or unless justified
by invasion.9
His troops reached Canada in time to
cover Arnold's retreat
but his garrison duty there was
fruitless, and his subsequent
defeats at Three Rivers (1776) and
Ticonderoga (I777) in great
4 Smith, St. Clair, I, 10-12. See
also Randolph C. Downes, "Arthur St. Clair,"
Dictionary of American Biography (New York, 1928-1937), XVI.
5 To Gov. John Penn, May 25, 1775,
Smith, St. Clair, I, 355.
6 Ibid., n. 1.
7 To Joseph Shippen, July 12, ibid.,358.
8 Quoted, ibid., 14.
9 Arthur St. Clair to Colonel Alien,
September, 1776, ibid., I, 375.
SEARS: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF ST.
CLAIR 43
measure discredited him with Congress.10
His conduct was in-
vestigated by a committee of Congress,
and later by a court mar-
tial which completely exonerated him, at
least officially, with
honor.11 Meantime his good service at Trenton, Princeton, and
Brandywine had preserved for him the
respect of General George
Washington.12 The accusation
that St. Clair was involved in the
Conway cabal of 1778 as suggested
by Rivingtons Royal Gazette
seems to have not weakened Washington's
respect for him.13 He
might have been more suspicious had he
known of the close
friendship of St. Clair for Generals
James Wilkinson and Samuel
Holden Parsons who were also suspect.14
In 1781 he was ordered
south to reinforce Washington at
Yorktown, and shortly before
the capitulation was sent with six
regiments to aid Nathaniel
Greene in the Carolinas. Here he served
some three months.15
After the war he moved to Philadelphia
and having bought
the estate of an attainted Tory,
reentered politics.16 In 1783 he
was a member of the Pennsylvania Council
and in 1786 was
elected to Congress. In February, 1787,
he was elected president.
The most important work of the year was
the Ordinance of 1787
which was hardly passed, for so much of
the time no quorum was
present due to the fact the
Constitutional Convention was sitting.17
Under the Ordinance, Congress elected
St. Clair governor of the
Northwest Territory and he arrived at
Marietta to take office
in July 1788.18 Three years later he led
an ill-prepared army
into the wilderness of what is now
western Ohio to be butchered
by the Indians. Congress refused to
order a courtmartial but
appointed an investigating committee
which exonerated him,
10 Ibid., 16-22, 45-87; Edmund C.
Burnett, Letters of Members of the Continental
Congress (Washington, D. C., 1921-1936), II and III, passim; Jared
Sparks, ed., Corre-
spondence of the American Revolution;
Being Letters of Eminent Men to Washington
(Boston, 1853), II, 510, 513.
11 Smith, St. Clair, 94-95,
446-57; Burnett, Letters, III, 455, 519, 523 and 537,
n. 2; "Proceedings of General Court
Martial" in New York Historical-Society,
Collections: John Watts DePeyster
Publication Fund Series (New York),
XIII (1881).
12 Smith, St. Clair, 29-44, 94, 98-107. Congress promoted him to
major general
for gallantry February 22, 1777, ibid.,
383.
13 December 19, 1778, Frank Moore, Diary
of the American Revolution (New
York, 1860), II, 106.
14 Edward Channing, History of
the United States (New York, 1905--), III,
290-2, 313. Samuel H. Parsons became one
of the judges and a member of the
Council for the Northwest Territory.
James Wilkinson served under St. Clair and
Anthony Wayne in Ohio and later
commanded the Army of the West.
15 Smith, St. Clair, I, 113, 541-568.
16 Pennsylvania Colonial Records (Harrisburg, 1852-1856), XIII,
505.
17 Smith, St. Clair, I, Chap. V; Burnett, Letters, VIII,
xlii, 598, 599, 599 n., 1.
18 Ibid., Chap. VI.
44
OHIO ARCHAOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL
QUARTERLY
after which he resigned his commission19
and devoted himself
to the government of the Northwest
Territory until his removal
by President Thomas Jefferson in
November, 1802.
St. Clair was at heart definitely an
aristocrat. He remained
one until his death despite insuperable
difficulties, disheartening
disappointments, the malignity of
partisan abuse, a career of
hardship and poverty, and nearly sixty
years exposure to the
democratizing influence of the frontier.
