Ohio History Journal




76 Ohio Arch

76        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

on the west, much pleased with the town of cincinnati, think

it is the greatest place for business I ever saw, verry far sur-

passes Baltimore in my opinion for all kinds of business. We

visited the market house in the morning and where verry much

surprised at seaing 500 waggons their loaded with all kinds

of marketing, but, were told that it was not an uncomon thing

to sea 700 waggons there of a morning.   The population of

Cincinnati is said to be 39000, their was 1000 houses put up

their last year and 1000 more under construction this spring.

May 25th.

Left Cincinnati thence immeadiately up the Ohio river 18

miles viewing the fine bottoms all along the river, but was verry

much surprised seaing the trees markt all along the river where

the water had reacht to at the time of the great freshet this

spring the river then being 62 feet above low water.  This

evening we got to Samuel Behammers, where we had expected

to have found Aunt Margaret Logan but on inquiry we found

that she had been dead about four years.

May 26th.

Left Behammers, thence north west 2 miles to William

Dunhams who has a verry fine farm for sale 2 miles from the

Ohio river and 16 miles from Cincinnati, 180 acres in the tract

with about 100 acres cleared on it. This farm is well improved

with a verry large fine brick house and large fraim barn, well

watered but scarce of timber.  His price for the farm is 2300

dollars cash or 2500 in three payments.  from here we steared

our coarse east through Clearmont county 19 miles through

broken poor country to one Mr. Rosses 5 miles east of Williams-

burg where we remained for the knight.

May 27th.

Left Mr. Rosses continued our coarse east 22 miles through

the white oak swamp nearly all the way to Hillsborough the

county seat of Highland County, here we remained for the

knight.  The corn and wheat maid in this county last year

looks worth all most as mutch again as it did in aney of the

country west of this and I am told that on the Ohio river they

will give from five to ten cents a bushel more for the wheat

raised in Hiland county than for aney other, wheat here generally

weys from 63 to 66 lbs to the bushel.   We traveled about

diferent directions through the east and south parts of this

county. Came across a man by the name of Anthony Caplinger,

10 miles south of Hillsborough who ownd a farm of 252 acres,

He haveing had a faling out with his bretherern the Dunkers,



Diary of Aaron Miller 77

Diary of Aaron Miller               77

 

in conciquance of this preacher not living right as he thaught

on account of whitch they split and their meatings were broken

up, be being dissatisfied and wishing to move into another

Dunker settlement, offered his land for sale, after viewing it I

thought it about such a farm as I wanted, there is about 120

acres cleared on it under good fence and in a high state of

cultivation, all the fields which are not now in cultivation are

finely set with clover big enough to mow. The buildings are

tolearable good I would say that all the buildings that are on

the farm could not be put their for less than eight hundred

dollars, his price for this farm was fifteen hundred dollars, find-

ing that we could not bargain for the land alone I proposed

buying him out all togeather; land with all growing on it and

all his personal property except his waggon and horses beads

and beading and such things as he might want to load one

waggon with, he said that he would prefer selling in that way as

he did not know how far he might move. I then askt him what

was the lowest he would take in cash for the whole together and

he said he would take $1600. dollars cash for the whole, I then

told him I would give him 1500 cash for the whole togather and

that he might now take his chois for I would not give aney

more, after standing a little he said it was a bargain we then

closed by article of agreement the next day we wrode about

10 miles north, where we found a farm to suit brother Daniel,

which farm he bot for 1600 dollars.  In the tract a verry

handsome farm well improved.   Daniel says it is the only

farm he ever saw in his life that exactly pleased him.

June Ist.

Left Highland county thence into Ros county direct on to

chilacothe where we remained for the knight. Found the town

improveing verry fast since they have got the advantages of

the canel which is now done 20 miles below the town, and the

balance under contract to points north, the contractors bound

to have it done by next fall, at which time they will have the

advantage of the new york market and the new Orleans market,

sertainly verry great are the advantages of this canal of the

state of Ohio, there is a great eal of verry fine land in Ros

county, but some parts of it thought not to be healthey, par-

ticularly the part surrounding the sioto river. Likewise, some

of the bottoms of paint creek whitch allso are seling high.

June 2nd.

After tending the market this morning in chilacothe and

being much pleased at seaing the brisk sales that were maid, we

left their for home. Wrode to Kingstown, 10 miles through a



78 Ohio Arch

78        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

verry fine rich settlement, lands worth from 10 to 30 dollars per

acre. Badly watered, no spring water, and verry little water

for stock, thence to Tarleton, a small town on the east line

of pickaway county, thence to New Lankester, the county town

of Fairfield county, this county is principally settled with Jer-

mans. Farms in fine order with good buildings.  Town verry

flourishing, they have commenced cuting a canal from this place

to intersect the Cleveland canal, a distance of eight miles. This

canal is done by subscription, there is to be no locks in it, say

they will have it done by next fall.

June 3rd.

Left New Lankester, thence through perry county on to

Zainesville in Muskingdom county. The country lying between

Zainesville and chilacothe, distance 70 miles, generally good

wheat land, lays high and roaling, and some of it a good eal

broken up, on the whole I would call it about second quality,

worth from 5 to $30 per acre.

June 7th.

Left the turnpike 5 miles east of Wheeling at Henry Clays

monument, thence a little south of east, 9 miles to West Union,

in Ohio county, Virginia, this afternoon we discovered two

wild dear runing through the woods, the first we have seen,

from here we wrode through Washington county, pencilvaney,

thence through Green county to Wainsburg, the county town of

Green county.  Here we had intended turning of south to

Middletown on the Monnongahaly river in search of Doct. T. H.

Davis but on inquiry where told that we were yet 40 miles

from the place and that this was no direct road leading to the

place but all the way winding among the hills and then we

would have to pas through a verry mountainious country, with

a bad road all the way to Winchester, finding our horses giting

verry tired from the journey all ready, and we anxious to git

home, Daniel said he could not think of takeing the round, he

being under the neadcesity of returning home by the 15th of

June.  We then continued our coarse on the state road 36

miles to Uniontown on the National turnpike.

The country from where we left the turnpike 5 miles on

this side of wheeling through Ohio and Green countyes on to

Waynesburg, is a verry poor mountainious country, with here

and their a few small farms stuck about in the hallows. With-

out aney form, or I had likt to have said, comliness, the country

inhabited with bares, wolves, panthers and some wild dear,

soon after we left Wainesburg we got into a verry beautifull

country, verry fine farms all along the road to Uniontown,



Diary of Aaron Miller 79

Diary of Aaron Miller               79

worth from 15 to 18 dollars per acre, sixty one miles from

Uniontown to Cumberland to which place I now skip, haveing

given some discription of the country in my rout out.

June 11th.

Left Bruces on the turnpike 5 miles west of Cumberland,

we are now in Merriland and but 2 miles from the line of Pa.

and 5 miles from Va.  You can go into three states here by

wriding 7 miles. Here we took the Winchester road on through

Hampshare and Jefferson on to Winchester distance 60 miles,

pasing through a verry poor mountainious country until we got

within 4 miles of Winchester, here we came into a rich limestone

valley clear on to Sniggers ferry on the Shanadone river.

I would just remark that in all the route which I have taken

the wheat crop looks bad.  I would say that one half of the

fields would not pay a man for cuting and thrashing, and again

I would say through away one half of the fields and say nothing

about them, that the other half would be about half of a crop.

[THE END.]



DEDICATION OF THE JAMES E

DEDICATION OF THE JAMES E. CAMPBELL ELM

 

On October 20, 1923, very interesting exercises were

held in the State House Grounds at Columbus on the

occasion of the dedication of the James E. Campbell

Elm, a seedling from the famous Logan Elm in Picka-

way County under which the speech or message of the

Indian chief Logan was dictated and sent to Lord Dun-

more who was holding a peace conference with the

Indians at Camp Charlotte seven miles distant, Octo-

ber, 1774.     These    exercises were arranged        by   Mr.

Frank Tallmadge, Chairman of the Logan Elm Com-

mittee of the Ohio State Archaeological and Historical

Society. Following is the interesting program, impres-

sively and pleasingly rendered on schedule time:

 

PROGRAM

INVOCATION .........                                    ........................REV. SIDNEY E. SWEET

FOREWORD .........                                           ...........................FRANK TALLMADGE

Chairman, Logan Elm Committee, of the Ohio State

Archaeological and Historical Society, introducing the

CHAIRMAN OF THE EXERCISES ............... C. B. GALBREATH

Secretary and Librarian, Ohio State Archaeological

and Historical Society

PLANTING SONG .................................... TRINITY CHOIR

LED BY PROFESSOR KARL HOENIG

(Tune: "America")

God save these trees we plant,             When they are ripe to fall,

And to all nature grant                                                    Neighbored by trees as tall,

Sunshine and rain.              Shape them for good.

Let not their branched fade,                  Shape them to bench and stool,

Save them from ax and spade,                Shape them to square and rule,

Save them for joy and shade--               Shape them for home and school,

Guarding the plain.            God bless the wood.

Lord of the earth and seas,

Prosper our planted trees,

Save with Thy might.

Save us from indolence,

Waste and improvidence,

And in Thy excellence,

Lead us aright.

(80)



Dedication of the James E

Dedication of the James E. Campbell Elm                81

 

RECITATION, "Trees" ...................... Poem by JOYCE KILMER

To be spoken by the audience in concert

I think that I shall never see                       A tree that may in summer wear

A poem lovely as a tree.                              A nest of robins in her hair.

A  tree whose hungry mouth is                    Upon whose bosom     snow  has

prest                               lain;

Against the earth's sweet flowing                 Who intimately lives with rain.

breast.                                               Poems are made by fools like

A tree that looks at God all day        me,

And lifts her leafy arms to pray.   But only God can make a tree.

WHAT THE TREES TEACH US

(Fourteen Rhymes for Individual Recitations)

I am taught by the Oak to be rugged and strong

In defense of the right, in defiance of wrong.

I have learned from the Maple, that beauty to win

The love of all hearts, must have sweetness within

The Beech, with its branches wide-spreading and low,

Awakes in my heart hospitality's glow.

The Pine tells of constancy. In its sweet voice,

It whispers of hope till sad mortals rejoice.

The nut-bearing trees teach that 'neath manners gruff

May be found as "sweet kernels" as in their caskets rough.

The Birch, in its wrappings of silvery gray,

Shows that beauty needs not to make gorgeous display.

The Ash, having fibers tenacious and strong,

Teaches me firm resistance, to battle with wrong.

The Aspen tells me with its quivering leaves,

To be gentle to every sad creature that grieves.

The Elm teaches me to be pliant yet true;

Though bowed by rude winds, it still rises anew.

The Lombardy Poplars point upward in praise,

My voice to kind Heaven they teach me to raise.

I am taught generosity, boundless and free,

By showers of fruit from the dear Apple tree.

The Cherry tree blushing with fruit crimson red,

Tells of God's free abundance that all may be fed.

In the beautiful Linden, so fair to the sight,

This truth I discern: It is inwardly white.

The firm-rooted Cedars, like sentries of old,

Show that virtues deep-rooted may also be gold.

Vol. XXXIII--6.                           -- HELEN O. HOYT.



82 Ohio Arch

82         Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

DEDICATION OF THE TREE

Chairman--What tree does this seedling spring from?

Reply by Audience--The Logan Elm.

Chairman--How old is the Logan Elm?

Reply by Audience--It is the oldest living thing in Ohio.

It has lived in four centuries.

Chairman--In whose honor is this little tree now planted

and dedicated?

Reply by Audience--James E. Campbell.

PRESENTATION OF THE TREE............ HON. HENRY J. BOOTH

On behalf of the Logan Elm Committee to the State of Ohio

ACCEPTANCE .............................GOVERNOR A. V. DONAHEY

TREE PLANTING SONG .............................TRINITY CHOIR

To be joined by the audience

(Tune: "America")

1 Joy for the sturdy trees,                               3 Select the strong, the fair,

Fanned by each fragrant breeze,                   Plant them with earnest care,

Lovely they stand!                 No toil is vain.

The song birds o'er them trill,                     Plant in a fitter place,

They shade each tinkling rill,                      Where, like a lovely face,

They crown each swelling hill,                     Let in some sweeter grace,

Lowly or grand.                    Change may prove gain.

2 Plant them by stream and way,                    4 God will His blessing send,

Plant where the children play                      All things on Him depend,

And toilers rest;                  His loving care

In every verdant vale,                                 Clings to each leaf and flower

On every sunny swale --                              Like ivy to its tower.

Whether to grow or fail,                             His presence and His power

God knows best.                    Are everywhere.

-- S. F. SMITH.

BENEDICTION

In calling the assemblage to order Mr. Frank Tall-

madge spoke as follows:

There have been three forces that have called us together

today in the dedication of this little tree: our love of history,

our love of nature and the love we bear for one man, the first

citizen of this State.   I bespeak your interest in the program

and ask that all join in the songs to the well known tune of

America.

Mr. E. F. Wood, Treasurer of the Ohio State Archaeological

and Historical Society, has kindly consented to act as Chairman

in the place of our Secretary, Mr. C. B. Galbreath, who is

detained at home on account of a severe cold.

After the introductory and dedicatory exercises the

chairman introduced Hon. Henry J. Booth, who in



Dedication of the James E

Dedication of the James E. Campbell Elm       83

behalf of the Logan Elm       Committee presented the

Campbell Logan Elm to the State in the following ad-

dress:

Mr. Chairman and Fellow Citizens: As I take it, the pri-

mary purpose of planting here today a scion of the most cele-

brated of all historic trees west of the Allegheny Mountains, to

bear the name of our most distinguished citizen, is to establish a

precedent which will promote a more active interest in the

public parks of the State, and more especially to lead to the

restoration of this park to the condition contemplated by those

who dedicated it to public use.

Let us hope that our exercises here today will be considered

also as a protest against the neglect which has resulted in starv-

ing to death nearly all of the trees of larger growth which were

planted here nearly a hundred years ago.

Let us hope also that this occasion will be accepted as a

meritorious appeal to our state officials to commence at once the

work of reparation for the results of past indifference and

neglect.

For many years this was a well shaded lawn.  It so re-

mained until after Governor Campbell left the office in which

he served the public with such signal ability.  Of the many

majestic elms which then surrounded the capital building but

few remained when Governor Donahey succeeded to that high

office. Therefore we may absolve both of them from responsi-

bility for the deplorable conditions which now exist.  One of

the causes directly contributing to the death and removal of

nearly all of the larger trees which were originally planted here

was their location too close to the streets.  Other preventable

causes constitute another story, which cannot now be told for

lack of time.

Passing now from the consideration of what has occurred

in the past, let me attempt to justify a statement concerning the

condition of these grounds made a year or two ago at a meeting

of the Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, but

now made for the first time in public, by this quotation from

the Mormon Bible:

"Blessed is he that bloweth his own horn, for whoso-

ever bloweth not his own horn, his horn shall not be blown."

Therefore, I take the liberty of saying to you now, as I said to

the members of that Society at that time, the condition of

this park is a disgrace to the State of Ohio. Nearly all of the

larger trees, the dead and the dying, have been removed. Every-

where about us appear the vacant spaces where once they stood.



84 Ohio Arch

84        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

Others should be planted to supersede them, but in locations

more wisely chosen.  This should be considered not only a

public duty, but also a personal pleasure. We commence that

work today.

In rapid succession we hope others will be planted bearing

the names of other distinguished citizens.  They will doubtless

represent various suitable varieties, including perhaps the elm,

the oak, the hickory, the buckeye, and other varieties, both large

and small.  And in order to develop and perpetuate their

growth, we must feed and water every tree according to its needs.

For food and water are as vitally necessary to the life and well-

being of every tree as they are to every human being and to

every animal of the field and forest.

Nature takes care of her trees in their natural habitat, but

when man deprives them of such surroundings, he must supply

their food and drink. In the care of state parks, that duty rests

directly upon the state.

To promulgate that idea, representatives of The Ohio

Archaeological and Historical Society now tender to the state,

through Governor Donahey, a seedling of the Logan Elm, a tree

which became historic one hundred and forty-nine years ago,

and, with proper care, may yet add to its present age another

hundred years.

As this little tree was selected and brought here by Mr.

Frank Tallmadge, now and for many years past chairman of

the Committee which is entrusted with the care of the parent

tree, there can be no doubt as to the lineage and identity of the

seedling.  He knows the Logan Elm as well as he knows his

Catechism. It is as dear to him as the apple of his eye.

In closing permit me to add that no other name in Ohio,

so appropriate as his, could be selected for a place on this tree

as that of James E. Campbell.  We hope that the tree now

planted will serve its cherished purpose during all the years

which may be allotted to it by a beneficent Providence.  The

man whose name it bears will be known and honored as long as

American history is read -- time without end.

In the unavoidable absence of Governor A. V.

Donahey from the city, his Secretary, Mr. J. A. Meck-

stroth, accepted for the State the James E. Campbell

Elm in the following appreciative and appropriate ad-

dress:

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen:  I wish Governor

Donahey might be here today. Had he not been called to Wash-

ington I am sure he would be present.



Dedication of the James E

Dedication of the James E. Campbell Elm      85

 

This is the kind of ceremony the Governor would enjoy.

He is a lover of the pioneer and Indian history of Ohio.  He

can find more arrow-heads and other Indian relics on an acre

of soil than any man I've ever known. I have heard the Gov-

ernor talk about the Logan Elm.  He visits the tree at every

opportunity.  He is a lover of trees in general.  I have heard

him say trees are like people.  Every tree in a forest can be

likened to some person of your acquaintance, he says.  Trees

range from seedlings to maturity, from youth to old age. You

can pick out the individual trees that had the best opportunity

in life -- those that had health, food, water and proper ventila-

tion and those that were not so fortunate. You find trees whose

broken limbs signify they met with an accident. And so on in-

definitely -- just as in the human race.

I am sure we all have a high appreciation for the good

work of Mr. Tallmadge, who has made the Logan Elm his

hobby. If you haven't seen this tree in recent years you should

go and see how Mr. Tallmadge is feeding it and how it has

developed and improved.  If Mr. Tallmadge were to live as

long as the Logan Elm will yet live, under the kind of care he

is giving it, he will live another century and maybe two. After

the recent death of the Washington Elm, the Logan Elm now

is probably the most famous tree in the country.

I need not express the admiration we all have for grand

old Governor Campbell, in whose honor a seedling of the

Logan Elm is planted here today.  And so, for the reasons I

have given, I know the Governor would have liked to be here

to accept for the State this seedling of the oldest tree in Ohio

in honor of the oldest living former Governor of the State.

And I also know if the Governor were here he would propose

that next year the Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society

plant another seedling in the State House yard in honor of the

Logan Elm's guardian angel, Mr. Tallmadge.

And now, not being an orator like Mr. Booth, who made the

presentation speech, or even like old Chief Logan, I don't know

what else to say except that it is a great pleasure for me to

accept this little tree in behalf of the State.  I hope it may

live and grow big and sturdy and thereby perpetuate the tradi-

tions of its parent and the memory of Governor Campbell. I

hope other seedlings of the same tree may be planted.  The

time will come when the Logan Elm, Governor Campbell, Mr.

Tallmadge and all of us will be dead and gone, but through such

thoughtful functions as this today the traditions of our pioneer

history and the memory of distinguished citizens may be carried

to future citizens of Ohio by future generations of the Logan

Elm.



86 Ohio Arch

86         Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

Governor Campbell, the recipient of the special

honor of this occasion, was present and in a very happy

address expressed his appreciation in this living testi-

monial of the regard in which he is held. With the

singing of the "tree planting song" by the Trinity Choir

and benediction the delightful and impressive program

of the afternoon was concluded.

PETER NAVARRE DAY.

On Saturday afternoon, October 6, 1923, Peter Na-

varre Day was appropriately celebrated in Toledo by

the dedication of the Peter Navarre Memorial in St.

Mary's Cemetery under the auspices of the United

States Daughters of 1812. Following is the program

of the exercises:

Music ...............................................Fred   Lower's  Band

Singing........................................."Star Spangled Banner"

Led by Mrs. Nelson A. Galbraith

Custodian of the Flag

Invocation  .............................Rev. Patrick O'Brien

Address ...............................Hon. Mayor Bernard F. Brough

Master of Ceremonies

Presentation of Cemetery Plot to the Peter Navarre Chapter, N. S.

U. S. Daughters of 1812 ......By the Rev. Francis Hiermann, S. J.

Pastor of St. Mary's Church

Acceptance by the Regent..........................Mrs. Kent Hamilton

Music  ................... .......... ..............  Lower's  Band

Unveiling of Memorial.......By the Chapter and Hon. Regents for Life

Mrs. Helen Wolcott Dimick, State President

Mrs. George B. Orwig, Hon. Organizing Regent

Led by the Chaplain and Ex-Regent, Mrs. Robert C. Bowlus

Assisted by Girl Scouts

Address -- "Peter Navarre".........................Hon. George Sheets

Singing                ...................... "America"

Led by Mrs. Nelson A. Galbraith

Peter Navarre was born in Detroit in 1785. He

died in East Toledo, March 20, 1874, in his eighty-ninth

year. He rendered distinguished services in the War

of 1812, acting as a scout for General William Henry

Harrison.

At the dedication of the Memorial our Society was

represented by Mr. W. J. Sherman of Toledo.



