THE LUDLOW LINE.
R. W. MCFARLAND.
It is well known that Virginia claimed
most of the terri-
tory northwest of the Ohio river, by
reason of the grants made
by the sovereign of England to the
colonists. In 1784 in accord-
ance with a formal request made by
Congress in 1780, Virginia
ceded to the United States all her
claims to the territory, re-
serving only the lands between the
Scioto and the little Miami
rivers. This tract is usually called the
Virginia Military Dis-
trict. It was reserved for the purpose
of paying the Virginia
soldiers who had served in the
revolutionary war.
The two rivers flow from different
sources, and it was neces-
sary to draw a line from the head of one
stream to the head of
the other. In 1800 an act of
Congress directed the Surveyor
General to cause the line to be run from
the source of the Little
Miami to the source of the Scioto. The
line was run by one of
the surveyors, named Ludlow, whence the
name of the line. For
twenty feet on each side the trees were
cut down. The source of
the Miami thus determined is two or
three miles eastwardly from
South Charleston, in the southeast part
of Clark County. The
line runs northwesterly through the
counties of Clark, Cham-
paign, and Logan, about forty miles, to
the old Indian Boundary
Line as fixed by Wayne's treaty in 1795. In 1804 this line, to-
gether with its future extension beyond
the Indian Boundary to
the Scioto, was declared to be the
western line of the Virginia
Military District, provided Virginia
would agree to it within two
years. Virginia objected. The land west
of the Ludlow line had
been by this time, or shortly afterward,
surveyed into Townships
and Sections as Congress lands. By
reason of Virginia's ob-
jection, an act was passed in 1812,
ordering a new survey of the
dividing line. The commissioners of the
United States and of
Virginia met at Xenia in October of that
year, and a new line
was run, called the Roberts Line. It
began where Ludlow's Line
278
The Ludlow Line. 279
did, and fell slightly west of the first
line, striking the Indian
Boundary about four miles west of the
Ludlow Line. The Vir-
ginia Commissioners wished to draw the
line from the source of
the Scioto to the mouth of the Little
Miami. Such a line does
not in any sense comport with the limits
of the reserved tract,
i. e., the lands between the aforesaid
rivers. The Roberts line
was extended ten or twelve mile beyond
the Indian Boundary to
a point taken to be the source of the
Scioto -a point difficult to
fix definitely by reason of the large
extent of swampy land,
wherein half a dozen places might well
be called the "source of
the Scioto." Between the two lines
was a tract of seventy-five
or eighty square miles of good land.
After 1812 Virginia land
warrants began to be located on this
strip in defiance of the sur-
vey above named. Of course trouble was
brewing. Men, who
had bought the land, and paid for it,
did not propose to give it
up peaceably. An act of Congress in 1807
had forbidden the
location of warrants on land already
surveyed. But this prohi-
bition seems to have been disregarded,
for similar acts were
passed in 1810, 1814, 1818, and 1823. An
act of 1818, however,
had declared that the Roberts line
beyond the Indian Boundary
should be deemed the western boundary of
the Military Tract.
The act of 1812 ordering the second
survey did not base its
validity on its acceptance by Virginia,
but implied that it should
be final. It is a plain inference that
the Virginia lands extended
to the Roberts line; but the United
States had already sold most
of the disputed territory. In order to
settle the question defi-
nitely a case was made up and decided by
the Supreme Court of
the United States in 1824. This declared
in favor of the Roberts
line. This decision naturally put all
the disputed territory under
the control of Virginia, and also placed
the United States in the
position of having sold and received
money for lands which be-
longed to other parties.
Land speculators bought up old land
warrants and sought
to lay them on land long held and
cultivated; or to exact from the
farmers large sums of money in order to
quiet their titles. With
a view to settle these controversies, Congress
passed an act on
May 26, 1824, authorizing the President
"to ascertain the num-
ber of acres, and . . . the value thereof, exclusive of im-
280
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
provements, of all such lands, lying
between Ludlow's and Rob-
erts's lines . . . and on what terms the
holders, (of military
warrants) will relinquish the same to
the United States." It
was done. But the excitement lasted
eight or ten years longer,
as I can distinctly remember the
threatening language used by
farmers against those who had tried to
take away their lands--
especially against one who held many
warrants. With this man
I became well acquainted fifteen or
twenty years afterwards, and
I well remember the sum which it was
claimed had been paid him.
Although the Court declared that the
Roberts line was the
true one, events so turned out that the
Ludlow line became the
real boundary, all the land to the
westward of it as far north as
the Indian Boundary being reckoned as
Congress land. Beyond
the Indian Boundary, the Roberts line
holds good, as any large
map of Ohio shows.
Hinsdale in his history of the old
"North West," p. 282,
says that the line from the source of
the Scioto to the mouth of
the Little Miami is the "Ludlow
line."
Such an error is unpardonable in a
writer of history. Still
such are continually made. Justin
Winsor, in his Critical and
Narrative History of The United States,
puts Fort Ancient
among the forts built to resist Indian
incursions, see Vol. 7, p.
455. Schouler in his History of The
United States and Rufus
King's History of Ohio both show errors
nearly as bad. How
far can printed history be relied on?