He was a man of relatively high
character and strong will,
of more than average ability and of
imperious temper; Winthrop
Sargent, who probably knew him better
than any other man, in
1796 called him "a man of
unparalleled Vigour and Exertion both
of mind and body."20 He
never learned to adjust his Federalistic
tendencies to the spirit of the day and
when he met the flood of
Jeffersonian democracy in Ohio he was
carried off his feet despite
his struggles. His inability to make
this transition illustrated once
again the failure of the party of
Washington, Hamilton and
Adams to ride the ground-swell of
democracy in America.
In western Pennsylvania St. Clair had
found himself in an
area populated by speculators, Indian
traders, squatters, small
farmers and business men like himself.
He particularly despised
the speculators and settlers who opposed
the constituted author-
ity of the Pennsylvania governor and
constantly disturbed the
peace as to whether Pennsylvania or
Virginia had just claim to
the forks of the Ohio--"that
ambitious set who would not scruple
to wade to power thro' the blood of
their fellow citizens,"--and
were defying process servers, tax
collectors and other adminis-
trators of the law.21
At the end of the war he was an early
member of the aristo-
cratic Society of the Cincinnati which
included not only American
officers but also the foreign;
Washington was president as long as
he lived. St. Clair was president of the
Pennsylvania branch.22
The society gained such a name for
secrecy and aristocracy that
it was soon in bad repute. Washington
wrote St. Clair in 1785,
19 Ibid., Chap. X.
20 Winthrop Sargent to Timothy
Pickering, September 30, Clarence Carter, ed.,
Territorial Papers of the United
States, II. 578.
21 St. Clair to Joseph Shippen, July 18, 1772, Smith, St. Clair, I,
266.
23 Ibid., I, 590-2.
SEARS: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF ST.
CLAIR 45
"I am perfectly convinced that, if
the first institution of this So-
ciety had not been parted with, ere this
we should have had the
country in an uproar, and a line of
separation drawn between this
Society and their fellow
citizens."23
St. Clair was not too happy in the
wilderness. After he
accepted the governorship of the
Northwest Territory he was
nostalgic for civilization--for New York
and Philadelphia. He
wrote Alexander Hamilton that he felt like
"a poor devil ban-
ished to another planet" and asked,
"what is doing in yours?"24
He managed to get East quite often
however, so often in fact
that Washington had to reprimand him
several times.25 He par-
ticularly despised the habitations of
the people and longed for
the comforts of the East.26
At heart St. Clair was probably a
monarchist--his enemies
accused him of being one. In 1801 three
of them signed an
affidavit to the effect that he cast
"contempt and reproach" on
the Government of the United States and
held it would soon be-
come more definitely an aristocracy and
then a monarchy, "'the
only Government that can be supported by
God!' " Probably he
was inebriated at the time for he was
usually cautious in writing
and speaking, and his friends, this
time, sought unsuccessfully to
restrain him.27
St. Clair had a real disdain for the
common man, a disdain
which he could not refrain from showing
oftentimes. In com-
mon with Generals Wolfe and Thomas Gage
and many other
commanders he regarded the colonial
militia as composed of very
low class people. No understanding of
his unpopularity as gov-
ernor of the Northwest Territory is
possible without an appre-
ciation of this attitude. At Fort Edward
in 1777 he wrote con-
cerning two Massachusetts regiments,
"their conduct was so li-
centious and disorderly, and their
example [so bad], . . . I was
constrained to send them off."28
Their only sin was, that as their
23 August 31, 1785, ibid.., 593.
See Jared Sparks, Writings of Washington (New
York, 1847), IX, 127, for same.
24 August 9, 1793, Smith, St. Clair, II,
317.
25 Carter, Territorial Papers, II,
416, 442, 443, 479.
26 St.
Clair to Paul Fearing, December 25, 1801, Smith, St. Clair, II, 549. See
p. 49.
27 In Thomas Worthington MSS. (Ohio
State Library). Also in Smith, St.
Clair, II, 585, n. 1. See George Tod's rebuttal, ibid., 584-5.
28 To Hancock, July 14, 1777, ibid., I, 428.
46
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL
QUARTERLY
term of service was up in two days, they
planned to march off
home. Three days later he wrote
Washington, "your Excellency
knows, but too well, the disposition of these
people on such oc-
casions."29
The common frontiersman was particularly
irksome to him.