UNVEILING OF TABLET AT FORT GOWER

UNVEILING OF TABLET AT FORT GOWER

 

Appropriate and interesting exercises marked the

unveiling of a tablet by the Ohio Daughters of the

American Revolution on the site of old Fort Gower at

Hockingport, Athens County, Ohio. The exercises

preliminary to the dedication were held in the city of

Athens Friday evening, November 9. The formal

dedication and unveiling of the tablet occurred on the

day following at Hockingport. The granite monument

bears two tablets, one commemorating the building of

the Fort by Lord Dunmore on his way to the Pickaway

Plains and the resolutions adopted by Dunmore's offi-

cers expressing sympathy with their revolutionary

brethren in the Continental Congress; the other in

honor of Colonel Robert Patterson and his associates

who were here attacked by the Indians.

The program is here presented in full:

 

PROGRAM OF EXERCISES

UNVEILING TABLET AT HISTORIC FT. GOWER

by

OHIO DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

ATHENS, OHIO

Friday and Saturday, November 9th and 10th, 1923

 

Friday afternoon from three to five o'clock, Nabby Lee Ames

Chapter will receive all visiting Daughters at the home of Mrs. T.

Watson Craig.

 

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9th -- ATHENS

Ewing Hall, 7:30 P. M.

Presiding ........................... Mrs. James T. Merwin

Regent, Nabby Lee Ames Chapter

Assembly ............................................. Vercoe Murphy

Bugler of The American Legion

(87)



88

88                  Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

Invocation     ..............................Dr. Daniel McGurk

Music.................................Ohio University Girls' Glee Club

a. I know of two bright eyes ............................Clutsam

b. Long Ago ................................... Marshall-Loetke

Polonaise -- MacDowell .............................Miss Irene Witham

Presentation of Memorial....................Mrs. O. D. Dailey, Albany

State Chairman, Historic Spots

Acceptance of Memorial ..............Mrs. Lowell F. Hobart, Cincinnati

State Regent, Ohio D. A. R.

Music ..................................Mrs. Helen Falloon Stevens

a. Thou art risen, my beloved..................Coleridge Taylor

b.  Ah! Love, but  a  day ...........................Hallet Gilberti

"Lest we forget"..................................Dr. Garland, Dayton

Welfare Director, N. C. R.

Address -- The Larger Patriotism ....................Dr. Edwin Chubb

Dean of the College of Liberal Arts, Ohio University

America

Benediction   ............................    .Dr. Abbott Y. Wilcox

 

 

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 10th

Hockingport, Site of Ft. Gower

1:00 o'clock P. M.

Presiding........................Mrs. Lowell F. Hobart, State Regent

America

Dedication...........................Mrs. Wm. Magee Wilson, Xenia

Vice President General from Ohio, N. S. D. A. R.

Unveiling........................Mrs. Orson Dryer, Columbus

Assistants--Margaret Townsend Porter

Marjorie Boyles

Charge to the Nabby Lee Ames Chapter ....................Mrs. Hobart

State Regent, Ohio D. A. R.

Acceptance of Charge....................... Miss Helen Mar Townsend

Chairman of Historic Spots, Nabby Lee Ames Chapter

Star Spangled Banner

 

The local papers give liberal space to this event.

The following account is from            the Athens Messenger

of November 11, 1923:

Most impressive were the services at Hockingport Satur-

day afternoon when the Ohio Daughters of the American Revo-

lution unveiled and dedicated the tablet marking the historic

site of Fort Gower where the first American Declaration of In-

dependence was made in 1774. Among those attending the cere-

monies were 40 representatives from other state chapters who

were very much pleased with the services held at Hockingport.

Many of the visitors arrived in Athens on Friday and in



Unveiling of Tablet at Fort Gower 89

Unveiling of Tablet at Fort Gower         89

the afternoon they were entertained with a reception at the home

of Mrs. T. W. Craig. In the evening the memorial was pre-

sented to the Ohio D. A. R. by Mrs. O. D. Dailey, of Albany,

who is state chairman of the committee on historic spots. Mrs.

Dailey reviewed the historic interest of Fort Gower and the me-

morial was accepted by Mrs. Lowell F. Hobart, of Cincinnati,

the state regent.

Two splendid addresses of a patriotic nature were delivered

by Dr. Garland, of Dayton, and by Dean Edwin Chubb, of the

Ohio University.   Dr. Garland represented John Patterson,

president of the National Cash Register Co., of Dayton, who

donated one of the tablets on the memorial and the address of

Dr. Garland stressed the importance of remembering the scenes

of historical importance, together with pioneers who made the

development of the country possible.  Dean Chubb's address

was a fine one on "The Larger Patriotism."

Music was furnished for the occasion by the Ohio Uni-

versity Girls' Glee Club, Mrs. Helen Falloon Stevens and Miss

Irene Witham. Mrs. James T. Merwin, regent of the Nabby

Lee Ames Chapter, presided, the invocation being asked by Dr.

Daniel McGurk and the benediction being pronounced by Dr.

A. Y. Wilcox.

The trip to Hockingport, which was gaily decorated with

flags in honor of the occasion, was made by automobile.  Mrs.

Lowell F. Hobart, the state regent, presided during the cere-

monies which were opened with the singing of "America," by

the audience. The dedication address was made by Mrs. Wil-

liam Magee Wilson, of Xenia, vice-president general of the

National D. A. R.   The unveiling of the memorial was done

by Mrs. Orson Dryer, of Columbus, assisted by the Misses

Margaret Porter and Marjorie Boyles, of Athens.

The memorial is a granite block cut from the quarries near

Stony Creek battlefield in Connecticut. It is six feet high, four

feet wide, and two feet thick, and two of its sides are bronze

tablets telling the history of the site it marks and its dedication

by the Ohio D. A. R. Its charge was given to the Nabby Lee

Ames Chapter of Athens by State Regent Mrs. Hobart, and the

charge was accepted by Miss Helen M. Townsend, chairman of

the historic spots of the local chapter.

We have received a full report of two of the ad-

dresses. In presenting the memorial Mrs. O. D. Dailey

spoke as follows:



90 Ohio Arch

90        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

Students of history have long been aware that no state of

the Northwest Territory can boast of so many forts and stock-

ades as Ohio. Yet, up to the present year, no fort was so little

known or so little heralded as Fort Gower.  However, recent

historians have brought it out of its obscurity, and are placing

it among the most significant of western forts, because at this

place occurred an event which gives to Ohio, which gives to

Athens County, so to speak, the claim upon a Revolutionary site.

It is not for me to enter upon any detailed history of this

event, but, that we may understand the motive which prompted

7,000 of Ohio's Daughters to select this site as deserving some

mark of recognition, it becomes necessary to state a few facts.

In 1774 the English Parliament affirmed the detested Quebec

Act, passed eleven years before, which gave Quebec jurisdiction

over the territory West and North of the Ohio river, known as

the Northwest Territory.  The American colonists were for-

bidden to settle in this region.  Pennsylvania did not object so

seriously to this act, for their trade with the Indians would be

even more secure if fewer settlements were made.

But the Virginians did not give up so easily. They claimed

that their charter extended into the Ohio country, and that

they had a right to settle there.  Consequently, Lord Dunmore,

last royal Governor of Virginia, planned an expedition into Ohio,

ostensibly to punish the Indians for frequent excursions across

the Ohio river. General Andrew Lewis, who was put in com-

mand of another division of 1500 men, which was eventually

to join Lord Dunmore's division, went down the Kanawha as

far as Point Pleasant. Here on October 10, occurred the bloody

battle which drove Cornstalk and his 1000 brave Indians back

across the Ohio river.

In the meantime Lord Dunmore with his men followed his

guides down the Ohio river until they arrived at the mouth of

the Hock-hocking river, where they built a stockade and named

it Fort Gower.  Leaving a garrison of 100 men to guard the

Fort, Lord Dunmore and his army marched up the Hock-hocking

valley, past the present site of Athens, camped on Sunday at

Sunday Creek, on Monday at Monday Creek, thence by the

present site of Logan, southwest to within seven miles of Circle-

ville, where Camp Charlotte was established. Here a few days

later the famous treaty with the Indians was made which closed

Lord Dunmore's War.

Returning to Fort Gower they there learned that couriers had

arrived in their absence, announcing the action of the first Con-

tinental Congress, assembled at Philadelphia, September 5, 1774.

It was at this time that the event occurred which concerns us

and our interests.



Unveiling of Tablet at Fort Gower 91

Unveiling of Tablet at Fort Gower         91

 

Immediately the officers of Lord Dunmore held a meeting,

and in order to assure their countrymen on the frontier, in the

great crisis that had arisen, that they were ready at all times to

defend their country, drew up a set of resolutions saying that

they would be loyal to King George the Third so long as he

delighted to reign justly over a brave and free people, but "as

the love of liberty and attachment to the real interests of America

outweigh every other consideration, we resolve that we will exert

every power within us for the defense of American liberty, and

for the support of her just rights and privileges, not in any

riotous manner, but when regularly called forth by the unani-

mous voice of our countrymen."

Thus an independence was virtually declared upon Ohio soil,

upon the banks of the Hock-hocking, in what is now Athens

County, by these sturdy Virginians, more than one and a half

years before old Liberty Bell pealed forth her message of

freedom.

Theodore Roosevelt in his "Winning of the West" makes

this statement:  "Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians was

the opening act of the drama whereof the closing scene was

played at Yorktown."  The declaration at Fort Gower was a

part of this War.

At Point Pleasant, West Va., stands a marble shaft erected

by the Daughters of the American Revolution of that State,

in memory of the patriots who shed their blood in the first battle

of that war.

The far-famed Logan Elm is a natural memorial for the

events which center around the treaty with the Indians, which

closed that War.  Fort Gower has remained in its obscurity,

unmarked.

But, as State Chairman of Historic Sites, it has been my

pleasant duty to carry out one of the purposes of the organiza-

tion of the Daughters of the American Revolution, which is

"to perpetuate the memory and spirit of the men and women

who achieved Independence by the acquisition and protection of

historic sites," therefore, I beg to report to the State Regent of

that organization, in behalf of the Ohio Daughters, that Fort

Gower is no longer unmarked, for there, too, now stands a

huge granite boulder whose bronze tablet bears a message com-

memorating the men who at that spot, on November 5, 1774,

were among the first of our country to express the spirit of

American independence.

At Hockingport in directing the unveiling of the

tablet Mrs. Orson D. Dryer spoke as follows:



92 Ohio Arch

92        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

Madam   Vice-president General, Madam  State Regent,

Daughters of Ohio and Friends: Would that I had the words

of a poet and the gift of an artist that I might paint a word

picture that would, in a measure bring to your minds the scene

enacted here one hundred and forty-nine years ago.

When John Murray, Earl of Dunmore, Royal Governor of

Virginia, arrived here with twelve hundred Virginians whom he

had led through the mountains to Fort Pitt and from there by

boat to the mouth of Hock-hocking, he built and garrisoned a

small stockade and named it Fort Gower, in honor of the English

Earl. The site upon which the Virginian army encamped was

one of awe-inspiring grandeur.  Here were hills and valleys,

all covered with gigantic forests, the growth of centuries, stand-

ing in their majesty and arrayed in the colors of early October.

On October 11th, Dunmore and his army left here on their

way to the Indian Villages. The army camped the first night at

Federal, and the second at Sunday Creek, both in Athens County.

At the third camp, near Nelsonville, news was brought from

General Andrew Lewis of his victory, at Point Pleasant, which

occasioned great joy among the troops. Two days later a mes-

senger from Cornstalk, the Indian chief, appeared, suing for

peace; but next day the army continued its journey to the

Pickaway Plains, where it camped on the bank of Scippo Creek,

at a place named Camp Charlotte. Here the famous treaty with

the Indian chiefs occurred. What the exact terms of that treaty

were is not now fully known. No copy of the treaty can be found.

Whatever the terms, the results of the Dunmore War were

most important. "It kept the northwestern tribes quiet for the

first two years of the Revolutionary struggle."  Cornstalk

haughtily acceded to the terms of the whites, but one distin-

guished chief who refused to be present at that council, was

Logan. He said, "I am a warrior, not a councilor" and would

not come.

The campaign had ended. The camp was struck and the

soldiers took up their march from Pickaway Plains back to the

Ohio. When Dunmore's army arrived at Fort Gower the sol-

diers learned for the first time of the action taken by the first

Continental Congress, which had assembled at Philadelphia

September 5, 1774. The officers of the army thereupon held a

meeting proclaiming their sympathy with colonial independence.

A strange way for Virginia frontiersmen to celebrate their

triumph over western Indians, and this was six months before

the shot was fired at Lexington that was "heard round the

world."

The resolutions passed November 5, 1774, asserted loyalty to



Unveiling of Tablet at Fort Gower 93

Unveiling of Tablet at Fort Gower         93

the king while "he delights to reign over a brave and free

people," but declared that "love of liberty outweighs all other

considerations," and they would "exert every power" for its de-

fense when called forth by the voice of their countrymen. They

also expressed the respect entertained for Lord Dunmore, and

believed that the campaign was undertaken from no other motive

than the true interest of this country. These resolutions were

signed by Benjamin Ashby, Clerk, but it is unfortunate that we

have no way of ascertaining who all the other officers were, nor

whether Lord Dunmore had left the army for Fort Pitt prior

to, or after the passage of these resolutions.

General Adam Stephen was one of the officers reported to

have made a speech at this time favoring the colonial cause and

several of my ancestors took part in this celebrated meeting. My

great-grandfather, Colonel Benjamin Wilson, was aid-de-camp

on Lord Dunmore's staff, ranking as a lieutenant at this time

and vested with the authority that goes with that office, which

was then a much more important office than now.  Two of

Colonel Benjamin Wilson's brothers were with him, namely John

and Archibald and two cousins, John and William White.

Dunmore's army broke up into small squads, which found

their way back to Fort Pitt as best they might.  The men suf-

fered for lack of provision and were chiefly dependent upon

what game could be killed. Archibald Wilson and William and

John White at their own request left the army at Fort Gower

going home by the Shenandoah Valley, making some "toma-

hawk improvements" by blazing the trees and cutting initials

and date on them, which gave them a valid title to land in

Virginia.

But the two White brothers were never able to take up their

claims, as both of them were killed the following year by

Indians.

There were a number of the officers in this expedition

against the Indians, who became famous a little later in the

Revolution.

Benjamin Wilson became a Colonel in the Revolution. He

and his brother John were delegates to the Virginia convention

which ratified the Constitution of the United States.

It is a great honor you have conferred upon me today in

permitting me to have the privilege of unveiling this memorial

which has been erected by the Daughters of the State of Ohio,

to commemorate the greatest event that ever occurred on Ohio

soil.

I want to congratulate our chairman, Mrs. O. D. Dailey on

having so successfully carried her plans through to completion



94 Ohio Arch

94        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

and the Nabby Lee Ames chapter on being so fortunate as to

live in this historic vicinity and to be the custodian of this

wonderful boulder.

As our young friends unveil this marker, will you with me,

resolve on this historic spot, as our ancestors did a hundred and

forty-nine years ago, "that we will exert every power within us

for the defense of American liberty, and for the support of

her just rights and privileges."



OHIO STATE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL

OHIO STATE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL

SOCIETY

 

REVIEWS, NOTES AND COMMENTS

BY THE EDITOR

 

MEETING OF AMERICAN HISTORICAL

ASSOCIATION

The annual meeting of the American Historical

Association to which the attention of the members of

the Society was invited by a circular letter under date

of December 17, 1923, enclosing a detailed program of

the meeting, was held on schedule time in Columbus,

December 27-29, 1923. The sessions of the Associa-

tion and the related societies that held their meetings

on the same dates fully realized our prediction that

this meeting would afford "an opportunity for instruc-

tion, inspiration and rational entertainment never be-

fore presented to Ohioans interested in American his-

tory."

A detailed account of the sessions of the Associa-

tion and other organizations meeting at the same time

would fill a volume and cannot be attempted here.

These proceedings will later be published elsewhere and

will be available to all interested in them. The pub-

lication of the report of the American Historical Asso-

ciation by the United States Government, like other

government printing, national and local, is much delayed.

In answer to a letter of inquiry we have learned direct

(95)



96 Ohio Arch

96       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

from Washington that the report for the year 1919

has not yet been published. These reports are of great

value, however, and are well worth waiting for.

In the meantime valuable papers read at the dif-

ferent sessions of the Association, many of them, will

be available through other channels before they are

published by the government four or five years hence.

The meeting on Thursday evening, December 27, in

the First Congregational Church was largely attended

and the speakers were heard with closest attention and

evident appreciation.  Honorable James E. Campbell,

former Governor of Ohio and President of the Ohio

State Archaeological and Historical Society, presided

in his usual felicitous manner.   In introducing Dr.

Harry A. Garfield, son of President James A. Garfield,

Governor Campbell paid a brief but sincere tribute to

the distinguished father of the speaker and his sons

who have themselves won honorable position in the

service of their country.  Dr. Garfield had chosen as

the subject of his address, "Recent Political Develop-

ment:   Progress or Change?" a subject entirely ap-

propriate but one that did not give definite intimation

of the treat in store for the audience.  The Columbus

Evening Dispatch editorially fittingly characterized this

address which was delivered in a pleasing voice and

reached everyone in the audience:

Dr. Garfield, of the Political Scientist Group, argued the

advisability of handling problems such as the coal distribution

through the agency of two special commissions, in addition to

the finally responsible government officials -- one, a fact-finding

commission, the other an advisory commission. The fact-finders

should have no power or responsibility whatever except to find

out facts and arrange them in intelligible form for use. The



Reviews, Notes and Comments 97

Reviews, Notes and Comments          97

advisory commission should study these facts and to the best

of its ability interpret their meaning, suggesting any govern-

ment action which might seem advisable as a result of that study,

but it should have power only to advise, not to act. Our

ordinary constitutional agencies should not have their powers

and responsibilities lessened in any way whatever by the setting

up of these commissions. The argument was put with clearness

and force and is well worthy of serious consideration by Con-

gress and our state legislatures, which would have to furnish

the legal authorization and financial provision for such a plan.

The annual addresses by the Presidents of the

American Historical Association have almost without

exception been notable contributions to history.   So

true has this been that they are looked forward to with

assured anticipation of a message of more than ordi-

nary merit. Those who came to hear Dr. Edward P.

Cheyney, President of the Association, expected much

and they were not disappointed.   The long continued

applause at the conclusion of his address was a real

tribute from a discriminating audience.

Dr. Cheyney's subject was "Law in History." He

began by pointing out a number of incidents: a south-

west wind increasing to a gale on August 10, 1588,

which drove the Spanish Armada through the North

Sea to destruction; the advent of Anne Boleyn, "black-

eyed, vivacious, charming," in the reign of Henry VIII;

the incursion of Attila, King of the Huns, into Gaul in

the middle of the fifth century; the appearance of the

bubonic plague, the "black death" in Europe in 1345,

"more devastating than the armies of Attila"; the per-

sonality of Washington as a decisive influence in the

American Revolution -- all these were cited as super-

ficial indications that general laws do not control the

course of history; that much is left to chance influences

Vol. XXXIII -- 7.



98 Ohio Arch

98      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

and personalities outside of any general law controlling

the course of events. "My allotted time this evening,"

said the speaker, "could easily be filled with a mere

enumeration of instances where great and general

effects are asserted to have followed upon certain ac-

cidental or personal causes. But are these statements

of cause and effect true, or are the appearances decep-

tive?  Have these events and personalities really had

the influence on the course of history so easily and

naturally attributed to them? A hasty reexamination of

the instances I have taken may suggest the need of a

more adequate explanation. Although the wind blew

from the southwest on the tenth of August, 1588, it

did not blow adversely for the Spaniards through the

whole twenty years of the Elizabethan war. * * *

Can anyone believe that there would have been no

Reformation in England in the sixteenth century if

Henry VIII had not fallen in love with Anne Boleyn?

* * * American independence as we look on it now

was not the creation of Washington and the 'Fathers'

but a necessary result of the divergence of the two

countries.  So it is with the other instances."  The

speaker then led up to the conclusion that "history, like

the stars, has been controlled by immutable, self-existent

law, by what Mr. Gladstone in his sonorous eloquence

once described in Parliament 'as those great social

forces which move on in their might and majesty, and

which the tumult of our debates does not for a moment

impede or disturb.'"

Mr. Cheyney then proceeded to the enumeration of

what he conceived to be some of the laws of history.



Reviews, Notes and Comments 99

Reviews, Notes and Comments       99

"Laws of history there must be," said he, "and my

guesses at some of them are these."

The laws that he suggests in the order presented

were as follows:

1. "The law of continuity * * * The con-

tinuity of history is not merely a fact; it is a law. By

no voluntary action can any great breach of historic

continuity be accomplished."

2. "A law of impermanence, of mutability * * *.

Perhaps an America scornful of a League of Nations,

wedded to isolation, struggling to keep her life separate,

unconformable to a world that has been made essentially

one by economic and intellectual changes, may not be

able to survive. Thus the law of mutability, of insta-

bility of nations, will receive one more illustration."

3. "A law of interdependence -- interdependence

of individuals, of classes, of tribes, of nations.  The

human race seems to be essentially an organism, a unit.

* * * No part of the human race in history has

really progressed by the injury of another. We have

all risen or fallen together.  Conquests of one people

by another have always demoralized the conquerors.

* * * Who shall say that France and Italy, England and

the United States, are freer and better countries since

the Great War than before? The fruits of victory in

war have often proved to be apples of Sodom, turning

to dust in the mouth."

4. "A law of democracy, a tendency for all gov-

ernment to come under the control of all the people.

* * * Who would not trust, if he may, the instincts

and aspirations of the mass of the people in the passage



100 Ohio Arch

100      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

perilous of the next few years, rather than the vagaries

of a Mussolini, the obstinacy of a Poincare, the

pedantry of a Lenin, or the narrow vision and restricted

interests of any one class of the people?"

5. "A law of necessity for free consent.   Human

beings are free agents in their relations to other human

beings; they cannot permanently be compelled.     Not

only should all government be by the consent of the

governed but all government has been by the consent of

the governed. * * * The effects of force in his-

tory have been temporary and partial and illusory; vol-

untary acceptance alone has been permanent and ade-

quate and substantial."

6. "A law of moral progress." The speaker de-

clared that there seemed, "so far as this groping search

extends," such a law.  "Obscurely and slowly, yet vis-

ibly and measurably, moral influences in human affairs

have become stronger and more fittingly extended than

material influences."

After a recapitulation of these laws which were

each appropriately set forth with references not only

to past history but present conditions the speaker said:

 

May I repeat that I do not conceive of these generalizations

as principles which it would be well for us to accept, or as

ideals which we may hope to attain; but as natural laws, which

we must accept whether we want to or not, whose workings

we cannot obviate, however much we may thwart them to our

own failure and disadvantage; laws to be accepted and reckoned

with as much as the laws of gravitation, or of chemical affinity,

or of organic evolution, or of human psychology.

 

Near the close of his address Dr. Cheyney gave this

as his judgment of the practical use of history:



Reviews, Notes and Comments 101

Reviews, Notes and Comments          101

For practical uses, if history is to have a practical use,

what we need is a clue to the future. This a knowledge of the

laws of history might give us. If we knew the laws of history

we might reason and act with the same intelligence and precision

and anticipation of success with which the engineer acts in con-

formity with the known laws of physics, or the astronomer with

the laws of astronomy, or the cattle breeder with the Mendelian

law of inheritance.

While there are doubtless those who would not agree

with all of Dr. Cheyney's conclusions, it will be gener-

ally admitted that his address, here all too briefly re-

viewed, is timely and thought-stimulating.

At the conference of Patriotic Societies on Satur-

day afternoon, December 29, Professor Carl Wittke of

the Ohio State University spoke on "What the Patriotic

Societies can do to aid the Organization of Work in

Ohio History."     He reviewed briefly some of the

program adopted by the Ohio History Commission and

made an appeal to the Patriotic Societies to aid in the

collection and preservation of the sources of local Ohio

history.

The business meeting of the Association on Friday

afternoon lasted so late that but few members found

time to inspect the collection of the Ohio State Archaeo-

logical and Historical Society at 5:30 P. M., the hour

fixed in the program for this inspection. In the course

of the three days' session, however, many members at

other times visited the Museum and Library Building

of the Society. The reception and smoker given under

the auspices of the Society in the Deshler at 9:30 Fri-

day evening was a great success -- a most enjoyable

affair in every way.   Practically all those in attend-



102 Ohio Arch

102     Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

ance at the meeting were present and expressions of

appreciation of this function were frequently heard.

The program closed with the session of the Con-

ference of State Historical Societies at the Hotel

Deshler Saturday afternoon.   Though this meeting

came at the end of the series when a number of mem-

bers had to leave on early afternoon trains, it was well

attended and there was a profitable interchange of

views among those present.

Professor Wilbur H. Siebert of the Ohio State Uni-

versity was accorded unstinted praise for his very suc-

cessful arrangements for the conference.  He was

chairman of the Committee on Local Arrangements,

and a number of delegates assured the writer that at

no previous meeting of the Association had the ar-

rangements been in every way more satisfactory.

Woodrow Wilson, former President of the United

States, was elected President of the Association. Other

officers chosen are: Charles M. Andrews and Dana C.

Monro, Vice-Presidents; John Spencer Bassett, Secre-

tary; Charles Moore, Treasurer. Among the members

of the council chosen were Professor A. M. Schlesinger,

formerly of the Ohio State University.  Professor A.

C. Cole of the University was a member of the nomi-

nating committee.



Reviews, Notes and Comments 103

Reviews, Notes and Comments             103

 

Resolutions adopted by

THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION

at its Annual Meeting held at Columbus, Ohio,

December 27-29, 1923

WHEREAS, there has been in progress for several years an

agitation conducted by certain newspapers, patriotic societies,

fraternal orders, and others, against a number of school text-

books in history and in favor of official censorship, and

WHEREAS, this propaganda has met with sufficient success

to bring about not only acute controversy in many cities but the

passage of censorship laws in several states, therefore,

Be it resolved by the American Historical Association, upon

the recommendation of its Committee on History Teaching in

the schools and of its Executive Council, that genuine and in-

telligent patriotism, no less than the requirements of honesty

and sound scholarship, demand that textbook writers and

teachers should strive to present a truthful picture of past and

present, with due regard to the different purposes and possibili-

ties of elementary, secondary, and advanced instruction; that

criticism of history textbooks should therefore be based not upon

grounds of patriotism but only upon grounds of faithfulness

to fact as determined by specialists or tested by consideration

of the evidence; that the cultivation in pupils of a scientific

temper in history and the related social sciences, of a spirit of

inquiry and a willingness to face unpleasant facts, are far more

important objectives than the teaching of special interpretations

of particular events; and that attempts, however well meant, to

foster national arrogance and boastfulness and indiscriminate

worship of national "heroes" can only tend to promote a harm-

ful pseudo-patriotism; and

Be it further resolved, that in the opinion of this Associa-

tion the clearly implied charges that many of our leading

scholars are engaged in treasonable propaganda and that tens

of thousands of American school teachers and officials are so

stupid or disloyal as to place treasonable textbooks in the hands

of childen is inherently and obviously absurd; and

Be it further resolved, that the successful continuance of

such an agitation must inevitably bring about a serious deteriora-

tion both of textbooks and of the teaching of history in our

schools, since self-respecting scholars and teachers will not stoop

to the methods advocated.



104 Ohio Arch

104       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

OHIO HISTORY DAY AT THE LOGAN ELM

A large and appreciative audience assembled in

Logan Elm Park near the grand old tree which gives it

its name to celebrate Ohio History Day on October 7,

1923.   The local papers gave generous space to this

notable event. The Union Herald prefaces an extended

account as follows:

The celebration of History day at Logan Elm Park Sun-

day was attended by from 1500 to 1800 people from all over

central Ohio, and the great success of the meeting must have

been most gratifying to Mrs. Howard Jones who conceived the

splendid idea of getting together once a year on this historic

spot to study the remarkable history of our wonderful state.

The contemplation of the remarkable success of the first

celebration must be doubly gratifying to Mrs. Jones for the

reason that succeeding gatherings at the park will naturally

grow larger year by year, as time goes on. The permanency of

History day in the annals of Ohio is assured now and future

gatherings will witness the assembling of great crowds, not only

from central Ohio, but from the furthermost corners of the

state.

Sunday's meeting was an inspiration to all who were so

fortunate as to be present and the story of the first History day

will be told and retold until its annual celebration will be hailed

with joy and thanksgiving.

The day was ideal, the sun shone kindly down on the people,

and nature, dressed in her best, never gave forth a prettier pic-

ture. There was just enough tang in the air to give zest to the

celebration and visitors from Columbus, Canal Winchester,

Lancaster, Chillicothe, Washington C. H., and nearby towns

felt richly repaid for their effort in making the trip to Logan

Elm.

A very pleasing program was rendered with Attorney Bar-

ton Walters presiding who in introducing each of the speakers

gave some interesting bits of history.

The Democrat and Watchman was equally felicitous

in the introductory paragraphs of its account:

"Ohio History Day" at the famous Logan Elm on last

Sunday, October 7, was enjoyable and profitable from every

point of view.



Reviews, Notes and Comments 105

Reviews, Notes and Comments            105

 

The day was typically autumnal. The sun shone brightly

and in the bracing air there was just a hint and tang of the

coming winter days. The branches of the old elm, clothed in

the verdure worn for centuries, swayed in the breeze and wel-

comed to its grateful shade, a representative posterity, many

harvest moons removed from Dunmore treaties and Chief Logan

laments.

The people came from all sections of central Ohio, unmis-

takably impressed with the aim and object of the occasion. It

was the largest audience ever yet assembled at Logan Elm Park.

Attorney Barton Walters of Circleville presided, and in a very

appropriate manner prefaced the splendid program of the after-

noon. He then introduced Honorable John F. Carlisle of Co-

lumbus, who spoke briefly but fittingly concerning Ohio His-

tory Day, not forgetting to remind the audience that this-to-be

annual event, had its conception in the mind of Mrs. Dr.

Howard Jones of Park Place, Circleville; and who, because of

several months of illness, was not privileged, as it would have

been her pleasure, to take part in the exercises of the occasion.

Mr. Carlisle closed his interesting remarks with the reading of

lesson from  one of the McGuffey Readers on "The North

American Indian."

Mrs. Herbert Backus, Vice Regent of the Daughters of the

American Revolution, told, in a very interesting manner how

her organization was taking steps to memorialize important

events of the Revolution.

 

Mr. C. B. Galbreath, Secretary of the Society, was

present and made a brief address devoted to prominent

points in the Dunmore War and Logan's famous mes-

sage to the peace conference with the Indians at Camp

Charlotte, seven miles distant from the Logan Elm.

He stated that the central virtue of this message,

usually spoken of as Logan's speech, was its arraign-

ment of ingratitude. He then read some verses of his

own on the Logan Elm. These were prominently pub-

lished in the local papers and in the November issue of

the Ohio Educational Monthly.      For generous notices

grateful acknowledgment is here recorded.



106 Ohio Arch

106     Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

FRANK L. PACKARD

The announcement of the sudden death of Frank

L. Packard on Friday morning, October 26, brought

sadness to a wide circle of friends in Ohio and other

states. In Columbus where he was personally known

as almost no other citizen, the expressions of regret

were general and sincere. The Ohio State Archaeological

and Historical Society, of which he had been a trustee

since he was appointed by

Governor Davis October

15, 1921, was especially

shocked to hear this sad

news. In the large build-

ing projects that the So-

ciety now has under way,

including the wing to the

Museum    and  Library

building and other build-

ings on property outside

of Columbus, his advice

and assistance was of the

greatest value.  These

were given freely with-

out the thought of any

financial return as was

much of Mr. Packard's

service in Columbus. He was foremost in developing

plans for the improvement and beautification of the city.

Mr. Packard was born in Delaware, Ohio, June 11,

1866. He attended the public schools of that city and

at the age of fifteen was employed as chain carrier for

the county surveyor. He began his professional career

as office boy for F. A. Gartner, an architect and engi-



Reviews, Notes and Comments 107

Reviews, Notes and Comments 107

neer of Delaware. Later he took special courses in

architecture and engineering at the Ohio State Univer-

sity and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

He also studied in the offices of the leading architects of

New York City.

In 1892 he came to Columbus, formed a partner-

ship with J. W. Yost and entered upon the practice of

his profession.  In 1899 he acquired full interest in the

firm. The list of buildings that he planned is a long

one.  The first big structure for which his plan was

accepted on competition was the Girls' Industrial Home

near Delaware.    Following this his plans were ac-

cepted for other state buildings.  A number of these

are on the University grounds of the capital city and

the grounds of the other state universities.  His plans

were accepted for the Lima State Hospital for the

Criminal Insane, one of the largest structures of its

kind in the world. Recently he was selected by Presi-

dent Harding to plan and superintend the construction

of the American Embassy building at Rio Janeiro,

Brazil, which was formally dedicated last summer at

the Brazilian Exposition.  The papers announce that

all told he had designed more than 3400 buildings. He

was prominent in business and civic circles in Colum-

bus and was active officially in the affairs of the Broad

Street Presbyterian Church.  In 1892 he was married

to Eva L. Elliott, of Delaware, who survives him. Edi-

torially the Ohio State Journal pays Mr. Packard this

tribute:

Mr. Packard was a great architect. He was a great citizen,

too. In these later years his time was in constant demand but

he always had it to spare for his city. Anything, at any sacri-

fice of his personal interests, which he felt he could do for



108 Ohio Arch

108      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

Columbus, was done with generous enthusiasm. To him more

than to any other man Columbus owes the fact that the dream

of a Civic Center is becoming a reality. That noble idea, in its

concrete form at least, was Mr. Packard's and many hours and

days and weeks he gave to perfecting his plans and to helping

create an irresistible sentiment for this greatest of city beauti-

fications, this building for the future of Columbus. What a

monument this will be to a great architect and a great citizen.

 

PROFESSOR CHARLES SUMNER PLUMB.

Professor Charles Sumner Plumb, author of the

leading contribution to this issue of the QUARTERLY,

was born in Westfield, Massachusetts, April 21, 1860.

He was graduated from the Massachusetts Agricultural

College at Amherst. For a time he was engaged in

editorial and agricultural experiment work.

Since September 1, 1892, he has been professor of

animal husbandry in the Ohio State University. He is

author of the following works: Biographical Directory

of American Agricultural Scientists; Indian    Corn;

Little Sketches of Famous Beef Cattle; Types and

Breeds of Farm Animals and revision of same; A Par-

tial Index to Animal Husbandry Literature; Beginnings

of Animal Husbandry; Judging Farm Animals; also

many monographs and contributions to agricultural

periodicals. Of his Types and Breeds of Farm Animals

more than 100,000 copies have been sold.

Professor Plumb has for years been a recognized

authority in his field and his monograph in this issue

of the QUARTERLY is a tribute to one of Ohio's pioneers

and a distinct contribution to the history of the live

stock industry of the state.



 



(110)



THE ORDINANCE OF 1787, ITS ORIGIN AND

THE ORDINANCE OF 1787, ITS ORIGIN AND

AUTHORSHIP

 

BY C. B. GALBREATH

 

The timely adoption and beneficent influence of this

great charter of American liberty have been frequently

the theme of the orator, the statesman and the his-

torian. It is a little remarkable that the authorship

of this important state paper has been the subject of

discussion for more than a century and that it has

engaged the attention of some of the eminent men of

our Nation. It is generally known to have entered into

the great debate between Daniel Webster on one side

and Thomas H. Benton and Robert Hayne on the other,

but just what form this discussion took is familiar

only to those who have access to the debates of Congress

and have taken the time to locate and read the con-

tribution of Benton and Webster to the solution of

the problem. And while perhaps their discussion should

have settled the controversy, like Congressional debates

on other important themes, it failed to do so and the

years following the great debate brought forth different

claimants for the honor of authorship.

' In his Ohio, First Fruits of the Ordinance of 1787,

Rufus King, grandson of the Revolutionary statesman

by the same name who contributed in the Colonial

Congress some ideas for the Ordinance, writes thus of

the question of its origin:

The authorship of this Ordinance has lately been made a

subject of curious speculation. It is certain that some eminent

(111)



112 Ohio Arch

112      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

men were differing upon it a year before its passage. But that

Nathan Dane had the chief hand in forming it as it ultimately

appeared, was never doubted during his life or that of his con-

temporaries. Mr. Webster asserted it with emphasis in both

of his speeches in the great debate in January, 1830, concerning

the public lands. Chief Justice Chase reiterated it in 1833 in

the historical sketch prefixed to his compilation of the statutes

of Ohio. Recent discoveries, however, are supposed to displace

him, and Dr. Cutler is brought forward as having given the

paper its stamp and character. The subject seems to have

fallen under that morbid infirmity in literature which delights in

denying Homer and Shakespeare their works, and sometimes

have not spared even Holy Writ from its rage.

The rival claims of authorship are due to the fact

that the Ordinance was over four years in the process

of evolution. At the close of the Revolution many of

the officers and men of the army found themselves penni-

less with nothing but claims upon the new Nation that

they had helped to create, as a reward for their services.

Discontent among them was rife and Congress was

hard pressed to meet their just demands. No cash was

in the treasury to pay these obligations but different

original states had ceded to the government their claims

to western lands and many of these officers were willing

and eager to exchange their claims for the fertile lands

west of the Alleghany Mountains. An organized move-

ment on the part of officers of the Revolutionary Army

was at last inaugurated for the purpose of founding a

new state in the valley of the Ohio. Timothy Pickering,

Revolutionary soldier and statesman, was the first, ap-

parently, to draft a form of government for the proposed

state.  On April 7, 1783 he sent this draft in a letter

to Samuel Hodgdon. In this letter he said among other

things:

But a new plan is in contemplation -- no less than forming

a new State westward of the Ohio. Some of the principal of-



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 113

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  113

MAP 1. Cessions of Territory of the United States after the Revolution.*

Explanation: 1, 1. Acquired by treaty with England. 2, 2. Ceded by

the state of Massachusetts. 3. Ceded by the state of Connecticut.

4. Ceded by the state of Virginia; also claimed by New York. 5.

Ceded by Virginia. 6. Ceded by Tennessee. 7. Ceded by South

Carolina. 8. Ceded by Georgia. 9. Acquired by treaty with Spain.

* Adapted from Winsor's Narrative and Cutical History of America

Vol. XXXIII -- 8.



114 Ohio Arch

114       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

ficers of the army are heartily engaged in it. About a week

since the matter was set on foot, and a plan is digesting for

the purpose. Enclosed is a rough draft of some propositions

respecting it, which are generally approved of. They are in the

the hands of General Huntington and General Putnam for con-

sideration, amendment, and addition. . . . As soon as the

plan is well digested, it is intended to lay it before an assembly

of the officers, and to learn the inclinations of the soldiers. If

it takes, an application will then be made to Congress for the

grant and all things depending on them.1

Colonel Pickering's plan, because it was the first

offered for the purpose stated, is here given in full:

PROPOSITIONS FOR SETTLING A NEW STATE BY

SUCH OFFICERS AND SOLDIERS OF THE FED-

ERAL ARMY AS SHALL ASSOCIATE FOR THAT

PURPOSE.

i. That the United States purchase of the natives that

tract of country which is bounded by Pennsylvania on the east,

the River Ohio on the south, a meridian line drawn thirty miles

west of the mouth of the River Scioto on the west -- this

meridian to run from the Ohio to the Miami River, which runs

into Lake Erie -- and by this river and Lake Erie on the north.

2. That, in the first instance, lands be assigned to the army

to fulfill the engagements of the United States by the resolu-

tions of the 16th of September, 1776, August 13th and Septem-

ber 30th, 1780, to wit:

To  a  major-general  ...........................                                                1,100  acres

To a brigadier-general ........................                                                  850 acres

To  a  colonel  .................................                                                      500  acres

To a lieutenant-colonel .......................                                                450 acres

To  a  major  ..................................                                                      400  acres

To a captain .................................                                                       300 acres

To a lieutenant ...............................                                                     200 acres

To  an  ensign  or  cornet ........................                                              150  acres

To a non-commissioned officer and soldier ........                                1,100 acres

To the director of the military hospitals ..........                                  850 acres

To chief physician and purveyor, each ..........                                      500 acres

To physicians, surgeons, and apothecary, each .....                            450 acres

To regimental surgeons and assistants to the pur-

veyor and apothecary, each ................                                       400 acres

To hospital and regimental surgeons' mates, each..                             300 acres

1 Cutler, Life, Journals and Correspondence of Manasseh Cutler,

Vol. I, p. 149.



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 115

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  115

 

3. That all associators who shall actually settle in the new

state within one year after the purchase shall be effected, and

notice given by Congress or the committee of the associators

that the same is ready for settlement (such notice to be pub-

lished in the newspapers of all the United States), shall receive

such additional quantities of land as to make their respective

rights in the whole to contain the following number of acres,

to wit:

A major-general ................................ 2,400 acres

A brigadier-general ............................ 2,200 acres

A colonel ...................................... 2,000 acres

A   lieutenant-colonel  ......................... 1,800                                              acres

A   major  ..................................... 1,600                                                     acres

A captain ......................................   400                                                     acres

A  lieutenant  ................................. 1,200                                                   acres

An ensign or cornet ............................ 1,000                                              acres

A  sergeant  ..................................    700                                                     acres

Other non-commissioned officers and soldiers, each 600                           acres

And fifty acres more for each member of a family besides

the head of it.

4. That the rights of the officers in the medical depart-

ment be increased in like manner on the same condition.

5. That all officers in the other staff departments, who

shall actually settle in the new State within the time above

limited, shall receive rights of land in the proportions last stated,

on an equitable comparison of their stations with the ranks of

the officers of the line and the medical staff.

6. That this increased provision of lands shall extend to

all officers of the line and staff, and to all non-commissioned

officers and soldiers, who during the present war have performed

in the whole three years' service, whether in service or not at

the close of the war, provided they present their claims and

become actual settlers in the new State by the time above

limited.

7. These surplus rights being secured, all the surplus lands

shall be the common property of the State and disposed of for

the common good; as for laying out roads, building bridges,

erecting public buildings, establishing schools and academies,

defraying the expenses of government, and other public uses.

8. That every grantee shall have a house built and . . . . . .

acres of land cleared on his right within . . . . . . years, or the

same shall be forfeited to the State.

9. That, to enable the associators to undertake the settle-

ment of the new State, the United States defray the expenses



116 Ohio Arch

116       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

of the march thither, furnish the necessary utensils of husbandry,

and such live stock as shall be indispensably requisite for com-

mencing the settlement, and subsistence for three years, to wit,

one ration of bread and meat per day to each man, woman, and

child; and to every soldier a suit of clothes annually; the cost

of these articles to be charged to the accounts of arrearages due

to the members of the association respectively.