His superior spirit was offended by
"the crew about Fort Pitt";
Lord Dunmore's Virginians were not his
kind. I am "surrounded",
he wrote, "by a number of not the
best bred men you ever saw,
one of whom is peeping over my
shoulder" as I write.30 Despite
his war experiences where men shot each
other down like sheep
he was amazed at the cruel attitude of
the white toward the
Indian. He saw in it another
manifestation of the brutality of
the common man. To Penn he wrote,
"the most astonishing thing
in the world [is] the disposition of the
common people of this
country; actuated by the most savage
cruelty, they wantonly per-
petrate crimes that are a disgrace to
humanity, and seem at the
same time to be under a kind of
religious enthusiasm, whilst they
want the daring spirit that usually
inspires."31 Ten years later,
he objected to the unicameral
legislature in Pennsylvania, estab-
lished by the Constitution of 1776. He
held such a popular body
had no check if its members wished to
pass tyrannical laws. The
term, "general will of the
people," had no significance for him
in 1784, except that it meant danger.32
Any document so es-
sentially democratic was naturally
opposed by his class for that
very reason; in this case his argument
concerning checks and
balances, tyranny and property rights,
was in maintenance of the
tyranny of the few and the obstruction
of the growth and prog-
ress of democracy in America.33
Although he accepted the governorship of
the Northwest
Territory, he feared the Westward
Movement. He regarded this
movement of the people as portending
disaster for the Nation.
20 Ibid., I, 430.
"These people" is eloquent; italics mine.
30 To Penn, June 22, 1774, ibid., I,
315; see id. to id. November 2, 1774, ibid.,
347. St. Clair was a justice of
Westmoreland County at the time, and in the eyes
of the lawless settlers, needed
watching. Ibid., 351.
31 May 29, 1774, ibid., I, 301.
32 Report of Committee of Council of
Censors, January 19, 1784, ibid., I, 594-8.
This council was elected under the
Pennsylvania Constitution as guardians of the
state constitution and met annually to
investigate and report.
33 See W. R. Smith, "Sectionalism
in Pennsylvania," Political Science Quarterly
(New York), XXIV (1909), 216.
SEARS: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF ST.
CLAIR 47
Disastrous because they would be too far
from the seat of gov-
ernment, because their products would
rival those produced on the
seaboard, because separation would
ultimately occur under the
urging of the English or
Spanish--especially if there were any
closure of the Mississippi. "It was
always my Fear," he wrote,
"that our western Territory,
instead of proving a Fund for pay-
ing the national debt, would be a Source
of Mischief and encreas-
ing Expense. . . . It has given such a
Spring to the Spirit of Emi-
gration, too high before, that tho' it
is pregnant with the most
serious Consequences to the Atlantic
States, it cannot now be
held back." The Atlantic States are
laying the foundation for
the greatness of a "rival
Country" by permitting this migration,
while it destroys the greatness of their
own.34 Thus St. Clair
shared the fears of his Federalist
colleagues that the West would
either separate from the Atlantic
seaboard or swallow it up po-
litically.
He had little respect for either the
frontiersmen or the selfish
politicians who curried favor with them:
people "who have pas-
sions only to be roused, and no reason
to be convinced or judg-
ment to be directed." At the time
of the Jay-Gardoqui negotia-
tions he felt they were as mad as those
who participated in Shays'
Rebellion, a "spirit of madness
gone forth amongst the people."35
He felt with his secretary and
lieutenant-governor, Sargent, that
the Virginia migration was "very
licentious & too great a pro-
portion, indolent and extremely
debauched"; a great contrast to
the excellent New England settlers or
even the French on the
Mississippi, the Wabash or at Detroit,
who were "upright and
Docile . . . [the] equal [of the New
Englanders] in their mind
and manners . . . but not . . . [as]
industrious."36 Jacob Burnet,
a Cincinnati aristocrat, claimed that
St. Clair, in contrast with
Sargent was "open and frank in his
manners and accessible to
persons of every rank,"37 but this
is exaggeration and it was not
long until the commoners had a real
appreciation of his true
regard for them. He certainly feared and
had no use for the
34 To John Jay, Secretary of Foreign
Affairs, December 8, 1788, Carter, Territorial
Papers. II, 168.
35 St. Clair to Thomas FitzSimons, March
10, 1787, Burnett, Letters, VIII, 553.
36 Sargent to Pickering, September 30,
1796, Carter, Territorial Papers, II, 578.
37 Jacob Burnet, Notes on the
Northwestern Territory (New York, 1847), 374-5.