10. That, for the security of the State against Indians,

every officer and soldier go armed, the arms to be furnished by

the United States and charged to the accounts of arrearages.

Ammunition to be supplied in the same way.

11. That a Constitution for the new State be formed by

the members of the association previous to their commencing

the settlement, two-thirds of the associators present at a meet-

ing duly notified for that purpose agreeing therein. The total

exclusion of slavery from the State to form an essential and

irrevocable part of the Constitution.

12. That the associators, so assembled, agree on such

general rules as they shall deem necessary for the prevention

and punishment of crimes, and the preservation of peace and

good order in the State; to have the force of laws during the

space of two years, unless an Assembly of the State, formed

agreeably to the Constitution, shall sooner repeal them.

13. That the State, so constituted, shall be admitted into

the confederacy of the United States, and entitled to all the

benefits of the Union, in common with the other members

thereof.

14. That, at the above-mentioned meeting of the asso-

ciators, delegates be chosen to represent them in the Congress

of the United States, to take their seats as soon as the new

State shall be erected.

15. That the associators, having borne together as brethren

the dangers and calamities of war, and feeling that mutual

friendship which long acquaintance and common sufferings give

rise to, it being also the obvious dictate of humanity to supply

the wants of the needy and alleviate the distresses of the af-

flicted, it shall be an inviolable rule to take under the immediate

patronage of the State the wives and children of such as-

sociators who, having settled there, shall die, or, by cause of

wounds or sickness, be rendered unable to improve their planta-

tions, or follow their occupations, during the first twenty-one

years; so that such destitute and distressed families shall receive

such public aids, as, joined with their own reasonable exertions,

will maintain them in a manner suitable to the condition of the

heads of them; especially that the children, when grown up,



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 117

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  117

may be on a footing with other children whose parents, at the

original formation of the State, were in similar circumstances

with those of the former.2

 

Early in the year following the drafting of Colonel

Pickering's plan a committee of the Continental Con-

gress consisting of Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, Sam-

uel Chase of Maryland, and David Howell of Rhode

Island agreed upon a form of government for the West-

ern Territory. On March 1, 1784, Mr. Jefferson made

the following report for the committee:

The committee appointed to prepare a plan for the tem-

porary government of the Western Territory have agreed to the

following resolutions:

Resolved, That the territory ceded or to be ceded by in-

dividual States to the United States, whensover the same shall

have been purchased of the Indian inhabitants, and offered for

sale by the United States, shall be formed into additional States,

bounded in the following manner, as nearly as such cessions

will admit: That is to say, northwardly and southwardly by

parallels of latitude, so that each State shall comprehend, from

south to north, two degrees of latitude, beginning to count from

the completion of thirty-one degrees north of the equator; but

any territory northwardly of the forty-seventh degree shall make

part of the State next below. And eastwardly and westwardly

they shall be bounded, those on the Mississippi by that river on

the one side, and the meridian of the lowest point of the rapids

of the Ohio on the other; and those adjoining on the east, by

the same meridian on their western side, and on the eastern by

the meridian of the western cape of the mouth of the Great

Kanawha. And the territory eastward of this last meridian,

between the Ohio, Lake Erie, and Pennsylvania, shall be one

state.

That the settlers within the territory so to be purchased

and offered for sale shall, either on their own petition or on

the order of Congress, receive authority from them, with ap-

pointments of time and place, for their free males of full age

to meet together for the purpose of establishing a temporary

government to adopt the constitution and laws of any one of

2 Cutler, Life, Journals and Correspondence of Manasseh Cutler,

Vol. I, pp. 156-159.



118 Ohio Arch

118       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

these States, so that such laws nevertheless shall be subject to

alteration by their ordinary legislature, and to erect, subject to

a like alteration, counties or townships for the election of mem-

bers of their legislature.

That such temporary government shall only continue in

force in any State until it shall have acquired twenty thousand

free inhabitants, when, giving due proof thereof to Congress,

they shall receive from them authority, with appointments of

time and place, to call a convention of representatives to estab-

lish a permanent constitution and government for themselves.

Provided, That both the temporary and permanent govern-

ments be established on these principles as their basis:

1. That they shall forever remain a part of the United

States of America.

2. That, in their persons, property, and territory, they

shall be subject to the Government of the United States in

Congress assembled, and to the Articles of Confederation in

all those cases in which the original States shall be so subject.

3. That they shall be subject to pay a part of the Fed-

eral debts, contracted or to be contracted, to be apportioned on

them by Congress, according to the same common rule and

measure by which apportionments thereof shall be made on the

other States.

4. That their respective governments shall be in republican

forms, and shall admit no person to be a citizen who holds any

hereditary title.

5. That, after the year 1800 of the Christian era, there

shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the

said States, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof

the party shall have been duly convicted to have been personally

guilty.

That whensoever any of the said States shall have, of free

inhabitants, as many as shall then be in any one of the least

numerous of the thirteen original States, such State shall be

admitted by its delegates into the Congress of the United States,

on an equal footing with the said original States, after which

the assent of two-thirds of the United States, in Congress as-

sembled, shall be requisite in all those cases wherein, by the

confederation, the assent of nine States is now required, pro-

vided the consent of nine States to such admission may be ob-

tained according to the eleventh of the Articles of Confedera-

tion. Until such admission by their delegates into Congress,

any of the said States, after the establishment of their tem-

porary government, shall have authority to keep a sitting mem-

ber in Congress, with a right of debating but not of voting.



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 119

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  119

 

That the territory northward of the forty-fifth degree, that

is to say, of the completion of forty-five degrees from the

equator, and extending to the Lake of the Woods, shall be called

Sylvania. That, of the territory under the forty-fifth and forty-

fourth degrees, that which lies westward of Michigan shall

be called Michigania; and that which is eastward thereof, within

the peninsula formed by the lakes and waters of Michigan,

Huron, St. Clair, and Erie, shall be called Cheronesus, and shall

include any part of the peninsula which may extend above the

forty-fifth degree. Of the territory under the forty-third and

forty-second degrees, that to the westward, through which the

Assenisipi or Rock River runs, shall be called Assenisipia; and

that to the eastward, in which are the fountains of the Mus-

kingum, the two Miamis of Ohio, the Wabash, the Illinois, the

Miami of the Lake, and the Sandusky Rivers, shall be called

Metropotamia. Of the territory which lies under the forty-first

and fortieth degrees, the western, through which the river Illi-

nois runs, shall be called Illinoia; that next adjoining, to the

eastward, Saratoga; and that between this last and Pennsylvania,

and extending from the Ohio to Lake Erie, shall be called

Washington. Of the territory which lies under the thirty-ninth

and thirty-eighth degrees, to which shall be added so much of

the point of land within the fork of the Ohio and Mississippi

as lies under the thirty-seventh degree, that to the westward,

within and adjacent to which are the confluences of the rivers Wa-

bash, Shawnee, Tanisee, Ohio, Illinois, Mississippi, and Mis-

souri, shall be called Polypotamia; and that to the eastward,

farther up the Ohio, otherwise called the Pelisipi, shall be

called Pelisipia.

That all the preceding articles shall be formed into a

charter of compact; shall be duly executed by the President of

the United States, in Congress assembled, under his hand and

the seal of the United States; shall be promulgated, and shall

stand as fundamental conditions between the thirteen original

States and these newly described, unalterable but by the joint

consent of the United States, in Congress assembled, and of

the particular State within which such alteration is proposed3

to be made.

This report was recommitted to the committee and

on the 22nd of March another report was made that

agreed in the main with the first report. The paragraph

of the original report containing the names of the new





The Ordinance of 1787 its Origin and Authorship 121

The Ordinance of 1787 its Origin and Authorship 121

states above north latitude thirty-seven degrees was

omitted entirely but the plan of the division of the

Western Territory into states by parallels of latitude

and meridians of longitude remained the same. Other

changes included the omission of the clause against

hereditary titles and the inclusion of three new "prin-

ciples." One of these denied the right of future states

formed under the Ordinance to "interfere with the pri-

mary disposal of the soil by the United States in Con-

gress assembled" or "with the ordinances and regu-

lations which Congress may find necessary for securing

the title in such soil to the bona-fide purchasers."4

Lands belonging to the United States were exempt from

taxation and non-resident owners of lands were not to

be taxed at a higher rate than residents. Principle No.

5 in the original draft prohibiting slavery after the year

1800 on motion of a delegate from North Carolina was

stricken from the Ordinance. Thomas Jefferson and

the delegates from the northern states voted to retain

it but it failed by a vote of one state in the Congress

and was dropped from the Ordinance.

From the adoption of the plan of government for

the Western Territory until the enactment of the famous

Ordinance of 1787 these resolutions reported by the

committee of which Thomas Jefferson was chairman

were nominally in force in the Western Territory.

Someone has well observed the Ordinance of 1784 was

the law of the Territory but inoperative until it was

finally repealed. Through this period there was prac-

tically no migration to the West.

Among other movements in the Continental Con-

gress that did not produce immediate results must be

4 Barrett, Evolution of the Ordinance of. 1787, p. 26.





The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 123

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 123

that of James Monroe. After Jefferson had gone to

France to represent the United States there Monroe

became actively interested in the formation of a gov-

ernment for the Western Territory. He made a visit

to the Ohio Country and concluded that the division of

the Western Territory into states entirely by artificial

lines as favored by Jefferson was not practical. He

thought that natural boundaries in part should super-

sede the artificial boundaries.  In a report made to

Congress March 24, 1786, by a committee of which

Monroe was chairman it was provided that the United

States should have power to form not more than five

nor less than three states of the territory northwest

of the Ohio.

Later another Congressman from Virginia, William

Grayson, made a motion to divide this territory in the

following manner: "An east and west line touching

the most southern part of Lake Michigan should sep-

arate the territory into two parts. There should be

three states between this line and the Ohio, formed by

the meridians at the mouth of the Wabash and the

Great Miami rivers. Lake Michigan would divide the

country north of the line into two parts and these were

to be states." This made five states. The motion was

lost but the suggestion was not forgotten. Other mo-

tions and resolutions that did not carry also contributed

to the final result.

The consideration of a new ordinance for the gov-

ernment of the Western Territory was considered at

various times after the adoption of the Ordinance of

1784. On September 19, 1786, a committee, consisting

of William S. Johnson of Connecticut, Charles Pinckney

of South Carolina, Melancton Smith of New York, Na-



124 Ohio Arch

124      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 125

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  125

than Dane of Massachusetts and John Henry of Mary-

land, was appointed to propose a plan of temporary

government of the Territory, and made a report. On

April 26, 1787, the same committee reported another

ordinance which was read the second time on May 9.

It was called up for its third reading on May 10. Wil-

liam Frederick Poole thus characterizes the report:

Mr. Force has printed its full text. That Mr. Dane or

any other Northern man should have served on a committee

which drafted such an ordinance, and called for its third read-

ing on the 10th of May, 1787, is evidence that there were very

crude ideas in Congress at that time as to what an ordinance

defining the fundamental laws of the Northwestern Territory

should be.  It had no resemblance to the Ordinance which

passed on the 13th of July. It had no restriction of slavery,

none of those sublime principles as to personal and civil

rights, education, religion, and morality, and the obligation of

contracts, which appeared in the later Ordinance. It had no

articles of compact; in short, it had none of those provisions

which have made the Ordinance of 1787 so beneficial and re-

nowned.5

As the form and substance of this report is exten-

sively criticised by Mr. Poole it is here reproduced in

full for purposes of comparison:

 

AN ORDINANCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE

WESTERN TERRITORY.

It is hereby ordained by the United States in Congress as-

sembled, that there shall be appointed, from time to time, a

Governor, whose commission shall continue in force for the

term of three years, unless sooner revoked by Congress.

There shall be appointed by Congress, from time to time,

a Secretary, whose commission shall continue in force for four

years, unless sooner revoked by Congress. It shall be his duty

to keep and preserve the acts and laws passed by the General

Assembly, and public records of the District, and of the pro-

ceedings of the Governor in his executive department, and

5 Poole, The Ordinance of 1787 and Dr. Manasseh Cutler in North

American Review for April, 1876.



126 Ohio Arch

126       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

transmit authentic copies of such acts and proceedings every

six months to the Secretary of Congress.

There shall also be appointed a Court, to consist of three

judges, any two of whom shall form a Court, who shall have a

common-law jurisdiction, whose commissions shall continue in

force during good behavior. And to secure the rights of per-

sonal liberty and property to the inhabitants and others, pur-

chasers in the said Districts, it is hereby ordained that the in-

habitants of said Districts shall always be entitled to the benefits

of the act of habeas corpus and of the trial by jury.

The Governor and judges, or a majority of them, shall

adopt and publish in the Districts such laws of the original

States, criminal and civil, as may be necessary and best suited

to the circumstances of the District, and report them to Con-

gress from time to time, which shall prevail in said District

until the organization of the General Assembly, unless disap-

proved of by Congress; but afterwards the General Assembly

shall have authority to alter them as they think fit: provided,

however, that said Assembly shall have no power to create per-

petuities.

The Governor for the time being shall be commander-in-

chief of the militia, and appoint and commission all officers in

the same below the rank of general officers: all officers of that

rank shall be appointed and commissioned by Congress.

Previous to the organization of the General Assembly, the

Governor shall appoint such magistrates and other civil officers

in each county or township as he shall find necessary for the

preservation of peace and good order in the same. After the

General Assembly shall be organized, the powers and duties of

magistrates and other civil officers shall be regulated and de-

fined by the said Assembly; but all magistrates and other civil

officers, not herein otherwise directed, shall, during the con-

tinuance of this temporary government, be appointed by the

Governor.

The Governor shall, as soon as may be, proceed to lay out

the District into counties and townships, subject, however, to

such alterations as may thereafter be made by the Legislature,

so soon as there shall be five thousand free male inhabitants,

of full age, within the said District. Upon giving due proof

thereof to the Governor, they shall receive authority, with time

and place, to elect representatives from their counties and town-

ships as aforesaid, to represent them in General Assembly; pro-

vided, that for every five hundred free male inhabitants, there

shall be one representative, and so on progressively with the

number of free male inhabitants shall the right of representa-



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 127

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship   127

 

tion increase, until the number of representatives amount to

twenty-five; after which the number and proportion of repre-

sentatives shall be regulated by the Legislature: provided, that

no person shall be eligible or qualified to act as a representative,

unless he be a citizen of one of the United States, or have re-

sided within such District three years, and shall likewise hold,

in his own right, in fee simple, two hundred acres of land within

the same: provided also, that a freehold or life estate in fifty

acres of land in the said District, if a citizen of any of the

United States, and two years' residence if a foreigner, in addi-

tion, shall be necessary to qualify a man as elector for the said

representative.

The representatives thus elected shall serve for the term of

two years, and in case of the death of a representative, or re-

moval from office, the Governor shall issue a writ to the county

or township for which he was a member, to elect another in his

stead, to serve for the residue of the time.

The General Assembly shall consist of the Governor, a

Legislative Council, to consist of five members, to be appointed

by the United States in Congress assembled, to continue in of-

fice during pleasure, any three of whom to be a quorum; and

a House of Representatives, who shall have a legislative au-

thority complete in all cases for the good government of the

said District: provided, that no act of the said General As-

sembly shall be construed to affect any lands the property of

the United States; and provided, further, that the lands of the

non-resident proprietors shall in no instance be taxed higher

than the lands of residents.

All bills shall originate indifferently either in the Council

or House of Representatives, and, having been passed by a

majority in both Houses, shall be referred to the Governor for

his assent, after obtaining which they shall be complete and

valid; but no bill or legislative act whatever shall be valid, or

of any force without his assent. The Governor shall have power

to convene, prorogue, and dissolve the General Assembly when

in his opinion it shall be expedient.

The said inhabitants or settlers shall be subject to pay a

part of the Federal debts, contracted or to be contracted, and

to bear a proportional part of the burdens of the Government,

to be apportioned on them by Congress, according to the same

common rule and measure by which apportionments thereof

shall be made on the other States.

The Governor, Judges, Legislative Council, Secretary, and

such other officers as Congress shall at any time think proper

to appoint in such District, shall take an oath or affirmation of



128 Ohio Arch

128       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

fidelity; the Governor before the President of Congress, and

all other officers before the Governor, prescribed on the 17th

day of January, 1785, to the Secretary of War, mutatis mutandis.

Whensoever any of the said States shall have of free in-

habitants as many as are equal in number to the one-thirteenth

part of the citizens of the original States, to be computed from

the last enumeration, such State shall be admitted by its delegates

into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing

with the said original States: provided the consent of so many

States in Congress is first obtained as may at that time be com-

petent to such admission.

Resolved, That the resolutions of the 23d of April, 1784,

be and the same are hereby annulled and repealed.6

 

Comparing this report with the Ordinance of 1784

one cannot fail to be impressed with the fact that in

spite of Mr. Poole's criticism   of the former it does

furnish in large measure a practical frame of govern-

ment that in Jefferson's original plan was vaguely left

to the people of the territory.   In fact the style and

language of the later report very closely resemble in

most of its paragraphs the great Ordinance that was

subsequently adopted. In other words the committee

had made considerable progress toward the evolution

of a practical form of government for the Western

Territory. It must be noted that thus far effort had

been directed by Congress for a plan of government

embracing all the Western Territory--the portion south

of the Ohio River as well as that north and west of it.

It should be noted too that the latter report leads up

almost to the articles of compact which were the dis-

tinctive and crowning feature of the great ordinance.

Mr. Poole seems to think that there is a wonderful

contrast between the literary style of the report of

April 26, 1787, and the Ordinance adopted July 13 of

5 Smith, The St. Clair Papers, Vol. II, pp. 608-610.



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 129

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  129

the same year.7 If we limit the comparison to the cor-

responding sections in the two documents it is certainly

somewhat difficult to tell which as a matter of style is

superior. If Mr. Dane was the author of the former

of the two there is no reason, it would seem, why, with

the aid naturally accorded by the committee, he might

not have been the author of the latter.

But Mr. Poole, as we shall see later, was thoroughly

convinced that neither Jefferson nor Dane had any claim

to authorship worthy of serious consideration.

For convenient comparison the text of the Ordinance

should be reproduced here but inasmuch as it has already

been published in Volume 5 of the Publications of the

Ohio   State  Archaeological and  Historical Society

reference is made to that volume.

The authorship of the Ordinance first became a sub-

ject of general interest throughout the United States

through the prominence given it in the great Webster-

Hayne debate. This discussion took a wide range.

It is believed that the prominence of those who had a

part in it as well as the importance of the subject itself

fully justifies a somewhat extended reproduction of

what was said, not in the form of paraphrase but in the

language of the distinguished participants.

In the United States Senate, on January 20, 1830,

in his first speech on the Foot Resolution, which pre-

cipitated the famous debate with Hayne, Daniel Web-

ster spoke as follows on the Ordinance of 1787 and its

authorship:

At the foundation of the constitution of these new north-

western states, lies the celebrated Ordinance of 1787. We are

Poole. The Ordinance of 1787 and Dr. Manasseh Cutler in North

American Review for April, 1876.

Vol. XXXIII -- 9.



130 Ohio Arch

130       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

accustomed, sir, to praise the lawgivers of antiquity; we help

to perpetuate the fame of Solon and Lycurgus; but I doubt

whether one single law of any lawgiver, ancient or modern, has

produced effects of more distinct, marked and lasting character

than the Ordinance of 1787. That instrument was drawn by

Nathan Dane, then and now a citizen of Massachusetts. It

was adopted, as I think I have understood, without the slightest

alteration; and certainly it has happened to few men to be

the author of a political measure of more large and enduring

consequence. It fixed forever the character of the population

in the vast region northwest of the Ohio, by excluding from

them involuntary servitude. It impressed on the soil itself,

while it was yet a wilderness, an incapacity to sustain any other

than freemen. It laid the interdict against personal servitude,

in original compact, not only deeper than all local law, but deeper

also than all local constitutions.

Under the circumstances then existing, I look upon this

original and seasonable provision, as a real good attained. We

see its consequences at this moment, and we shall never cease to

see them, perhaps, while the Ohio shall flow. It was a great

and salutary measure of prevention. Sir, I should fear the re-

buke of no intelligent gentleman of Kentucky, were I to ask

whether, if such an ordinance could have been applied to his own

State, while it yet was a wilderness, and before Boone had passed

the gap of the Alleghanies, he does not suppose it would have con-

tributed to the ultimate greatness of that Commonwealth? It is,

at any rate, not to be doubted, that, where it did apply, it has

produced an effect not easily to be described, or measured in the

growth of the States, and the extent and increase of their popu-

lation.

 

Senator Thomas H. Benton of Missouri preceded

Hayne in reply to the first speech of Webster on the

famous Foot Resolution. He undertook to break the

effect of that speech by ridicule and an appeal to the

records. Benton's biographer seems to think that the

Senator capped the climax of his reply to Webster in

calling that Senator to account for ascribing to Nathan

Dane the credit of writing the Ordinance of 1787. Here

is what Benton said on this point January 20, 1830, in

reply to Webster:



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 131

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  131

 

He has brought before us a certain Nathan Dane, of

Beverly, Massachusetts, and loaded him with such an exuberance

of blushing honors as no modern name has been known to merit

or to claim. Solon, Lycurgus, and Numa Pompilius are the

renowned legislators of antiquity to whom he is compared, and

only compared for the purpose of being placed at their head.

So much glory was earned by a single act, and that act, the sup-

posed authorship of the ordinance of 1787, for the government

of the Northwestern Territory, and especially of the clause in

it which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude. Mr. Dane

was assumed to be the author of this clause, and upon that

assumption was found, not only the great superstructure of Mr.

Dane's glory, but a claim also upon the gratitude of Ohio and

all the Northwest, to the unrivalled legislator who was the

author of their happiness, and to this quarter of the Union

which was the producer of the legislator. So much encomium

and such grateful consequences, it seems a pity to spoil -- but

spoilt they must be; for Mr. Dane was no more the author of

that ordinance than you or I, who about that time were "mew-

ling and puling in our nurse's arms." That ordinance and espe-

cially the non-slavery clause, was not the work of Nathan Dane

of Massachusetts, but of Thomas Jefferson of Virginia. It was

reported by a committee of three, Messrs. Jefferson of Virginia,

Chase of Maryland, and Howard of Rhode Island -- a majority

from the slave states, in April, 1784, nearly two years before

Mr. Dane became a member of Congress. The clause was not

adopted at that time, there being but six states in favor of it

and the articles of confederation, on questions of that character,

requiring seven. The next year, 1785, the clause with some

modification, was moved by Mr. King, of New York, as a

proposition to be sent to a committee, and was sent to the com-

mittee accordingly; but still did not ripen into a law. A year

afterwards, the clause and the whole ordinance was passed.

upon the report of a committee of six members, of whom the

name of Mr. Dane stands No. 5, in the order of arrangement on

the Journal. There were but eight states present at the passing

of the ordinance, namely, Massachusetts, New York, New

Jersey, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and

Georgia; and every one voted for it. So passes away the glory

of this world. But yesterday the name of Nathan Dane, of

Beverly, Massachusetts, hung in equipoise against half the names

of the sages of Greece and Rome. Poetry and eloquence were

at work to blazon his fame; marble, and brass, and history, and

song were waiting to perform their office. The celestial honors

of the apotheosis seemed to be only deferred for the melancholy



132 Ohio Arch

132        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

event of the sepulchre. To-day all this superstructure of honors,

human and divine, disappears from the earth. The foundation

of the edifice is sapped; and the superhuman glories of him who,

twenty-four hours ago, was taking his station among the demi-

gods of antiquity, have dispersed and dissipated into thin air --

vanishing like the baseless fabric of a vision, which leaves not

a rack behind.8

At first reading this reply seems to have demolished

the structure erected to Dane by Webster but that dis-

tinguished statesman shortly afterward, on January 26,

1830, in his second speech on Foot's Resolution, better

known as his reply to Hayne,9 first devoted some atten-

tion to Benton and sustained at some length his claim

for Nathan Dane. In his speech that covered two days

and touched on many phases of his plea for the Union

"now and forever, one and inseparable," he again spoke

as follows of the Ordinance of 1787 and the claim of

Nathan Dane to authorship:

Having had occasion to recur to the Ordinance of 1787,

in order to defend myself against the inferences which the

honorable member has chosen to draw from my former observa-

tions on that subject, I am not willing now entirely to take leave

of it without another remark. It need hardly be said, that that

paper expresses just sentiments on the great subject of civil

and  religious liberty.  Such sentiments were common, and

abound in all our state papers of that day. But this Ordinance

8 Register of Debates in Congress, Vol. VI, Part I, 1829-1830, p. 96.

There were five, not six, members of the committee, Carrington, Dane,

R. H. Lee, Kean and Smith. Dane's name was second on the list.

The St. Clair Papers, Vol. II, p. 610. Senator Benton evidently had

another committee in mind; hence his error.

9 Senator Hayne followed Senator Benton in the controversy rela-

tive to the Ordinance of 1787 but added nothing new. What he said on

the subject of slavery, however, in the course of his argument is of

interest here:

I can truly say that slavery, in the abstract, has but few advocates

or defenders in the slave-holding states, and that slavery as itself, an

hereditary institution descended upon us from our ancestors, would have

fewer advocates among us than it has, if those who have nothing to do

with the subject would only let us alone. The sentiment in favor of

slavery was much weaker before those intermeddlers began their opera-

tions than it is at present. -- Benton, Thirty Years' View, Vol. I, p. 136.



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 133

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  133

 

did that which was not so common, and which is not even now

universal; that is, it set forth and declared it to be a high and

binding duty of government itself to support schools and ad-

vance the means of education, on the plain reason that religion,

morality, and knowledge are necessary to good government, and

to the happiness of mankind. One observation further. The

important provision incorporated into the Constitution of the

United States, and into several of those of the States, and

recently, as we have seen, adopted into the reformed con-

stitution of Virginia, restraining legislative power in questions

of private right, and from impairing the obligation of con-

tracts, is first introduced and established, as far as I am in-

formed, as matter of express written constitutional law, in this

Ordinance of 1787. And I must add, also, in regard to the

author of the Ordinance, who has not had the happiness to

attract the gentleman's notice heretofore, nor to avoid his sar-

casm now, that he was chairman of that select committee of the

old Congress, whose report first expressed the strong sense of

that body, that the old Confederation was not adequate to the

exigencies of the country, and recommended to the States

to send delegates to the convention which formed the present

Constitution.

An attempt has been made to transfer from the North to

the South the honor of this exclusion of slavery from the North-

western Territory. The journal, without argument or comment,

refutes such attempts. The cession by Virginia was made in

March, 1784. On the 19th of April following, a committee,

consisting of Messrs. Jefferson, Chase, and Howell, reported

a plan for a temporary government of the territory, in which

was this article: "That, after the year 1800, there shall be

neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said

States, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the

party shall have been convicted." Mr. Spaight of North Caro-

lina moved to strike out this paragraph. The question was put,

according to the form then practised. "Shall these words stand

as a part of the plan?" New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode

Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania,

seven States, voted in the affirmative; Maryland, Virginia, and

South Carolina, in the negative. North Carolina was divided.

As the consent of nine States was necessary, the words could

not stand, and were struck out accordingly. Mr. Jefferson voted

for the clause, but was overruled by his colleagues.

In March of the next year (1785), Mr. King of Mas-

sachusetts, seconded by Mr. Ellery of Rhode Island, proposed

the formerly rejected article, with this addition: "And that this



134 Ohio Arch

134       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

regulation shall be an article of compact, and remain a funda-

mental principle of the constitutions between the thirteen original

States, and each of the States described in the resolve."  On

this clause, which provided the adequate and thorough security,

the eight Northern States at that time voted affirmatively, and

the four Southern States negatively. The votes of nine States

were not yet obtained, and thus the provision was again re-

jected by the Southern States. The perseverance of the North

held out, and two years afterwards the object was attained. It

is no derogation from the credit, whatever that may be, of

drawing the Ordinance, that its principles had before been pre-

pared and discussed, in the form of resolutions. If one should

reason in that way, what would become of the distinguished

honor of the author of the Declaration of Independence? There

is not a sentiment in that paper which had not been voted and

resolved in the assemblies, and other popular bodies in the

country, over and over again.*

 

It may by of collateral interest to note here that

the eulogistic references of Webster to Ohio and the

Ordinance of 1787 precipitated the famous Webster-

Hayne Debate.     These references have already been

quoted in part only. Webster traced the rapid develop-

ment of Ohio from an unbroken wilderness to a pros-

perous state of one million inhabitants.     "This new

member of the Republic," said he, "has already left far

behind her a majority of the old states. She is now

by the side of Virginia and Pennsylvania; and in point

of numbers, will shortly admit no equal but New York

herself."

When the Senate convened on January 21, 1830,

Mr. Hayne gave evidence that he had been deeply stirred

by Webster's reference to slavery as a source of weak-

ness to Kentucky and the South.       He declared that

"he would not deny that some things had fallen from

that gentleman [Webster] which rankled here, [touch-

 

* Register of Debates in Congress, Vol. VI, p. 62.



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 135

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 135

ing his breast] from which he would desire, at once,

to relieve himself." Webster had discharged his fire

"in the face of the Senate." He [Hayne] hoped that

Webster would "now afford him the opportunity of

returning the shot."

"I am ready to receive it," said Webster. "Let the

discussion proceed."

The memorable debate then proceeded.          In the

course of it Hayne explained more fully the occasion of

his discomfiture as follows:

The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts has gone out

of his way to pass a high eulogium on the State of Ohio. In the

most impassioned tones of eloquence, he described her majestic

march to greatness. He told us that, having already left all

the other States far behind, she was now passing by Virginia, and

Pennsylvania, and about to take her station by the side of New

York. To all this, sir, I was disposed most cordially to respond.

When, however, the gentleman proceeded to contrast the State of

Ohio with Kentucky, to the disadvantage of the latter, I listened

to him with regret; and when he proceeded further to attribute

the great, and, as he supposed, acknowledged superiority of the

former in population, wealth, and general prosperity, to the

policy of Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts, which had secured to

the people of Ohio (by the ordinance of '87) a population of

freemen, I will confess that my feelings suffered a revulsion,

which I am now unable to describe in any language sufficiently

respectful towards the gentleman from Massachusetts. In con-

trasting the State of Ohio with Kentucky, for the purpose of

pointing out the superiority of the former, and of attributing

that superiority to the existence of slavery, in the one State,

and its absence in the other, I thought I could discern the very

spirit of the Missouri question intruded into this debate, for

objects best known to the gentleman himself.

After reading the discussion relative to the author-

ship of the Ordinance of 1787 by such distinguished

statesmen one naturally wonders what Nathan Dane

himself had to say on the subject. The discussion of

course aroused much interest throughout the country.



136 Ohio Arch

136       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

In answer to a letter of inquiry, Dane addressed John

H. Farnham, Secretary       of the   Indiana   Historical

Society, as follows:

BEVERLY, MASS., May 12, 1831.

DEAR SIR: A few days ago I received your letter of April

12, 1831, inclosing the printed constitution and circular of the

Indiana Historical Society. It is truly gratifying to observe the

rapid, the respectable, and the substantial manner in which the

Northwestern Territory is settled. In your letter you say: "We

have been accustomed in Indiana to regard you as the author

and supporter of the ordinance* of 1787; that was the opinion

until a senator from Missouri (Col. Benton) in the senate,

session '29 and '30, denied your agency," etc. As you express

a strong desire "to receive an authentic history of the Magna

Charta of no less than three states, to be deposited in the

archives of your society, I send inclosed the printed note 'A'

as the best concise account extant of the ordinance and its

formation. The note is a part of an appendix to the ninth

volume of my General Abridgment of American Law, with

occasional notes and comments.

As to the article excluding slavery, an important one,

though perhaps not more so than the provision against impair-

ing contracts, two questions arise: Who first thought of ex-

cluding slavery from the Northwestern Territory? Who caused

the article to be made a part of the ordinance? The committee

that reported the plan of April, 1784, including an article against

slavery, very imperfect (as stated in the printed note), con-

sisted of Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Chase, of Maryland, and Mr.

Howell, of Rhode Island. As Mr. Howell was from a non-

slave-holding state, an active and able member, might he not

more probably first think of excluding slavery? Be that as it

may, the slave article in the plan of 1784 was very deficient,

and the plan being adopted and the slave article rejected, there

was an end of it. The next year, '85, Mr. King, of Massa-

chusetts, moved to, add a slave article, better in words, but im-

perfect in substance; this being only committed, a slave article

was no longer proposed by any committee. When the ordinance

of '87 was reported to congress, and under consideration, from

what I had heard, I concluded that a slave article might be

adopted, and I moved the article as it is in the ordinance. It

* Many writers do not begin the word "ordinance" with a capital

letter. In quotations the capitalization of the original is followed.



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 137

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  137

was added, and unanimously agreed to, I thought to the great

honor of the slave-holding states.

As it may be asked, how does this motion appear, it is

proper to add: In the Missouri debate (as stated in the note)

expressions were used that made it proper to inquire in whose

handwriting the ordinance was. Mr. Otis, then in the senate,

caused inquiry to be made, and received from Daniel Brent a

certificate, of which the following is a copy:

"I have the pleasure to send you a printed copy of the

ordinance of 1787, found among the old papers of congress,

with the draft in manuscript of the sixth article introduced into

that ordinance. We can find nowhere the report of the com-

mittee upon which the ordinance was founded, but I presume

the handwriting of the amendment will be sufficient for your

purpose."

Mr. Otis, in his letter to me, says that the amendment (the

slave article) was in my handwriting. These facts show who

caused the slave article to be made a part of the ordinance. In

fact, the plan of 1784 was so very imperfect that it could not

be amended to answer any purpose, nor could materials be

found in it to form a thirteenth part of the ordinance of July

13, 1787. Your obedient servant,

N. DANE

JOHN H. FARNHAM, Salem, Indiana.

(Inclosure)

 

NOTES

NOTE A.

As after after the lapse of 43 years, some for the first time

claim the ordinance of July 13, 1787, as a Virginia production;

in substance Mr. Jefferson's, it is material to compare it with

his plan or resolve (not ordinance) of April, 1784, in order to

show how very groundless the assertion of Senator B. is, that

the ordinance of '87 was "chiefly copied" from his plan. -- To

those who make the comparison, not a word need be said to

refute his assertion -- On the face of them the difference is so

visible and essential -- But thousands read his speeches, ex-

tensively published, where one makes this comparison. It is

surprising, at this late day, that this claim is made for Virginia,

never made by herself.

As but few possess the Journals of the Old Congress, in

which Mr. Jefferson's plan of '84 and the ordinance of '87,

formed by the author, are recorded, it is proper here, concisely

to point out the material difference between them. 1st. The



138 Ohio Arch

138       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

plan of '84 is contained in two pages and a half; the ordinance

of '87 in eight pages. 2nd. The first page in the plan, or re-

solve, of '84, is entirely omitted in the ordinance of '87.

3d. From the remaining page and a half of the plan there

appears to be transferred to the ordinance in substance, these

provisions, to wit: 1st. "The said territory and the states which

may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this

confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the

articles of confederation." 2nd. "To all the acts and ordinances

of the United States in Congress assembled, conformable there-

to."  3d. "The inhabitants and settlers in the said territory

shall be subject to pay their part of the federal debts, contracted,

or to be contracted, to be apportioned on them, by Congress,

according to the same common rule and measure, by which ap-

portionments thereof shall be made on the other states." 4th.

"The legislatures of those districts, or new States shall never

interfere with the primary disposal of the soil, by the United

States in Congress assembled; nor with any regulations Congress

may find necessary, for securing the title to such soil to the

bola fide purchasers."  5th. "No tax shall be imposed on lands

the property of the United States." 6th. "And in no case shall

non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than residents."  It

will be observed the provisions 4, 5 and 6, some now view as

oppressive to the west, were taken from Mr. Jefferson's plan.

The residue of the ordinance of '87 consists of two descriptions,

one original as the provisions to prevent legislatures enacting

laws to impair contracts previously made -- to secure to the

Indians their rights and property -- part of the titles to prop-

erty made more purely republican and more completely divested

of feudality than any other titles in the union were in July,

1787 -- The temporary organization  was new -- no part of it

was in the plan of '84. The other description was selected

mainly from the constitution and laws of Massachusetts, as any

one may see who knows what American law was in '87 -- as 1st.

Titles to property, by will, by deed, by descent, and by de-

livery, cited verbatim in the 7th Volume of this Abridgment,

pages 389-390. -- Here it may be observed that titles to lands

once taking root are important, as they are usually permanent.

-- In this case they were planted in 400,000 square miles of

territory, and took root as was intended. 2d. All the funda-

mental, perpetual articles of compact, except as below, as 1st.

Securing forever religious liberty. 2d. The essential parts of

a bill of rights declaring that religion, morality and knowledge,

being necessary to good government and the happiness of man-

kind, schools and the means of education shall forever be en-









142

142                Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

couraged.      These selections from the code of Massachusetts

as also the titles to property have created for her an extensive

and lasting influence in the West, and of the most republican,

liberal and beneficial kind.

The organization, providing officers to select or make, to

decide on and execute laws, being temporary, was not deemed

an important part of the ordinance of '87. Charles Pinckney

assisted in striking out a part of this in 1786.

The 6th article on compact, the slave article, is imperfectly

understood -- Its history is -- in 1784 a committee, consisting

of Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Chase, and Mr. Howell, reported it, as

a part of the plan of 1784. This Congress struck out; only

two members south of Pennsylvania supported it -- all north of

Maryland, present, voted to preserve it, so to exclude slavery.

It was imperfect, First, as it admitted slavery till the year 1800.

Second, it admitted slavery in very considerable parts of the

territory forever, as will appear on a critical examination, espe-

cially in the parts owned for ages by French, Canadian and

other inhabitants, as their property, provided for only in the

ordinance of '87. In this ordinance of '87 slavery is excluded

from its date, and forever from every part of the whole "terri-

tory of the United States, North West of the River Ohio,"

over all of which the ordinance established government.

The amended slave article, as it is in the ordinance of '87

was added on the author's motion, and, as the Journals shew,

was not reported.

In the said 7th Volume published in 1824 full credit is

given to Mr. Jefferson and Mr. King, on account of their slave

article, too limited -- amended in July '87 by extending the

ordinance of that date, so the slave article in it, over the whole

territory and to take effect from the date. In 1802 the Indian

article was made a fundamental part of a Southern compact --

The provision as to impairing contracts was afterwards adopted

into the constitution of the United States, also into the several

state constitutions, and after forty years experience into that of

Virginia.

In the great Missouri debate in 1820, etc., one Southern

member, at least, viewed this ordinance as a Northern usurpa-

tion; especially, as to the six articles of compact. Mr. B. in

1830 claims it an honor to Virginia and Mr. Jefferson. Col.

Carrington, of Virginia, as chairman, of the committee pro

forma, reported the ordinance, but formed no part of it. Of

late years this ordinance has been made a subject of particular

importance, as proving the authors of it have afforded essential

means in promoting the prosperity and rapid growth of the



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 143

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  143

 

West -- It was found in the great Missouri debate the Southern

attempt to run it down would not do. As a Western Senator

said, in that debate, in Congress, it had been the cloud by day

and a pillar of fire by night in settling the country -- Others,

to the same purpose. On this and some other discoveries, this

Northern usurpation, as Charles Pinckney viewed it, is now

claimed as a Southern production to prove Southern friendship

to the West -- also to prove even in '87 the East did nothing

in building up the West. In this point of view the East will

not readily yield its just claim in that business -- a claim not

denied for 40 years and more.

On the whole, if there be any praise or any blame in this

ordinance; especially in the titles to property and in the

permanent parts; so the most important, it belongs to Mas-

sachusetts, as one of her members formed it and furnished the

matter with the exceptions, following. First, he was assisted

in the committee of 86 in the temporary organization, almost

solely by Mr. C. Pinckney, who did so little he felt himself at

liberty to condemn this ordinance in that debate. Secondly,

the author took from Mr. Jefferson's resolve of '84 in substance

the said six provisions in the fourth article of compact as above

stated. Thirdly, he took the words of the slave article from

Mr. King's motion made in 1785, and extended its operation,

as to time, and extent of territory, as is above-mentioned --

as to matter his invention furnishing the provisions respecting

impairing contracts and the Indian security, and some other

smaller matters, the residue, no doubt, he selected from ex-

isting laws, etc. In regard to the matter of this note, it is a

portion of American law properly and conveniently placed in

this appendix. -- The particular form of this note is in answer

to many requests, lately made, by members of Congress and

others to be informed respecting the formation, the detail and

authorship of this ordinance, which in forty years has so often

restrained insolvent acts, stop laws, and other improper legis-

lation impairing contracts.10

The debate in which Webster, Benton and Hayne

participated and the discussion throughout the country

that followed in regard to the authorship of the Ordi-

nance of 1787 and other matters involved in the historic

debate led the Pennsylvania Historical Society to ex-

 

10 Dane, Abridgment of American Law, Vol. IX, Appendix -- Notes,

pp. 74-76



144 Ohio Arch

144      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

tend an invitation to Edward Coles, Governor of Illinois,

1822-1826, to deliver before that body an address that

was expected to definitely and finally settle all questions

raised in regard to the Ordinance. Mr. Coles had been

elected Governor of Illinois in an exciting contest by a

plurality of only fifty votes. He ran on a platform

which pledged him to maintain the provision of the

Ordinance which excluded slavery from the Northwest

Territory. He was thoroughly familiar with the efforts

that had been made to introduce slavery into Illinois and

Indiana. His interesting address is a valuable con-

tribution to the history of the stirring times through

which he lived and administered the office of chief ex-

ecutive of the state of Illinois. It is a succinct and

authoritative statement of the efforts to introduce slav-

ery in that state and the state of Indiana in violation

of the sixth article of compact in the Ordinance. Mr.

Coles' effort, however, to prove that Thomas Jefferson

deserved the credit for authorship of that Ordinance is

not so fortunate. It shows that he was not familiar

with the successive steps in the evolution of that great

charter which superseded the Ordinance of 1784 which

was drawn and introduced by Jefferson. Governor

Coles stated at the outset that he had not been able

because of advanced age and physical infirmities to

make the thorough research for information on this

subject that he desired. His investigation, however,

seems to have led him to the conclusion that there could

be no question in regard to Jefferson's title to the honor

of authorship. In support of this view he said in the

course of this address:

A comparison of the plan of government, as drawn by Mr.