48 OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL
QUARTERLY
type of citizen who could toast the
"Sans Culottes of France and
the cause of Liberty triumphant";38
or the "old harlot of aris-
tocracy--May she speedily be dunned out
to the tune of Ca ira";39
or one "Dorastius" who could
describe St. Clair's government
as "oppressive, impolitical, and
altogether improper, and . . . in-
tirely opposite to those rights and
privileges belonging to free
men. . . ."40
When the people of Ohio sought to secure
self-government
for themselves in 1799, St. Clair wrote:
"A multitude of indigent
and ignorant people are but ill
qualified to form a constitution and
government for themselves. . . . [and]
they are too far removed
from the seat of government to be much
impressed with the power
of the United States. . . ." They are but fugitives from their
seaboard creditors; "fixed
political principles they have none, and
though at present they seem attached to
the General Government,
it is . . . but a passing sentiment . .
. and . . . a good many . . . hold
sentiments in direct opposition to its
principles. . . . Their govern-
ment would most probably be democratic
in its form and oligarchic
in its execution and more troublesome
and more opposed to the
measures of the United States than even
Kentucky."41
This attitude was partly responsible for
his veto the same
year of several acts of the legislature
forming new counties. In
each new county an entire group of new
officials had to be ap-
pointed and St. Clair of necessity had
to consult the inhabitants
or heed their petitions as to whom he
chose from among them.42
His opposition to this democratizing
process created great local
resentment and led in the Constitutional
Convention of 1802 to
provisions for the free election of
practically all state and local
officers. It is significant too, that
the constitution enfranchised
all male taxpayers of twenty-one years
of age--a reform long
urged and fervently desired by the great
majority of the people.
When it came to individuals, St. Clair
held to the same cri-
teria. James McMillan will do as
delegate to Congress, for, "Tho'
38 Cincinnati, Centinal of the Northwestern Territory, July 12,
1794.
39 Ibid., March 28, 1795.
40 Ibid., January 31, 1795. See Randolph C. Downes, Frontier
Ohio, 1788-1803
(Columbus, 1935), 177-86 for
elaboration.
41 To James Ross, December, n. d.,
Smith, St. Clair, II, 482.
42 Address to Legislature, December 17,
1799, ibid., II, 477.
SEARS: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF ST.
CLAIR 49
he has leaned toward democracy, I
can say with truth he has
always been moderate."43 Regarding
militia appointments in Ohio
he wrote the secretary of state,
"Nathaniel Massie commands [in
Adams County], an active intelligent
man, and by far the most
wealthy in the County, but a little
tinctured by democracy. Next
to him stands John Belli, a well
informed man and clear of those
prejudices, but is rather unpopular."44 For a rich intelligent man
to be "tinctured with
democracy" was indeed a crime against his
class--an Edward Filene supporting the
policies of Franklin D.
Roosevelt. In St. Clair's eyes it damned
a man more thoroughly
than the crudities of ignorance or
shameless avarice.
Neither did he have faith in the
people's right of petition;
they would sign anything. "How easy
it is amongst such an un-
informed multitude as is the bulk of our
people to obtain sub-
scriptions to any thing," he
writes. Their poverty indicate their
lack of intelligence; "Our people
are all so poor, a few excepted"
and they enriched "not the most
honorably, that they can barely
live in a very wretched manner. . . .
There is scarce a habitation
. . . better than Indian Wigwams."45 This is of course a rank
exaggeration and illustrates St. Clair's
yearning for civilization
and the comforts of life, as well as his
disdain for the masses.
The sentiment west of the Alleghenies
against the society and
politics approved by St. Clair is
illustrated by his overwhelming
defeat in 1790 by Thomas
Mifflin in the Pennsylvania governor's
race,46 and by his inability
even to run for Congress in 1798 from
his west Pennsylvania district. His
friend James Ross wrote him
there was no Federalist Party there, and
that all the candidates
against whom he would have to run, were
but samples from "the
great universal mass of insurrectionary
anti-federalism, Jacobin-
ism, or whatever you please to call
it." You would not have a
chance "unless the Sansculottes
should quarrel among them-
selves."47 St. Clair was
able the same year, however, to support
the Federalist cause and uphold the
ideals of the party of John
43 To
President John Adams, January 27, 1800, Carter, Territorial Papers, III,
75.
Italics mine.
44 March 30, 1800, ibid., II, 81.
Italics mine. John Belli may well have been
unpopular in democratic Adams County.
45 To Paul Fearing, December 25, 1801,
Smith, St. Clair, II, 550.
46 Thomas Mifflin defeated him 27,118 to
2,819. Beals, "St. Clair," 184.