Jefferson, and that finally adopted by Congress, both of which



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 145

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  145

 

I have endeavored briefly to sketch, will show -- 1st. That with

Mr. Jefferson, originated the idea of a compact between the

original States and the new States to be formed out of the ter-

ritories, unalterable but by their joint consent. 2nd. That his

plan of government or ordinance was intended to apply to all

territory, ceded or to be ceded by individual States to the United

States; while the ordinance passed by Congress confined it to

territory previously acquired -- that is to the territory north-

west of the river Ohio. 3d. That by Mr. Jefferson's plan or

ordinance the territory was to be formed into distinct States,

whose names and boundaries were designated; with a provision

that they might form a temporary government; adopt the con-

stitution and laws of any one of the original States, such laws

being, however, subject to alteration by themselves; have a

representation in Congress, though without a vote; and when

they should have 20,000 inhabitants, form a permanent State

government, and be admitted into the Union, on an equal foot-

ing with the original States -- all which provisions were those

which formed substantially the ordinance as finally adopted by

Congress, though it was so far qualified, that a State could not

claim a right of admission into the Union until it had 80,000

inhabitants; to which were added in more detail the form of

territorial government and some specific regulations in regard

to the inheritance and conveyance of property. 4th. That to

the provisions which Mr. Jefferson originated and inserted in

his plan, making it a matter of compact that the new States

should forever remain part of the United States; be subject to

the government of Congress, and the articles of confederation;

bear their share of the federal debts; adhere to a republican

form of government, and admit no one to citizenship who

should hold an hereditary title -- to these the Ordinance as

adopted by Congress added provisions to, protect the public

lands from interference and taxation; to preserve as highways

some of the great rivers; and to enlarge the enumeration of the

personal rights of the citizen. 5th. That the most important

clause in Mr. Jefferson's plan -- that which provided that "after

the year 1800 of the Christian era there should be neither

slavery, nor involuntary servitude, in any of the said States,

otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall

have been duly convicted to have been personally guilty" -- was

adopted by Congress with no change, except the omission of the

postponement of its operation until 1800, and the introduction

of the clause for the restoration of fugitive slaves.

Some of the above particulars would not have been stated

so fully but for a claim which has been made to the authorship

Vol. XXXIII -- 10.



146 Ohio Arch

146       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

of the ordinance on behalf of Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts.

To show a misconception somewhere, and in a word, the ground-

less character of this claim, it is only necessary to state that

Mr. Dane took his seat in Congress for the first time, on the 17th

of November, 1785, more than eighteen months after the

ordinance had been conceived and brought forth by its great

author, and been adopted by Congress, with certain alterations,

the principal one of which, on motion of Mr. King, had been

in effect cancelled and the original provisions restored nearly in

the words of Mr. Jefferson, eight months before Dr. Dane took

his seat in Congress. The Journals of Congress do not show

that Mr. Dane had any particular part in forming the ordinance,

beyond serving on two of the several committees to which it

was referred. What he did on those committees, I have no

means of knowing. He may have been active and instrumental

in working into the ordinance his favorite provisions about

titles to property; and thus his phrase may be rendered in-

telligible, where he says that he had "formed it mainly from the

laws of Massachusetts."11

In his Thirty Years View Senator Benton draws

attention to the argument of Edward Coles supporting

Jefferson's claim to authorship of the Ordinance of

1787. In regard to the debate in the Senate and the

view of Mr. Coles he says:

Mr. Webster was present when I read these extracts, and

said nothing. He neither reaffirmed his previous statement, that

Mr. Dane was the author of the Ordinance, and that "this great

measure was carried by the North, and by the North alone."

He said nothing; nor did he afterwards correct the errors of

his speech; and now they remain in it, and have given occasion

to a very authentic newspaper contradiction of his statement,

copies, like my statement to the Senate, from the Journals of

the old Congress. It was by Edward Coles, Esq., formerly of

Virginia and private secretary to President Madison, afterwards

Governor of the state of Illinois and now a citizen of Pennsyl-

vania, resident of Philadelphia. He made his correction through

the National Intelligencer of Washington City; and being drawn

from the same sources it agrees entirely with my own. And

thus the South is entitled to the credit of originating and pass-

ing this great measure -- a circumstance to be remembered and

11 Coles, History of the Ordinance of 1787, pp. 13-15.



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 147

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  147

 

quoted, as showing the South at that time in taking the lead in

curtailing and restricting the existence of slavery.12

Senator Benton and Governor Coles base their argu-

ments on the assumption that the Ordinance was before

Congress from the time Jefferson introduced his reso-

lutions for the government of the Western Territory

to July 13, 1787. After a thorough examination of the

manuscript journals and accompanying documents of

the Continental Congress Peter Force prepared a paper

on the history of the Ordinance which is published as

an appendix to Vol. II of The St. Clair papers. At the

conclusion of his painstaking review he says:

It appears, then, that, instead of having "this Ordinance

under deliberation and revision for three years and six months,"

in five days it was passed through all the forms of legislation --

the reference, the action of the committee, the report, the three

several readings, the discussion and amendment by Congress,

and its final passage.

In his survey, Mr. Force elsewhere says:

This committee did not "merely revise the Ordinance;" they

prepared and reported the great bill of rights for the territory

northwest of the Ohio.

The conclusive arguments and claims successively

submitted, however, did not settle the question of author-

ship to the satisfaction of William Frederick Poole, a

reputable research authority, who has left his series

of indexes to periodical literature that have placed stu-

dents and librarians under a perpetual obligation to him.

Mr. Poole thought he had discovered new light on this

controversial subject and in his contribution to the North

American Review    for April, 1876, he gave the public

 

12 Benton, Thirty Years' View, Vol. I, p. 135



148 Ohio Arch

148       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

the benefit of his research and conclusions. He finds

inaccuracies all along the line of previous discussions

and summarizes a few of them in the following para.

graph:

Several ordinances for the government of the Northwestern

Territory were before Congress from 1784 to 1787, and the

first authentic information concerning them appeared in a paper

prepared by Mr. Peter Force of Washington, and printed in the

National Intelligencer of August 26, 1847.  Mr. Force, when

searching for materials for his "American Archives," found a

parcel of manuscripts containing the original reports relating

to these several ordinances, with the changes and amendments

attached, their precise condition at different dates, and mem

oranda of the disposition made of them. His paper embodied

a statement of these facts. Governor Coles, writing nine years

later, was not even aware of the existence of Mr. Force's paper,

and hence his statements and his conclusions were strangely

inaccurate. Mr. Force's statement, valuable as it is, falls far

short of being a complete account of the Ordinance. It, how-

ever, developed the fact, for the first time, that, instead of

being under consideration for three years and six months, as

Governor Coles and some other writers have asserted, it was

in the brief space of four successive days, drafted de novo

reported to Congress, took its first, second, and third reading

and was enacted by the unanimous vote of all the States present

Mr. Force was amazed at this sudden action, and confesses his

inability to explain it. It is the good fortune of the writer to

have in his possession original and contemporary manuscripts

and other authentic evidence, which will show how this sudden

action was brought about, and who was the person that inspired

and controlled this action.

 

Mr. Poole dwells upon the Ordinance that was sub-

mitted on July 9, 1787, and finds it not at all like the

Ordinance adopted five days later. This is what he

says of it:

Among the papers found by Mr. Force was the original

draft of this ordinance as it stood on the 10th of May, and as

it came down without amendment to the 9th of July, only five

days before the real Ordinance of 1787 was passed. Mr. Force

has printed its full text. That Mr. Dane or any other Northern



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 149

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  149

 

man should have served on a committee which drafted such an

ordinance, and called for its third reading on the 10th of May,

1787, is evidence that there were very crude ideas in Congress

at that time as to what an ordinance defining the fundamental

laws of the Northwestern Territory should be. It had no re-

semblance to the Ordinance which passed on the 13th of July.

It had no restriction of slavery, none of those sublime principles

as to personal and civil rights, education, religion, and morality,

and the obligation of contracts, which appeared in the later

Ordinance. It had no articles of compact; in short, it had none

of those provisions which have made the Ordinance of 1787

so beneficial and renowned.13

Mr. Poole has much to say about the style of the

Ordinance and points to that as evidence that Dane

could not have been its author. Among other things

he says:

What Dr. Cutler, Mr. Dane, Colonel Carrington, or any

other member of the committee contributed to the Ordinance,

the public records of the time are silent concerning. Mr. Dane

doubtless wrote the draft and performed the clerical duties of

the committee. Its style, however, which is smooth, compact

and elegant, is not the style of Mr. Dane, which was loose, ragged

and inelegant. *  *  *  Some other hand than Mr. Dane's

must have been concerned in its formation and revision.13

Somebody, however, must have written the Ordi-

nance.   We can not assume that like Topsy "it just

growed."     Dr. Poole would not have us think         so.

He has in reservation information which, in his opinion,

clears up all obscurities and irrefutably establishes the

authorship for a new claimant. With what satisfaction

he must have viewed the surprise that he had in store

for those interested in historical research and disputed

authorship.   He approaches the point of interest thus:

It is evident from the investigation we have followed that

some sudden and potent influence was brought to bear upon

13 Poole, The Ordinance of 1787 and Dr. Manasseh Cutler in North

American Review for April, 1876.



150 Ohio Arch

150      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

Congress in the early days of July, 1787, which changed the

whole current of action respecting the organic law for the gov-

ernment of the Northwestern Territory, which inspired new

ideas and suddenly crystallized in the matchless specimen of

legislation which we are considering. What was that influence?

To this inquiry we will now direct our attention.14

He then proceeds to describe the sudden appearance

on July 5, 1787, of his claimant in New York City. The

reverend gentleman drove up "in his one-horse sulky to

the 'Plow and Harrow', a tavern in the Bowery, and

sent his horse for entertainment to the Bowery barns."

He had business with Congress. He wished to purchase

a large tract of land for the Ohio Company. "His name

was Manasseh Cutler."

Dr. Poole then tells what happened:

While the good Doctor was in New York transacting this

business, the Ordinance of 1787 was drafted and passed. The

writer has in his possession the manuscript journal Dr. Cutler

kept during this period, and only extracts from it have ever

been printed. This journal supplements the material which Mr.

Force discovered, and shedding light upon those few days in

July, enables us to see why, how and by whom, that sudden

action of Congress was inspired.15

A peculiar difficulty, met by those who have essayed

to prove that Mr. Dane is entitled to little or no credit for

the authorship of the Ordinance, is found in the fact that

the report of the committee which was made by the

chairman, Colonel Edward Carrington, contained no

mention whatever of slavery. The last section of the

compact embraces this important provision and there is

no discussion as to how it was placed there. Upon that

question all are agreed. On July 12, when the Ordi-

 

14 Poole, The Ordinance of 1787 and Dr. Manasseh Cutler in North

American Review for April, 1876.

15 Ibid.



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 151

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  151

nance was before Congress Nathan Dane offered the

article of compact. In his letter to Rufus King he gives

a very good reason why he offered it. Not only has he

stated this at different times, but his statement is cor-

roborated by the Journal of Congress and the testi-

mony of contemporaries. More than that, the identical

article in his own handwriting as he offered it has

been found with the manuscript journals of Congress.

The importance of this article, too, has been generally

conceded. Mr. Poole admits its supreme importance.

The question naturally arises, if Mr. Dane had little

or nothing to do with the authorship of the Ordinance,

how does it happen that he had the sagacity to offer this

important provision at the psychological moment and

secure its adoption? Dr. Poole has tried to answer this

question. This is what he says:

Mr. Dane assumed, however, the responsibility, under an

entire misapprehension of the sentiments of Congress, of with-

holding the anti-slavery clause till the second reading. What

would the Ordinance have been for the purpose for which it

was intended without that clause?16

Yes, indeed. What would the Ordinance have been

without that clause? It would have been more unfor-

tunate than "Hamlet with Hamlet left out." And what

would it have been without that clause in just the form

in which it was presented by Nathan Dane? He took

the original proposal offered by Thomas Jefferson in

1784; but he cut from it the postponement to the year

1801, -- fourteen years thence -- when slavery would

probably have been established throughout the North-

west Territory. The form in which he offered the article

16 Poole, The Ordinance of 1787 and Dr. Manasseh Cutler in North

American Review for April, 1876.



152 Ohio Arch

152      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

made the anti-slavery clause immediately operative. He

added, it is true, the provision for the return of fugitive

slaves, a provision that in any event would have been

made by Congress under the constitution. By virtue of

this article as it was added to the Ordinance the in-

habitants of all the states formed from the Northwest

Territory may proudly and truly say that their home

land was from the very beginning dedicated to universal

liberty.

But in this digression as to the importance of the

sixth article of the compact, we shall not forget Dr.

Poole's statement that Nathan Dane, who was little

more than a clerk of the committee, had the audacity

to withhold from the report this article which is assumed

to have been agreed upon and that the statesman, Ed-

ward Carrington, in offering the report had not dis-

covered that Dane had withheld this important pro-

vision.

This statement and others of a similar character

made by Dr. Poole in his carefully prepared contribution

to the North American Review in 1876 seems to have

been accepted without much question. So well was he

satisfied that he had made an important contribution

to the early history of the Northwest Territory and so

generally had his views on this subject been approved

that as president of the American Historical Association

he made it the subject of his annual address before that

body in Washington, December 26, 1888. In this ad-

dress he speaks as follows of the authorship of the

Ordinance:

In view of its sagacity and foresight, its adaptation for the

purpose it was to accomplish and the rapidity with which it

was carried through Congress, the most reasonable explanation



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 153

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  153

 

as it seems to me, of the origin of the Ordinance is, that it was

brought from Massachusetts by Dr. Cutler, with its principal

and main features developed; that it was laid before the land

committee of congress on July 9 as a sine qua non in the pro-

posed land purchase, and that the only work of the Ordinance

committee was to put it in a form suitable for enactment. The

original draft may have been made by either of the eminent men

who were the directors of the Ohio Company, -- Rufus Putnam,

Manasseh Cutler or Samuel Holden Parsons, but more likely

was their joint production.

 

And thus Dr. Poole finally disposes of Nathan Dane

and with a sweep of the pen consigns him to oblivion

as the mere "scribe of the committee."

It must be admitted, however, that Dr. Poole's later

surmise is more reasonable than his former one. Dr.

Cutler was without doubt a very able man. But he

could not be so busy as represented in his Journal,

visiting congressmen and dining with friends in the

five days spent in New York City, and at the same

time dashing off with apparent ease the Ordinance of

1787 and the act authorizing the land purchase for the

Ohio Company.

But while the latter surmise is more plausible it has

nothing to sustain it in the contemporaneous records

of Congress or the Journal and Correspondence of Dr.

Cutler and his associates. Dr. Poole's views, however,

in the annual address before the American Historical

Association went far toward confirming, in the popular

mind, the claim of Dr. Cutler.

In the year 1889, the conclusions of writers of

American History seem very generally to have trended

toward agreement in regard to the origin of the Ordi-

nance. A writer in the Pennsylvania Magazine thus

describes the consensus of opinion:



154 Ohio Arch

154       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

It has been the theme of a number of essays and addresses

called forth by the celebration in 1888 of the centennial an-

niversary of the settlement at Marietta under the auspices of

the Ohio Company. These investigations have been so numer-

ous that any further consideration of the matter may look like

a work of supererogation; but in all that has appeared, that we

have met with, the same conclusion has been reached, that when

Dr. Cutler visited New York in July, 1787, to negotiate for the

purchase of a tract of land for the Ohio Company, he shaped

the Ordinance adopted by Congress on July 13, 1787, for the

government of the Northwest Territory. Some indeed go so

far as to argue that Dr. Cutler brought the Ordinance with him

from New England and made the adoption of certain provisions

found in it a sine qua non in the purchase of land.17.

 

The authors of monographs and addresses to this

effect are so numerous that they can not be quoted

here. Among them are Senator George F. Hoar and

Dr. Edward Everett Hale, both of whom delivered ad-

dresses at the Marietta celebration, April 7, 1888. An

address before the American Antiquarian Society by

John M. Merriam, frequently quoted, contains this

statement:

The precise articles in the final Ordinance which were due

to the foresight and wisdom of Putnam and Cutler can not now

be precisely pointed out. It seems probable, however, in view

of the earlier stand taken by Putnam and Pickering and their

associates, that provisions for the support of religion and

education and the prohibition of slavery were among the terms

of the negotiation. It is only upon this supposition that the

readiness of Congress to agree upon the sixth article (that

prohibiting slavery) can be explained.18

 

Dr. B. A. Hinsdale in his volume entitled The Old

Northwest, throws his support to the claims of Dr.

Cutler and cites Dr. Poole's contribution to the North

 

17 Stone, The Ordinance of 1787, in Pennsylvania Magazine, Vol. XIII.

p. 309.

18 Ibid., p. 310 (Quoted).



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 155

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 155

American Review and the journals of Manasseh Cutler

as the authoritative sources for information on this

subject. He also quotes with approval Bancroft's dis-

tribution of the honors of authorship which reads as

follows:

Thomas Jefferson first summoned Congress to prohibit

slavery in all the territory of the United States; Rufus King

lifted up the measure when it lay almost lifeless on the

ground and suggested the immediate instead of the prospective

prohibition; a Congress composed of five Southern states to one

from New England and two from the Middle states, headed

by William Grayson, supported by Richard Henry Lee, and

using Nathan Dane as scribe, carried the measure to the goal

in the amended form in which King had caused it to be referred

to a committee; and as Jefferson had proposed, placed it under

the sanction of an irrevocable compact.19

This testimony from Bancroft contains no reference

to Dr. Cutler. It was first published before his name

was prominently connected with the probable author-

ship. It serves the purpose, however, of disposing of

Dane "as scribe" and thus aids in removing a trouble-

some obstruction to those claiming the chief honor for

Dr. Cutler.

In the meantime the Life, Journals and Correspond-

ence of Manasseh Cutler by his grandchildren William

Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler was published

in two ample volumes in 1888 and two years later

appeared the Life and Times of Ephraim Cutler, by

Julia Perkins Cutler. This gave a large circle of readers

whose interest had been aroused by frequent references

to these unpublished volumes an opportunity to read

and carefully consider the value of the information that

they contained.

 

19 Quoted from Hinsdale, in The Old Northwest, p. 274.



156 Ohio Arch

156       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Quotations are here given from these works setting

forth the claims of Dr. Cutler to the authorship of the

Ordinance of 1787.

 

Early in July, 1787, Congress was called upon to consider

an application such as had never before been made. It was a

proposition to undertake the permanent occupation of that dis-

tant wilderness in a systematic manner of settlement, upon a

large scale, embracing distinctly the idea of a "new state," as

cherished by the projectors of the scheme. When Dr. Cutler

placed this scheme before Congress he could appeal honestly

and urgently for the establishment there of such civil and social

institutions as would meet his own wants and those of his

neighbors as pioneer settlers. He could say with propriety:

"If we venture our all, with our families, in this enterprise,

we must know beforehand what kind of foundations we are

to build on." Hence, his first effort was to attend to the organic

law.

There is sufficient historic data to satisfy the inquirer that

this was the situation when, on the 10th of July, 1787, Dr.

Cutler made the following entry in his journal: "This morning

another conference with the committee. As Congress was now

engaged in settling the form of government for the Federal

Territory, for which a bill has been prepared, and a copy sent

to me (with leave to make remarks and propose amendments),

which I had taken the liberty to remark upon and propose sev-

eral amendment, I thought this the most favorable time to go

on to Philadelphia." July 19th, after his return from Phila-

delphia, he says: Called on members of Congress very early

in the morning, and was furnished with the ordinance estab-

lishment a government in the Western Federal Territory. It

is in a degree new modeled. The amendments I proposed have

all been made, except one, and that is better qualified. It was

that we should not be subject to continental taxation unless we

were entitled to a full representation in Congress. This could

not be fully obtained, for it was considered in Congress as of-

fering a premium to emigrants. They have granted us repre-

sentation with the right of debating, but not voting, upon our

being first subject to taxation."

The next inquiry is, what influence did he exert at that time

and under these circumstances in the formation of the ordinance?

It had evidently been a subject of discussion after he had

reached New York, and before he went to Philadelphia, or it

would not have been submitted to him. There is no record of the



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 157

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  157

precise amendments that he suggested; and it is quite probable

that his advice extended to and covered the whole subject, as

his journal shows constant intercourse with the members before

his visit to Philadelphia. It was during this first portion of his

time that the governmental ordinance was under discussion, and

he did not enter fully upon his negotiation for the purchase of

land until his return from Philadelphia, after the passage of the

governmental ordinance. The following traditional testimony is

presented as worthy of acceptance in establishing his claims to

the authorship of some of its most important principles:

Dr. Joseph Torrey, of Salem, Mass., wrote to Judge

Ephraim Cutler, Jan. 30, 1847, as follows: "At a recent pro-

fessional call at Hamilton (Dr. Cutler's home) Brother Temple

produced large files of Ohio documents, but I had time only for

a hasty examination.   I saw  among these documents the

Ordinance of 1787 on a printed sheet. On its margin was writ-

ten that Mr. Dane requested Dr. Cutler to suggest such provi-

sions as he deemed advisable, and that at Dr. Cutler's instance

was inserted what relates to religion, education, and slavery.

These facts have long been known to me as household words."

Hon. Daniel Webster solicited and obtained the examina-

ton of Dr. Cutler's journal. Subsequently, Temple Cutler wrote

to his brother Ephraim: "Webster is now convinced that the

man whose foresight suggested some of these articles was our

Father."