47 "July 5, 1798, Smith, St.
Clair, II, 422.
50
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Adams by writing two pamphlets to combat
the spread of democ-
racy and defend the Alien and Sedition
acts. Adams was warmly
grateful.48
St. Clair as governor of the Northwest
Territory gradually
discredited himself with the majority of
the people. His opposition
to legislation leading to a division of
the territory which would
permit statehood for the part now known
as Ohio, his vetoes of
legislation, the establishment of a
personal bureaucracy,49 his ac-
ceptance of fees for appointments and
his general opposition to
the popular will, ultimately led to the
accumulation of a series of
indictments urging his removal. William
Goforth, a Hamilton
County judge, denounced him to Jefferson
as "Cloathed with the
power of a British Nabob" who under
the ordinance government
could "convene prorogue and
dissolve" the legislature "at
pleasure"; fill all offices
"with men of his own political senti-
ments" and control them by limiting
their tenure by appointing
them "dureing his will and
pleasure"; keep us out of the union
by getting his legislature to pass a
bill dividing the territory in a
way no part would have sufficient
population to qualify for state-
hood--he alleged that the bill was
passed in order to keep St. Clair
and his bureaucrats in power
"without the knowledge instructions
or wish of the main body of the
citizens." There are 57,145
people in the territory, he wrote, and
they earnestly urge state-
hood, the establishment of a "free
elective" government, and the
end of one "highly tinctured with
Aristocracy and monarchy."50
John Cleves Symmes also wrote Jefferson
indicting him as
a "despot" by constitution and
"unsufferably arbitrary" from im-
perious habits of commanding. He alleged
that "the prosperity
of the territory" had been a
secondary consideration with St.
Clair and that he had consistently
opposed all measures which
did not "concentrate their good
effect, in his family or among
his favorites." He held that
although he was of "courtly ex-
terior," his heart was
"illiberal beyond a sample. . . . He abhors
48 Adams to St. Clair, May 17, 1799, and
St. Clair to Adams, June 24, 1799,
ibid., II, 442. The pamphlets are not given. Also in C. F.
Adams, ed., Works of
John Adams (Boston, 1850-56), VIII, 649.
49 Thomas Worthington wrote Albert
Gallatin it was "near 700" in size. May 17,
1802, Carter, Territorial Papers, III,
224.
50 January 5, 1802, ibid., III,
198-201. See St. Clair's comments to Fearing,
December 25, 1801, ibid., 186-9.
SEARS: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF ST.
CLAIR 51
the government that feeds him"; he
is "destitute of gratitude,"
wise in his own conceit, a wanton
deceiver of the people, a prac-
ticer of "pious frauds" with
the public--so much so that "many
detesting him, have fled the
territory." In extravagant terms he
concluded: "Do these imputations
need proof?--let fetters,
prisons, flames, human-bones and tears
bear testimony; while
neglected french-rights, imbecility of
Magistrates of his appoint-
ment, executive deception, unequal
tenures in office, his Usurped
prerogatives, and ill placed patronage,
fill the North western ter-
ritory with murmurs,
deep--awful--dangerous; while his dis-
tracted government totters to its
foundation."51
Thomas Worthington, head of the
republican faction, also
wrote Jefferson a long indictment of St.
Clair on January 30,
1802. He disclaimed any personal malice
but rather, viewed
him with "an eye of Pity" in
that he had not seen fit to pay
heed to the wishes of the people. He
repeated the charges made
by Goforth and Symmes, particularly
stressing that St. Clair
was "an open and avowed enemy to
the republican form of gov-
ernment, and an advocate of
monarchy."52 Three weeks later
Worthington arrived in Washington and
sent Jefferson a memo-
randum exhibiting ten charges against
St. Clair drawn up by the
republican leaders at Chillicothe. These
charges, were accom-
panied with six exhibits to illustrate
the charges, the most damn-
ing of which was an affidavit alleging
St. Clair had "avowed his
hostility to the form and substance of
republican government"
in the hearing of the signers.53
Worthington and his fellow en-
voy, Michael Baldwin, not only protested
the Division Law with
the President but urged the removal of
"the Pest," St. Clair. He
kept in touch with the national
administration chiefly through his
friend, Secretary of the Treasury Albert
Gallatin.54
In October, Acting Governor Charles
Willing Byrd com-
plained to Jefferson that St. Clair had
run off to Ligonier with
the seal of the territory and the record
books, thereby purpose-
51 January 23, 1802, ibid., III,
205-7.
52 Smith, St. Clair, II,
565-70.
53 February
20, Carter, Territorial Papers, III, 212-4. See also Smith, St.
Clair,
II, 565-70 and notes. Affidavit given ibid.,
II, 585, n. 1, dated December 26, 1801.
54 To Gallatin, May 17, 1802, Carter, Territorial
Papers, III, 224. He promised
Gallatin three republican votes as soon
as statehood was achieved. For Division Law,
see p. 53 and note 66.
52 OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND
HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
fully keeping him from acting in his
executive or secretarial ca-
pacity. He could not understand why
Jefferson had not removed
him, especially now that the Enabling
Act had been passed and
St. Clair's tenure was about to end
anyway.55
St. Clair fought valiantly to defend
himself from his ac-
cusers. He wrote the President they were
"vipers" and "guilty
of the blackest ingratitude"; that
they sought to discredit him by
"the vilest falsehoods and the
foulest Calumnies." He pleaded
for the postponement of any hasty
action, not to save his "health
and fortune" which were now both
gone, but his "Reputation."
He denied the charges altogether.56
At the same time he violently
denounced his enemies in a speech at
Cincinnati claiming the
secret correspondence societies of the
republicans had sought to
ruin him, particularly the
Worthington-Massie group at Chilli-
cothe who had undermined him at
Washington.57
St. Clair had since 1800 showed his
reluctant willingness
to bow before the wishes of the federal
administration in order
to hold his job. The formation of
Indiana Territory in the
spring of 1800 with the dividing line
opposite the mouth of the
Kentucky River,58 led him to
this change of heart; he soon was
to come up for re-appointment and that
appointment necessitated
the support of the Ohio republicans.
Without re-appointment he
would be reduced to a poverty-stricken
condition no different from
that of most of those ordinary people he
so thoroughly despised.
He therefore stooped to recommend to
Adams that McMillan
of Hamilton County be appointed to the
Territorial Council
in the proposed enlargement bill;59 when
McMillan instead was
elected as territorial delegate to
Congress, St. Clair was able to
get him to work for his reappointment.60
Moreover the repub-
licans of Cincinnati were induced to
support him with petitions,
55 Carter, Territorial Papers, III, 251. Various other charges are
made in this
letter of Oct. 15, 1802.
56 Febuary 13, 1802, ibid., III,
211. See John Brown to St. Clair, December 24,
1801, St. Clair MSS. (Ohio State
Library).
57 N. d., 1802,
Smith, St. Clair, II, 587-90.
58 Statutes at Large, II, 58; Carter, Territorial Papers, III,
86.
59 January 27, 1800, Smith, St.
Clair, II, 488; Carter, Territorial Papers, III, 74.
Also St. Clair to James Ross, December,
n. d., Smith, St. Clair, II, 483. See Downes,
Frontier Ohio, 186-200, for discussion of situation.
60 James McMillan to St. Clair,
January, n. d., and March 6, St. Clair MSS.;
Senator Stevens Thomson Mason of
Virginia to Thomas Worthington, February 5,
1800, Smith, St. Clair, II, 531;
Downes, Frontier Ohio, 194.
SEARS: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF ST.
CLAIR 53
so that Adams finally did nominate him.61
In the Senate there
was little rivalry for the place,
although Uriah Tracy, congress-
man from Connecticut, was willing to
stand against him if oppor-
tunity offered.62 Senator Stevens Thomson Mason of
Virginia
said some voted for St. Clair rather
than for some one "more
obnoxious . . . such as Tracy"
which "would only be exchanging
an old and feeble tyrant for one more
active and wicked."63 To
secure the appointment St. Clair had to
support or pretend to sup-
port the statehood movement and to use
all his influence to get the
Division Line of 1800 moved to the
Scioto so that Cincinnati
would secure the capital of the second
state by virtue of its cen-
tral location. So peace was made with
the democrats of Cin-
cinnati by agreeing to support statehood
not only for the eastern
division, but for both divisions.64 In this way St. Clair com-
promised his convictions in order to
hold his place, for up to
this time he had strenuously opposed
statehood for any portion of
the territory.65
Thus did the "Old Man"
sacrifice himself on the altars
of Cincinnati and Marietta (Marietta was
to be the capital of
the eastern division). The rage created
against him in the hearts
of all advocates of immediate statehood,
except those directly
interested in the future of Marietta and
Cincinnati, knew no
bounds when the legislature passed a new
bill in the session of
1801-1802 to reestablish the division line at the Scioto.66 The
friends of the republicans in Congress
were flooded with petitions
and Congress yielded to their protests.