Ephraim Cutler has left the following written statement of

his recollections: "I visited my Father at Washington during

the last session he attended Congress (1804-5). In his boarding

house he occupied a room with the reverend gentleman who rep-

resented the Hampshire and the Connecticut River counties,

whose name I have forgotten. We were in conversation rela-

tive to the political concerns of Ohio, the ruling parties, and the

effect of the (Ohio) Constitution in the promotion of the general

interest, when he observed that he was informed that I had

prepared that portion of the Ohio Constitution which contained

the part of the Ordinance of 1787, which prohibited slavery.

He wished to know if it was a fact. On my assuring him that

it was, he observed that he thought it a singular coincidence, as

he himself had prepared that part of the ordinance while he

was in New York negotiating the purchase of the lands for the

Ohio Company. I had not then seen the Journal he kept while

he was in New York at that time."   In other written mem-

oranda Judge Cutler refers to this conversation with his father,

and states as the reason why his prohibition of slavery, as well



158 Ohio Arch

158       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

as the recognition of religion, morality, and knowledge, as

foundations of civil government, were incorporated into the

ordinance, and provision made in the land purchase for their

support, arose from the fact that "he was acting for associates,

friends, and neighbors, who would not embark in the enterprise,

unless these principles were unalterably fixed."20

The publication of the works from which quotation

has been made gave opportunities for a more careful

and deliberate consideration of the testimony that they

bear in regard to the authorship of the Ordinance of

1787. It soon became apparent that the claims of Dr.

Manasseh Cutler to this honor were not as well sus-

tained as many had at first concluded. In a discrim-

inating, impartial and carefully prepared contribution

by Frederick D. Stone to The Pennsylvania Magazine of

History and Biography for the year 1889 we find a

distinct dissent from the views advanced by Dr. Poole

and the numerous writers who followed his lead.

After carefully reviewing everything that occurred

in the Continental Congress from the introduction of

the resolutions by Jefferson in 1784 up to the adoption

of the Ordinance Mr. Stone says:

This in brief is all the contemporaneous evidence there is,

and the reader has before him an epitome of everything of that

character on which the conclusion is based that Dr. Cutler and

his colleagues were virtually the authors of the Ordinance of

1787. In reviewing it, we wish it distinctly understood that we

would gladly accord to Dr. Cutler all the honor that has been

claimed for him were it not that we consider such a verdict at

variance with the truth of history and unjust to many others

who did much to create the Ordinance.21

 

20 Cutler, Life, Journals and Correspondence of Manasseh Cutler,

Vol. I, pp. 342-344.

21 Stone, The Ordinance of 1787, in The Pennsylvania Magazine,

Vol. XIII, p. 322.



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 159

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  159

In controverting the assumption of Dr. Poole set

forth in his address before the American Historical

Association Mr. Stone says:

There is nothing but argument to support the assertion that

the government of the territory was the subject of conversation

between Cutler and Putnam and Cutler and Parsons when the

good doctor was on his way to seek an interview with Congress.22

Continuing the writer adds:

The interviews, it will be noticed, were brief. With Putnam

Cutler spent but the portion of a day; with Parsons he remained

longer, but the greater part of the time being Sunday was

occupied in preaching for and visiting Mr. Huntington. And

here let us ask, Which is the most probable, that this instrument,

so admirably suited for the work it was to perform, whose

wisdom has called forth such unstinted praise, and which ex-

ercised so powerful an influence in shaping the destinies of the

country, -- which is the most probable, that this should have

been the result of the hasty visits that Cutler paid to Putnam

and Parsons, or the work of a deliberative body, appointed for

the purpose, composed of men some of whom had already given

the matter serious attention, and all more or less familiar with

the character of the work required, having at their command

the archives of Congress containing the record of all that Con-

gress, or the committees of Congress, had ever done in the

matter?

There is not a scintilla of evidence that Dr. Cutler ever

made the adoption of what are claimed as his views in the

ordinance of 1787 a sine qua non in the purchase of land.23

In considering the reported interview of Judge

Ephraim Cutler with his father in Washington relative

to the anti-slavery clause of the Ordinance Mr. Stone

declares:

This is not good historical evidence; but suppose it all true,

does it show anything but that he suggested what had been

again and again before Congress for consideration?24

22 Stone, The Ordinance of 1787, in The Pennsylvania Magazine,

Vol. XIII, p. 323.

23 Ibid., p. 323.

24 Ibid., p. 324.



160 Ohio Arch

160       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Further on in regard to the same subject he adds:

So far from Dr. Cutler's considering the prohibition of

slavery in the territory an essential matter that would influence

him in purchasing land of Congress, it does not appear to us

that it had any weight with him whatever. If it had been other-

wise we do not believe he would have chosen the very time the

question was coming up before Congress for consideration to

have left New York and visited Philadelphia.25

 

The writer proceeds at length with his unanswerable

logic to thoroughly discredit the argument that Dr. Cut-

ler was entitled to the major credit for the authorship

of the Ordinance. He then draws attention to the work

of Nathan Dane:

To Nathan Dane we would accord a much higher place

than that of a scribe. He appears to us to have been rather

the intelligent compiler. He was familiar with the action of

Congress on territorial affairs. It was on his motion that the

committee was appointed in 1786, of which Monroe was chairman,

for reporting a government for the Western States, and in

September he was made a member of that committee. He was

also a member of Johnson's committee, and while on it, with

the assistance of Pinckney, drafted the report presented on

May 9, 1787. In his letter to King, written three days after

the passage of the Ordinance, he says he drew it, and that it

passed, a few words excepted, as he originally formed it. This

would be conclusive regarding authorship were it not for his

subsequent statements and the proof we have that much of it

was the work of others, which leads to the supposition that he

did not intend to claim originality, but construction.26

In 1891 was published with many citations of

authority and an exhaustive bibliography a very inter-

esting monograph by Jay A. Barrett entitled Evolution

of the Ordinance of 1787. In the concluding chapter

he considers very briefly the part that Dr. Cutler may

 

25 Stone, The Ordinance of 1787, in The Pennsylvania Magazine,

Vol. XIII, pp. 325-326.

26 Ibid., 336.



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 161

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  161

have had in the creation of this Ordinance. After a

reference to the plan of Timothy Pickering and others

in 1783 containing a positive slavery prohibition and

the sentiment of the officers of the army who were in-

terested in the West in the inclusion of such a provision,

Mr. Barrett observes:

Dr. Cutler must have been aware of this sentiment, and if

it was his endeavor to suit the associators of the company, he

would have mentioned this, along with other things, as desirable

amendments. If, on the other hand, Dr. Cutler consulted his

own opinion in the matter, it is not so certain that he would

have cared much for an anti-slavery clause. His later history

at least does not show that he was a very ardent champion of

that cause. He was one of the representatives from  Mas-

sachusetts in the eighth Congress; and when it was moved, on

January 18, 1805, to begin on the fourth of July of that year

to emancipate gradually the slaves within the national District,

Manasseh Cutler voted against the measure. Twice in the con-

sideration of this question did he oppose an anti-slavery move.

He may have had special reasons for thus recording his vote;

but, to say the least, it does not show on his part any great

anxiety in the cause of anti-slavery.27

It is a rather remarkable fact in view of all that

has been written on the subject that the Life, Journals

and Correspondence of Manasseh Cutler in two volumes

aggregating 1019 pages does not contain a single ref-

erence from the manuscripts that he left in regard to

his views of slavery or its exclusion from the North-

west Territory. The index has five distinct references

to this subject but not to any written opinion that Dr.

Cutler left in regard to it. There are reminiscences of

the views that he entertained but it is still occasion for

surprise that he passed through the period of the con-

 

27 Barrett, Evolution of the Ordinance of 1787, p. 76.

Vol. XXXIII -- 11.



162 Ohio Arch

162       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

troversy without leaving any statement of his own atti-

tude toward it.

It is not necessary, however, to depend upon hypoth-

eses, analogies, inferences and learned speculation for

light on this interesting and important subject. The

document which it would seem should have settled all

questions in regard to the source and drafting of the

Ordinance is the letter from Nathan Dane to Rufus

King written only three days after the passage of the

Ordinance and before any question had been raised in

regard to its authorship. It is a modest, straightfor-

ward statement without any effort to magnify the work

that he had done in the preparation of this great state

paper. Here it is in full:

 

LETTER FROM NATHAN DANE TO RUFUS KING.

"NEW YORK, July 16, 1787.

To the Hon. RUFUS KING, Esq., Philadelphia.

DEAR SIR: -- I am obliged to you for yours of the 11th

inst; with pleasure I communicate to you what we are doing

in Congress, not so much from a consciousness that what we

do is well done, as from a desire that you may be acquainted

with our proceedings. We have been much engaged in business

for ten or twelve days, for a part of which we have had eight

States. There seems to be a disposition to do business and the

arrival of R. H. Lee is of considerable importance. I think

his character serves, at least in some degree, to check the ef-

fects of the feeble habits and lax mode of thinking of some of

his countrymen. We have been employed about several objects --

the principal of which have been the government inclosed28 and

the Ohio purchase; the former you will see is completed and

the latter will probably be completed tomorrow. We tried one

day to patch up29 M. . . .'s p. system  of W. Government --

started new ideas and "committed the whole to Carrington, Dane,

R. H. Lee, Smith and Kean.["] We met several times, and

 

28 The Ordinance of 1787, adopted on 13th July.

29 These initials refer probably to the plan proposed by Mr. Monroe.



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 163

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  163

 

at last agreed on some principles -- at least Lee, Smith and my-

self. We found ourselves rather pressed. The Ohio company

appeared to purchase a large tract of federal lands -- about six or

seven millions of acres -- and we wanted to abolish the old

system and get a better one for the government of the country,

and we finally found it necessary to adopt the best system we

could get. All agreed finally to the inclosed plan except A.

Yates. He appeared in this case, as in most others, not to under-

stand the subject at all. I think the number of free inhabitants,

60,000, which are requisite for the admission of a new State into

the Confederacy, is too small; but, having divided the whole

Territory into three States, this number appears to me to be

less important. Each State in the common course of things

must become important soon after it shall have that number of

inhabitants. The Eastern State of the three will probably be

the first, and more important than the rest, and will no doubt

be settled chiefly by Eastern people; and there is, I think, full

an equal chance of its adopting Eastern politics. When I drew

the ordinance (which passed, a few words excepted, as I orig-

inally formed it) I had no idea the States would agree to the

sixth article, prohibiting slavery, as only Massachusetts of the

Eastern States was present, and therefore omitted it in the draft;

but finding the House favorably disposed on this subject, after

we had completed the other parts, I moved the article, which

was agreed to without opposition. We are in a fair way to

fix the terms of our Ohio sale, etc. We have been upon it

three days steadily. The magnitude of the purchase makes us

very cautious about the terms of it and the security necessary

to insure the performance of it.

We have directed the Board to examine and report on

Holkar's affair.

Massachusetts Legislature was prorogued on the 7th inst.,

having continued the Tender Act, as it is called, to January,

1788; and having passed no other act of importance, except what

I presume you have seen respecting the raising of troops and

the power of the Governor to pursue the rebels.30 You ask me

how I like my new colleagues. Sedgewick, you know, we all

esteem; but I fear he will not make his attendance an object.

Thatcher I am not acquainted with. I do not know whether

Mr. Otis, at his period of life, and under his misfortunes, will

30 Refers to Shay's Rebellion.



164 Ohio Arch

164      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

enter with vigor into Federal politics. I wish his accounts with

the Union had been settled, etc.

Nothing more worth particular notice.

Your affectionate friend,

N. DANE.

HON. R. KING.

P. S. States present, Massachusetts, New York, New Jer-

sey, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and

Georgia. Brother Holten is rather an invalid; is not able to take

an active part in business, but I think supports pretty good

Eastern politics.31.

The following comment by Charles R. King, grand-

son of Rufus King, is appropriate and just. It was

evidently written long before the publication of the Life

and Correspondence of Rufus King. This work we

learn was in course of preparation many years. The

letter to Rufus King which is the subject of this com-

ment, had previously been published at different times.

The editor is therefore mistaken in saying that it is

"now for the first time made public."  This statement

was probably true at the time it was made but not at

the time of publication. The inference drawn that Mr.

Carrington "probably declined to report the Ordinance"

is not warranted in view of the published statement of

Mr. Dane himself in his note in the Appendix to Vol. 9

of his Abridgment of American Law, which appears on

a previous page of this contribution. The language of

Dane in that note is "Colonel Carrington, of Virginia,

as chairman of the committee, pro forma, reported the

Ordinance, but formed no part of it." Otherwise the

following comment of Charles Rufus King seems to us

to be conclusive:

31 King, The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, Vol. I, pp.

289-291.



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 165

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  165

This letter, now for the first time made public, was writ-

ten, it will be seen, three days only after the passing of the famous

ordinance, before there was any controversy about it, and with-

out consciousness, so far as the modest tenor of the whole letter

can witness, of the priceless value of the act thus perfected.

The course of the preparation, discussion, and final adoption

of the ordinance is related with entire simplicity. No doubt,

therefore, can now be entertained that Mr. Dane did frame the

ordinance throughout; that it was he who directed the mode of

presenting it to the House and carrying it through all its stages.

Mr. Carrington of Virginia, named first on the committee,

and, therefore, by usage its chairman, did not, as appears by

this letter, agree with the majority of the committee, and, there-

fore probably declined to report the ordinance, devolving that

duty on Mr. Dane, who stood next on the list, and who was in

the majority.  This explains what heretofore has not been

understood, how Mr. Dane, the second on the committee, came

to be its reporter; and the almost literal accuracy is hereby

established of the account given by Daniel Webster, in his ora-

tion against Hayne, on the Foot resolutions, in the U. S. Senate,

in 1830, that this ordinance "was drawn by Nathan Dane, and

adopted by Congress without the slightest alteration." "A few

words excepted," says Mr. Dane, "and the ordinance passed as

I originally formed it."

Having thus established the conclusiveness of the claim of

authorship of the Ordinance of '87 for Nathan Dane, and

shown that to Rufus King, and indirectly to Timothy Pickering,

belongs the suggestion of the provisos contained in it against

slavery and for aids to religion and knowledge, and for assur-

ing forever the common use, without charge, of the great na-

tional highways, of the Mississippi, the St. Lawrence, and their

tributaries and their carrying-places, to all citizens of the United

States; and having, at the same time, by spreading in extenso,

before the readers of this chapter, both the resolution of Mr.

Jefferson, of April, '84, and the Ordinance of '87, put it within

their reach to compare these instruments, and thus ascertain

how much of one is borrowed from, or is suggested by, the

other, it may be said in conclusion that, in endeavoring to as-

sign to each of the prominent actors in this great scene his

due merit and responsibility, no desire has been felt, nor, it is

hoped, manifested, even unconsciously, of magnifying any one

at the expense of others. Enough of enduring reputation for

each and all must forever honor the names of Dane and Jeffer-

son, of Pickering and King, for the part taken by each in the

long, laborious, and eventful struggle, which had so glorious a



166 Ohio Arch

166       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

consummation in the ordinance consecrating forever, by one

imprescriptible and unchangeable muniment, the very heart of

our land to Freedom, Knowledge, and Union.32

After a survey of the numerous arguments on the

subject Mr. Frederick D. Stone very properly, it seems

to us, reaches the conclusion expressed in the following

sentences:

The fact is, the Ordinance was a political growth. Step

by step its development can be traced in the proceedings of

Congress. Monroe's plan, imperfect as it was in form when

reported, provided for a more advanced state of civilization

than Jefferson's, and in some respects was an improvement on

it. Johnson's ordinance was an elaboration of Monroe's plan.

The Ordinance of 1787 contained the most important features

of each, together with suggestions that had been made from

time to time, and what could be found in the constitutions and

laws of the States. There is no necessity of going outside of

Congressional circles to account for its production or passage.33

Gratification and surprise has frequently been ex-

pressed that the Ordinance should have unanimously

passed the Continental Congress at a time when there

were represented in that body only three northern states

and five southern states. Briefly summarized these are

among the considerations that led to this happy result:

1. The desire of Congress to discharge its obli-

gations to the Revolutionary soldiers who were pressing

their claims and willing to take western lands in

payment.

2. The insistence of the Ohio Company, composed

of Revolutionary officers, upon the inclusion in the Ordi-

nance of certain fundamental principles.

3. The assurance that the settlement of the terri-

 

32 King, Charles R., Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, Vol.

I, pp. 291-302.



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 167

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  167

tory northwest of the Ohio would protect the settlement

south of that river from the incursions of the Indian.

4. The presence in Congress of new members from

the South--especially from Virginia, with new ideas in

regard to the industrial and social results of free labor

under the Ordinance as finally framed.

5. The limitation of the new Ordinance to the ter-

ritory of the United States northwest of the River Ohio.

6. The opening up of the Mississippi River to free

navigation.

The delegates from the South ceased to oppose the

Ordinance when it was limited to the territory north-

west of the Ohio River and a provision was added

to the anti-slavery clause authorizing the return of

fugitive slaves. William Grayson, one of the delegates

from Virginia, in a letter to James Monroe tells why

the sixth article of compact was supported by delegates

from the South:

The clause respecting slavery was agreed to by the southern

members for the purpose of preventing tobacco and indigo being

made on the northwest side of the Ohio, as well as for other

political reasons.34

The southern delegates evidently thought it would

be advantageous for them to have a monopoly of cheap

labor south of the River Ohio.

The literary style of the Ordinance has been praised

by many writers. Some of them have, it seems to us,

justly observed that in this respect it does not measure

up to the standard of the Constitution of the United

States which was in process of evolution at the same

time. There is certainly not the striking difference in



168 Ohio Arch

168     Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

mere style that Dr. Poole intimates between the report

made March 16, 1787, and the corresponding part of the

Ordinance as finally adopted. It would seem in view

of the many features that were undoubtedly discussed

at different times in the Continental Congress that it is

clearly within the range not only of possibility but of

probability that Nathan Dane was equal to the task of

arranging the principles agreed upon in the form of

an Ordinance. The sixth article of compact bears at

least one mark of haste in preparation -- a sentence

which could be much improved by a strict application

of grammatical rules. The first sentence of the third

article so often quoted with approval on its face sug-

gests what was not evidently intended; namely, that

schools and the means of education should be forever

encouraged for the purpose, not only of promoting

morality and imparting knowledge but also to teach

religion.

Dr. Poole is probably in error when he declares that

the authorship of the Ordinance was never assigned

to Nathan Dane in the lifetime of Dr. Manasseh Cutler.

There is an intimation that this was probably not true

in the letter written to Dane April 12 by John H. Farn-

ham of Salem, Indiana, to which reference has already

been made. Mr. Farnham says: "We have been ac-

customed in Indiana to regard you as the author and

supporter of the Ordinance of 1787; that was the opin-

ion until a senator from Missouri (Colonel Benton) in

the Senate, session '29-'30, denied your agency." The

implication here is that Dane had generally been re-

garded as the author. In his letter to Rufus King his

authorship is freely stated without thought that it would



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 169

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  169

be contradicted by anyone familiar with the facts at

the time.

Of course there is all sort of room for quibbling

as to what constitutes authorship and there has been

a disposition to point out Mr. Dane's inconsistency by

stating in one place that he did not claim originality

for his contribution to the Ordinance and in another

place pointing out that certain provisions had originated

with him. He evidently in one instance was referring

to originality of the matter in the various clauses and

sections and in the other simply referring to the fact

that he had been the first since the matter had been up

for final consideration to propose the portions of the

Ordinance that he specifically names.

Strictly speaking much of the Ordinance can be

traced back to the Magna Charta wrested from King

John if essential essence is considered. The same thing

is true of other state papers of this period, the Declara-

tion of Independence and the Constitution of the United

States.  Daniel Webster very appropriately observes:

It is no derogation from the credit whatever that may be

of the drawing of the Ordinance, that its principles had before

been prepared and discussed, in the form of resolutions. If

one should reason in that way, what would become of the dis-

tinguished honor of the author of the Declaration of Inde-

pendence. There is not a sentiment in that paper which had

not been voted and resolved in the assemblies, and other popular

bodies in the country over and over again.

Truly it may be said in conclusion that in the sense

in which Thomas Jefferson was the author of the

Declaration of Independence, in that sense Nathan Dane

was the author of the Ordinance of 1787. The pro-

vision prohibiting slavery at the last moment had not

been included. Thomas Jefferson was in Paris. Dr.



170 Ohio Arch

170       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

Cutler was visiting friends in Philadelphia, but this

plucky young statesman and indefatigable worker was

in the Continental Congress in the City of New York,

with his anti-slavery provision prepared and waiting

for the psychological moment in which to present it.

That moment came and he included in the provision

just what could be enacted under the favorable circum-

stances that had developed and was thus the decisive

influence in making the great Ordinance what some of

its admirers have proudly claimed for it, the Magna

Charta of American Freedom.

 

MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE THAT REPORTED THE

ORDINANCE OF 1787

NATHAN DANE

Nathan Dane was born at Ipswich, Massachusetts, Decem-

ber 29, 1752. He was the son of a well-to-do farmer and one

of a family of twelve children. Chiefly through his own efforts

he prepared for entrance to Harvard College and after a four

years' course was graduated, "with high reputation" from that

institution in 1778. He taught school in Beverly, Massachusetts,

studied law with Judge William Wetmore of Salem, Massa-

chusetts, was admitted to the bar and commenced the practice

of law in Beverly in 1782.