The Division Act was not
acceded to; instead an Enabling Act was
passed (May 29).67
St. Clair, of course, used his influence
to get as many dele-
gates as possible elected to the
convention who opposed a consti-
61 Ibid., 194.
62 Senator
John Brown of Kentucky to St. Clair, December 24, 1800, Smith,
St. Clair II, 526.
63 fo Worthington, February 5, 1801, ibid., 521.
64 Downes, Frontier Ohio, 193-200.
65 See St. Clair to Ross, December, n. d., Smith, St. Clair, II,
482.
66 This division law really ruined St.
Clair, for most republicans of Cincinnati
and Marietta favored immediate statehood
rather than juggling for the seat of
government which would benefit chiefly
the politicians. See particularly, MS. letter
of St. Clair to Dudley Woodbridge of
Marietta, December 21, 1801, in Illinois State
Historical Library, for St. Clair's
recognition of popular reaction.
67 Downes, Frontier Ohio, chapters
VII and VIII, an excellent account. See
also Alfred B. Sears, The Public Career of Thomas
Worthington, unpublished
Ph. D. dissertation (1932) (Ohio State
University Library), chapters III and IV.
54 OHIO
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
tution; if it could not be averted, then
there would be present at
least a few gentlemen capable and
qualified "to discharge that
trust with intelligence."68
In a speech at Cincinnati later in the
summer, he accused the correspondence
societies of seeking to
exclude the better people from
participation and sought to stig-
matise them as pro-slavery, especially
that of Ross County.69 He
had some hope of being the first
governor if enough Federalists
were elected70 and the democrats
were really worried; Worth-
ington was particularly bitter that
Jefferson had not seen fit to
remove him but instead was willing to
permit this "tyrant by his
acts & intrigue to destroy the
prospects & thwart the wishes of the
people."71 Actually his fears were groundless for by
his own
analysis the returns showed twenty-six
democrats, seven Federal-
ists and two doubtful.72
When the Constitutional Convention met
on November 1, at
Chillicothe, St. Clair attended
"1st Consul like" and sought to
organize it. Although the delegates "were disposed to treat
him with all the respect due his office
. . . he was informed that
the members . . . considered themselves
capable of self organiza-
tion." On the third day he asked to
speak, which request was
granted,73 but he was
explicitly recognized as "Arthur St. Clair,
Sen., Esq.," a citizen, and not the
Governor.74 He particularly
deprecated the fact that the new state
was to be launched in such
stormy
weather when national catastrophe was threatening:--
"Party rage is stalking with
destructive strides over the whole
continent. That baneful spirit destroyed
all the ancient republics,
and the United States seem to be running
the same career that
ruined them with a degree of rapidity
truly alarming to every
reflecting mind. But she is on the
waves, and cannot now be
stopped."
68 To Samuel Huntington, July 15, 1802,
Smith, St. Clair, II, 589.
69 Ibid., 587.
70 Charles W. Byrd wrote Nathaniel Massie, May 20, that he
was first choice
in Hamilton County. D. M. Massie, Nathaniel
Massie . . . (Cincinnati, 1896), 205.
71 Worthington to Nathaniel Macon, July
23, 1801. MS. Letter Book of 1801
(Library of Congress), 116.
72 MS. Diary (private), Oct. 12, 13 and
Nov. 1.
73 Worthington to Senator William B.
Giles, November 17, 1802, Carter, Terri-
torial Papers, III, 257.
74 Journal of the Convention, printed in
D. J. Ryan, "From Charter to Con-
stitution," Ohio State Archaeological
and Historical Quarterly (Columbus), V
(1898), 87. See account of John Smith to
Jefferson, Nov. 9, in Carter, Territorial
Papers, III, 255.
SEARS: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF ST.
CLAIR 55
Later in the address he said that the
convention was not
bound by the Enabling Act, that the
people of the territory needed
none to form a constitution and that
Congress "had neither the
power nor the right" to take such
action; "to pretend to authorize
it was, on their part, an interference
with the internal affairs of
the country. . . . The act is not
binding on the people and is in
truth a nullity, and could it be brought
before that tribunal where
acts of Congress can be tried, would be
declared a nullity." This
is an internal affair and the territory
has a legislature of its own
and is therefore no more bound by this
act of "Congress than we
would be bound by an edict of the first
consul of France." All
the other provisions of the act are
already guaranteed in the Or-
dinance except some new and onerous
regulations regarding land
and land taxes; the act is worse than
useless. Form a constitu-
tion for the whole territory and send
representatives to Congress;
it will not refuse them; but if it did
the territory still would have
a government, a government that
"would go on equally well, or
perhaps better." Vermont had to
wait eight years for admission;
were they any the worse for it? But that
will not happen. "We
have the means in our own hands to bring
Congress to reason,
if we should be forced to use them . . .
."75
In this speech St. Clair denies the
right of Congress to legis-
late for the territories of the United
States; he accepted the au-
thority of the Congress which passed the
Ordinance but denied
that a later Congress could abrogate or
change the provisions of
that act. This is strange in a staunch
Federalist; it is the argu-
ment of despair and rage. Yet it was
staunchly supported by
other eminent Federalists such as Burnet
of Cincinnati on the
grounds that the Ordinance was a
contract. St. Clair could see
the handwriting on the wall; he could
see the end.76
Again his advocacy of a constitution for
the whole of the
Northwest Territory was revolutionary;
it was a direct call to
secession ostensibly for the good of the
section; it had the flavor
of the Hartford Convention and the South
Carolina Exposition
and Protest.
75 Smith, St. Clair, II, 592-597.
76 Burnet, Notes, 362-3, 338-9;
see Downes, Frontier Ohio, 232-6.
56
OHIO ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Did he advocate forcible resistance to
the forces of Jeffer-
sonian democracy? It requires no stretch
of the imagination to
translate his appeal to mean just that,
forcible resistance--if neces-
sary by arms. Surely the man was
reckless, either with liquor or
despair, or both.77
Gallatin under the urging of Worthington
and other friends
of the National Administration, now
recommended to Jefferson
that St. Clair be removed. Gallatin
called the address to the
Convention "so indecent & so
outrageous that it . . . is . . . in-
cumbent on the Executive to notice it.
He [St. Clair] calls the
Act of Congress a nullity--He
misrepresents all its parts. . . .
He advises them to make a Constitution
for the Whole territory
in defiance of the law. . . ."78
As a result he was removed by Jefferson
on November 22--
insultingly removed, for his dismissal
was enclosed in a letter
to Secretary Byrd, along with a copy of
the dismissal. His office
thereby devolved on Byrd, a staunch
supporter of Jefferson.79
Thus ended the political career of this
unreconstructable
aristocrat. Thus ended too, that small
scale replica of the Adams-
Jefferson conflict that was being fought
out on the larger stage
of national affairs in the East. Once
again the West had de-
termined the policy of the East and its
power was waxing while
that of the Federalists was well on the
wane. St. Clair struggled
as hard as Adams, and Federalists Burnet
and Fearing went down
with as little grace as did Griswold,
Morris and Tracy. The
victorious Ohio democrats wished to
achieve statehood of course,
for a variety of reasons. The glory of
self-government was the-
oretically the greatest. To help
Jefferson further embarrass the
aristocratic regime of "Old Dust
and Ashes"80 was part and
parcel of that glory. Democratic
government was still a fairy
vision in 1800-1803 and not the partial
victory of today; govern-
ment of, for and by the people, still
lacked the support of "best
minds"; but to make the federal and
state governments their in-
77 Worthington recorded in his Diary,
July 26, 1802, "Gov. St. Clair passed
through town and as usual got very
drunk."
78 November 20, 1802, Carter, Territorial
Papers, III, 259.
79 James
Madison to Byrd, November 22, 1802, ibid., III, 259. Text of dis-
missal, ibid., 260.
80 General William Darke so
characterized Adams in a letter to Worthington,
February 27, 1801, Worthington
MSS. (private).
SEARS: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF ST.
CLAIR 57
strumentalities was a burning passion
with the democrats. Then,
of course, there were the "Loaves
and Fishes"; self-government
had its economic side--its spoils.
Statehood, democracy and local
autonomy were natural, rational--and
hence righteous, but in con-
trolling these manifestations of civil
organization for the bene-
fits of the people, there were also
certain personal, pecuniary and
prideful offices at stake; control of
the patronage was but due
recompense for holy crusade; the
government of the people must
be kept in the hands of its friends.81
81 For a good summary of St. Clair's
last years, 1803-1818, see Beals, "St.
Clair," 184-92.