His public and political record may be summarized as fol-

lows: He was a member of the Massachusetts house of repre-

sentatives, 1782-1785; delegate to Congress 1785-1787; state

senator 1790-1791, 1794-1797; judge of the court of common

pleas a short time in 1794; member of a committee to revise the

laws of Massachusetts, 1795, 1811 ; presidential elector in 1812;

member of the Hartford convention of 1814; member of the

Massachusetts constitutional convention of 1820; died in Bev-

erly, Massachusetts, February 15, 1835.

This is a brief sketch of the life and public services of

Nathan Dane, a statesman whose fame has not been proportionate

to his constructive work of large, enduring and beneficent

results. It was his privilege to frame the Ordinance of 1787

and to render conspicuous service in the final stages of its

adoption.  Assuredly the readers of history, especially those

who live in the states framed from the Northwest Territory,



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 171

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  171

 

will wish to know something of the personality and attainments

of this statesman who had to his credit this signal achievement

before the end of his thirty-fifth year.

He was a man of tireless industry. From the day that he

entered upon the practice of the law he applied himself faith-

fully to his profession with gratifying success. In the state

legislature and the Continental Congress he was known as a

hard and conscientious worker and was for that reason, as well

as his recognized ability, assigned to membership in practically

all important committees. He was recognized as a ready and

effective debater when such ability was more highly regarded

than it is today. In the practice of the law, however, he avoided

as far as possible trials before judge or jury; always exerting

his influence to settle cases out of court.

If he were living today he would probably be classed as a

conservative. He had no sympathy with the political iconoclast

and the demagogue, and yet he regarded with favor and never-

failing interest all. measures of practical and rational reform.

Hence his desire to prevent the extension of slavery to the

Northwest Territory. In this connection it is worth while to

remember that he and his colleagues were pioneers in the anti-

slavery movement. It was not until 1788, the year after the

adoption of the Ordinance, that William Wilberforce inaug-

urated the movement against the slave trade in the British Par-

liament.

Mr. Dane was one of the founders of the Massachusetts

Temperance Society -- "the earliest organization of the kind in

this country, if not in the world," -- served as its president and

gave it liberal financial support. He was reared on a farm, had

an abiding interest in agriculture and was for years an active

member of the Massachusetts Agricultural Society. He was a

member of the Massachusetts Historical Society, of the Essex

Historical Society and of the American Antiquarian Society.

He founded the Dane law professorship in Harvard College in

1829. In 1831 he contributed liberally to the fund for the erec-

tion of the Dane Law College, "thus giving to the Cambridge

Law School" an assured place and opening up to it a prosper-

ous future.

In 1816 Harvard College conferred upon him the degree of

LL. D.

Through life Nathan Dane was a hard student, "devoting

steadily from twelve to fourteen hours a day" in the last twenty-

five years of his life to research and literary work.  He was best

known by his A General Abridgment of American Law, in nine

volumes. In 1782 he commenced the preparation of a volumi-



172 Ohio Arch

172       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

nous work entitled. A Moral and Political Survey of America,

which was never published. His biographer states that if the

volumes had been issued as they were written they would have

been received with interest, but when the work was finished,

much that was "prophecy had become history" and ideas, "bold

and aggressive when they were committed to writing" at the

time of his death were "mere truisms"

"Dr. Dane's studies," we are told, "were not confined to

law and history." A Puritan of the strictest type, he devoted

Sunday to religious studies.  He read the scriptures in the

original Hebrew and Greek. He attended church regularly, al-

though for years because of his deafness he could not hear a

word of the sermon.

Why he did not enter the military service in the Revolution

is not known. He appears to have been in college at that time.

The fact that without a military title he was frequently honored

by the suffrage of his fellow citizens is a tribute to his evident

ability and patriotism. His participation in the Hartford Con-

vention was unfortunate for his fame, but in that assembly he

was associated with others whose motives and fidelity to country

were above reproach.

He had no children, but children of his kindred always

had a place in his home. He adopted and educated his nephew,

Joseph Dane, who served as representative in Congress from

Maine.

One who, knew him well in his later years pays Nathan

Dane this personal tribute:

No man can have led a more entirely blameless life than Dr. Dane..

I was brought up in his near neighborhood and never heard him spoken

of but with unqualified respect and veneration; and I have been told

by those of nearly his own age that not the slightest reproach or stain

ever rested on his good name.33

 

RICHARD HENRY LEE.

Richard Henry Lee of Virginia was one of the delegates

to Congress whom Nathan Dane mentioned as especially help-

ful in framing the Ordinance of 1787. Lee was twenty years

older than Dane and had rendered, as will be seen, conspicuous

public service prior to 1787. Henry Lee was also a delegate from

Virginia to this same Congress, although he was not present

when the Ordinance passed through its different stages and

was adopted. Writers have very naturally confused these two

33 Memoir of Hon. Nathan Dane, in Proceedings of the Massa-

chusetts Historical Society, Vol. II, pp. 6-10.



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 173

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  173

men. They were from the same state; they were members of

Congress, they were subsequently United States senators and

both had served in the Revolution. It was Henry Lee who

delivered the famous eulogy on Washington and declared him

"first in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his country-

men." It was Richard Henry Lee who, in the second Con-

tinental Congress, introduced the famous resolution declaring

"that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free

and independent states."  It was Richard Henry Lee who

signed the Declaration of Independence and it was he who

served harmoniously with Nathan Dane on the committee that

reported the Ordinance of 1787.

Richard Henry Lee was born in Stratford, Westmoreland

County, Virginia, January 20, 1732. When quite young he

was sent to England and educated at the academy of Wake-

field, in Yorkshire.  In 1752 he returned to Virginia. His

father was wealthy and he had ample means to prepare for

his chosen profession, the law. In 1757 he was appointed

justice of the peace for Westmoreland County. In 1761 he

was elected to the House of Burgesses and continued to serve

in that body for twenty-seven years. At first, modestly dis-

trustful of his own ability he took no part in debate. His

first speech was on a motion to stop the importation of slaves

by a tax so heavy as to "put an end to that iniquitous and dis-

graceful traffic within the colony of Virginia." It is said that

his hatred of slavery overcame his natural backwardness and

he made a "powerful speech, containing the germs of the

principal arguments used in later days by Northern Aboli-

tionists. He opposed the Stamp Act of 1765, not only in the

House of Burgesses but as captain of a militia company. He

was a staunch friend of Samuel Adams and active in all the

work leading up to the meeting of the first Continental Con-

gress. In that body he was a member of the committee that

prepared addresses to the King of Great Britain and to the

colonies. In the second Congress he drew up the address to

the people of Great Britain and a last petition to the King.

On June 7, 1776, he led in the movement to release the

colonies from allegiance to Great Britain and offered his

famous resolution already quoted. Illness prevented his pres-

ence in Congress later to frame the Declaration, and that honor

fell to Thomas Jefferson while the honor of making the

principal speech in support of it went to John Adams.

Few men were more active during the Revolution in sup-

port of the patriot cause. In four years he is said to have

served on more than one hundred committees. At times he



174 Ohio Arch

174       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

was called from Congress to serve in the legislative body of

Virginia where his presence was more urgently required. His

activities were sometimes varied by military service, chiefly in

recruiting the militia of his state.

Briefly stated, he was a delegate in the Continental Con-

gress 1774-1780, and served as its president in 1784; a signer

of the Declaration of Independence; colonel of militia; again

delegate in the Continental Congress in 1787; member of the

Virginia convention of 1788; elected to the United States senate

and served from March 4, 1789, until his resignation in 1792;

died in Chantilly, Virginia, June 19, 1794.

It was certainly fortunate that Nathan Dane had with him

on the committee that framed the Ordinance a statesman so

thoroughly equipped and so naturally in sympathy with his

own views.

MELANCTON SMITH

Melancton Smith was born in Jamaica, Long Island, in

1724. He was educated at home where facilities were some-

what limited. He was elected sheriff of Duchess County, New

York, in 1777; a member of the first provincial congress that

met in New York City, May 23, 1775; a commissioner in 1777

for detecting and defeating conspiracies against the state;

served in the Continental Congress as a representative of the

state of New York, 1785-1788; represented Duchess County in

the convention that assembled to consider the ratification of the

federal constitution; moved to New York City in 1785. A

little later he served in the General Assembly of the state of

New York; supported Governor Clinton for re-election in 1792;

was later circuit judge. He died in New York City, July 29,

1798, of yellow fever, his being the first fatal case of the epi-

demic in that year.

He was a man of great native ability. Chancellor Kent

declares that he was early noted "for his love of reading,

tenacious memory, powerful intellect and for the metaphysical

and logical discussions of which he was master." He and Richard

Henry Lee were the two men that Nathan Dane stated were

in hearty sympathy with him and very materially assisted in the

preparation of the Ordinance of 1787.

Melancton Smith had a son and a grandson who bore and

honored his name. The former served in the second war with

England and became a major of the 25th Infantry and later a

colonel of the regiment. The latter, the son of the veteran of

1812, became an officer in the American navy and served with

distinction in the Civil War. He participated in the attack on



The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship 175

The Ordinance of 1787, its Origin and Authorship  175

Fort Hudson and Fort Fisher. He was commissioned a com-

modore July 25, 1866 and rear-admiral July 1, 1870.

EDWARD CARRINGTON

Edward Carrington was born in Charlotte County, Vir-

ginia, February 11, 1749. He was a Revolutionary soldier,

commissioned lieutenant colonel in 1776; was captured by the

British while serving in the South; afterwards exchanged and

quartermaster general to General Greene; participated in the battle

of Hobkirk's Hill and in the siege of Yorktown; he was a

delegate from Virginia to the Continental Congress, 1785-1787;

was foreman of the jury in Aaron Burr's trial for treason,

1807; died in Richmond, Virginia, October 28, 1810.

JOHN KEAN

John Kean was born in South Carolina in 1756. He was

a Revolutionary soldier; was taken prisoner and suffered on

a prison ship in 1781. He was a delegate to Congress from South

Carolina, 1785-1787; served on a commission to settle accounts

between the United States and individual states; was cashier

in the United States bank at Philadelphia; died in Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania, May, 1795.



OHIO'S CONTRIBUTION TO NATIONAL CIVIL

OHIO'S CONTRIBUTION TO NATIONAL CIVIL

SERVICE REFORM

 

BY C. B. GALBREATH

 

Ohio is great in many ways. The achievements of

her sons are not confined to the spectacular vocations of

statesmanship and war. Piatt and Howells and other

writers have given her a respectable place in the lit-

erature of the republic. The Darling Nelly Gray of

our Hanby, the Dixie of our Emmett and the Softly

and Tenderly Jesus is Calling of our Thompson have

gone round the world and found an abiding place

wherever the tender melodies of the heart are played or

sung. Our Edison and our Brush have extended the

domain of invention, applied new forms of energy in

the field of productive industry and released the light

electric that rivals the day and flashes from the uplifted

torch of Liberty Enlightening the World. It was left

for the Wright brothers to achieve the impossible, to

first rise from the earth on wing, to ride the impalpable

air, to thrill the world with the "audacity of their design

and the miracle of its execution."

But these flowers do not bloom in the conservatories

of our orators and their choicest garlands are reserved

for the warriors and politicians--the statesmen, per-

haps, for Ohioans have risen to that eminence.

And what is a statesman? "One versed in public

affairs and government," says Webster; "a successful

politician," half ironically declares a writer; "a dead

politician," observes another; while a well known plat-

(176)



Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 177

Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 177

form orator offers this discriminating comparison: "A

statesman is one who tries to see what he can do for

this country; a politician is one who tries to see what

his country can do for him."

It is not necessary to say that Ohio has had poli-

ticians and some statesmen; and perhaps in a few in-

stances both have been united in the same character.

From the days of Arthur St. Clair and Edward Tiffin,

with one brief interval, party lines have been tautly

drawn in the Buckeye State. Our thoughts have ever

freely turned to the candidate for official preferment,

to the orator on the hustings, to the partisan leader in

the whirlwind of a political campaign. In piping times

of peace, he is our hero.

It is but a few years since we were wont in this

state, with the wildest enthusiasm, to celebrate the trans-

cendant prowess of such an one in a song with the

familiar refrain:

He's a great big man,

He's a politician.

In the popular opinion of the day it took a great

big man to be a politician, and the successful politician

was hailed as the great big man. Times have changed

a little and that song has been relegated to cold storage.

The great big men of today do not wish it to be under-

stood that they are so because they are politicians.

In these times the intelligent and independent citizen

asks the candidate for honors not, "What have you done

for your party?" but "What have you done for the

common-weal--for your country?" or "What do you

propose to do for your country?" The party is the inci-

Vol. XXXIII--12.



178 Ohio Arch

178     Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

dent, the instrument, the necessary agent, perhaps; the

achievement, the service is everything.

With our past ambition for political eminence and

our enthusiasm for party names and party leaders, it

is a little singular that we should forget an Ohio states-

man, whose supreme achievement was unselfish and

patriotic in its inception, national in its scope and benef-

icent in its results. It is a fact, nevertheless. His

personality and gentlemanly qualities are still remem-

bered by his contemporaries and remain as a tradition

among their descendants, but as much cannot be said

for his constructive statesmanship. Nor is his work

forgotten because it died with him. The cause for

which he raised his voice and challenged all comers

in the arena of debate lives today. Every year adds

to its strength. Its virtues are proclaimed alike by pro-

gressives and conservatives.  It stands as a protest

against official incompetence, spoliation and corruption.

Without it, government would have degenerated into a

system of plunder and venality, and the foundations of

our Republic would have rotted away.

The champion of this cause was fortunate, as the

world views it, in his birth and early environment. His

paternal grandfather was a soldier of the Revolution,

aid-de-camp to General Nathaniel Greene and later

United States District Judge of Georgia, under appoint-

ment by Washington. The friend and partisan of Alex-

ander Hamilton, he was second to that ill-starred states-

man in the fatal duel at Weehawken. His father early

came to the Queen City of the West, where he attained

distinction and was elected to Congress in the famous

campaign of 1840 as an adherent of William Henry

Harrison. The son, in behalf of whose achievement



Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 179

Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 179

in statesmanship this sketch is written, was born in

Cincinnati in a home provided with all the comforts

and luxuries of that day, in the memorable year of

1825, when Lafayette was touring the young Republic

and our forefathers were celebrating with bonfires and

illuminations the semi-centennial jubilee of our national

independence.

A pupil in the Woodward High School at the age

of eight, and eight years afterward a graduate from the

Cincinnati College, under the presidency of William H.

McGuffey, he was later a special private student under

some of the leading professors of the West. At the

early age of nineteen he commenced a foreign tour for

study and observation that took him to the principal

cities of Europe, to the Holy Land and Egypt. He

lingered in Germany at Heidelberg and became a student

at its famous university. Returning in 1846, he was

admitted to the bar two years later and entered upon

the practice of the law.

At the age of twenty-two his associates, his studies

and his travels represented an aggregate of educational

opportunity and achievement rarely equalled, even in

our own time.

In his early political ideals and espousals, however,

he was not so fortunate. His father was a Whig.

The son became a Democrat. It is not a misfortune

under all circumstances to transfer party allegiance;

but in the days before the Civil War, when Wendell

Phillips was thundering at Faneuil Hall, when Abra-

ham Lincoln was raising his voice in the arena of

debate, when the great arm of the North was uplifted

to smite the institution of human slavery, it was un-



180 Ohio Arch

180     Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

fortunate for a young man of culture, courage and

conscience to be arrayed on the other side.

The biographer of our subject commends the youth

for his independence in breaking away from the po-

litical faith of his fathers, and in this expression we

may heartily join, with the regret that he did not find

a better field for the exhibition of his talent and his

political ambition.

He first appears in the arena as a candidate from

Hamilton county for our state senate. He was elected

by a large majority. Before the close of his term, he

was nominated for Congress in the first Cincinnati

district and defeated. He was renominated two years

later and elected. When faction rent his party, he cast

his fortunes with the Douglas Democrats. When Lin-

coln was elected in 1860, this congressman was reelected

and arrayed himself with the opposition. He continued

to serve in the house until March 4, 1865. He was

one of the conspicuous and active members of Congress

through the stormy period of the war. Always gen-

tlemanly, persuasive and conservative, he nevertheless

opposed many of the measures of the Great Emancipator

and cried peace, peace when there was no peace.

His eulogist has much to say of his devotion to the

Union and his willingness to vote money and men for

its defense by force of arms, but is forced to admit that

during the crisis "he differed widely with the admin-

istration as to its policy and management of the war."

The fact is that through these years of stress and strug-

gle he was usually an obstructionist and much of a

thorn in the side of Abraham Lincoln.

To still further emphasize his attitude, in 1864,

while a member of Congress, he ran for vice-president



Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 181

Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 181

on the ticket with McClellan against Lincoln and John-

son, on a platform with that unfortunate plank relating

to the war for the preservation of the Union. And now

you know who he was. His name was George H.

Pendleton.1

Had his career ended here his public service might

well have been forgotten. On the great moral and

1 For facts in regard to his early life and political career see

Life and Speeches of George H. Pendleton by G. M. D. Bloss; also

address of Honorable Isaac M. Jordan in memory of George H. Pendle-

ton, Cincinnati, March 8. 1890.



182 Ohio Arch

182     Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

political issues growing out of the war he was wrong,

sincerely and conscientiously so, but nevertheless wrong.

Such is the verdict of history. And from that verdict

there is no appeal. Like the judgments of the Lord, it

is true and righteous altogether.

In 1866, Mr. Pendleton was defeated for Congress

in his old district. Shortly afterward he advocated the

payment of government bonds in greenbacks, an idea

that attained great popularity for a time. In Congress

Mr. Pendleton had opposed the issue of greenbacks.

The announcement of his new idea subjected him to

the charge of inconsistency, against which he inveighed

with more satisfaction to himself than to the electorate.

In 1869, he made a canvass of Ohio for governor on

the "greenback idea" against Rutherford B. Hayes and

was defeated. Much was expected of him in the state

campaign of 1875, with the greenback idea as the para-

mount issue; but his part in that contest was disappoint-

ing to his party. He was evidently reluctant to go

as far as William Allen and Samuel Cary in support of

an inflated currency. Relegated to private life after

years of service in the exploitation of unsuccessful poli-

cies and issues, he had, at this time, it must be admitted,

slight claim to eminent statesmanship and enduring

fame. That it is never too late for a man of his equip-

ment to achieve both in a worthy cause, is proven by his

triumphs of succeeding years.

In that unique autobiographic contribution to his-

tory and literature, entitled "The Education of Henry

Adams," the author finds fault with the judgment of

his time which applauded the pretentions of mediocrity

and passed in silence the achievements of genuine merit

as exemplified in the statesmanship of George H. Pen-



Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 183

Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 183

dleton. We may rest assured that Henry Adams would

not have recorded such an observation prior to 1878.

In the state campaign of 1877, occurred the debate

between Pendleton and Garfield.2 As this exemplifies

the character of the two men, a few sentences are here

quoted from a writer of the time.

During that historic debate, which covered every question

at issue between the two parties, and which was carried on in

the midst of a most exciting canvass, not a word was used by

either of these distinguished gladiators which could in any way

reflect upon the personal character of the other. One could at

times imagine he heard the sword and the battle-ax of the one

striking upon the mailed helmet and cuirass of the other, but

the argument was dignified and impersonal. These were great

party men contending for their party, their cause and their

principles; yet they were chivalrous.

This description calls to mind another historic de-

bate, on this same high plane, between William Mc-

Kinley and our most distinguished and popular fellow

citizen, Governor James E. Campbell.

In 1878 Pendleton was elected to the United States

Senate, in dignity and prestige and power, the first legis-

lative body of the world. It offered rare opportunity

for his eminent talents, and on the ladder of that oppor-

tunity he rose to the heights of statesmanship. He in-

terpreted the need of the hour,--the demand of the

future, and became for all time heir to the gratitude

of the republic.

The spoils system had been the bane of our insti-

tutions.  It threatened the very life of the republic.

It multiplied offices and sinecures and the wild and in-

discriminate rush for them. In our state and national

capitals it fed the mad enthusiasm of inauguration day

 

2 At Springfield, September 27, 1877.



184 Ohio Arch

184      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

and flooded the streets with cavalcades of shouting pa-

triots looking for jobs. It led and inspired all from

the ward worker to platform orator. In the midst of

the carnival of political debauchery it assumed a sinister

and monstrous form. Before it governors bowed, cabi-

net officers paid obeisance, the representatives of the

people groveled and dignified senators licked the dust.

A cloudless July morning. A flash out of the clear

sky. The hiss of the assassin's bullet, and our Garfield

was borne away mangled and bleeding to suffer linger-

ingly and to die. A group of students on an Ohio college

campus were standing still at the news of the awful

tragedy. The silence was broken by some one who said,

"The President was shot by Charles J. Guiteau;" but

that was not true. A little later another said, "The

President was shot by Charles J. Guiteau, a disappointed

office-seeker;" and that was only half true. Who was it,

what was it, that struck down Garfield and thrust him

"from the full tide of this world's interests, from its

hopes, its aspirations, its victories into the visible pres-

ence of death"?3 It was the spoils system, that nerved

the arm of the assassin, sent along it to the instrument

of death the impulse of hate and plunged the land into

silence and darkness and woe. "Strangulatus pro re-

publica," said the stricken man as he tossed on his couch

of pain. Yes, slaughtered for the Republic, tortured,

martyred--our costly sacrifice to the demon of greed

and spoliation and factional hate and partisan plunder.

It sometimes takes a thunder-clap to arouse us to a

sense of neglected duty. It took the earthquake shock

of a World War to start us in the quest of a universal

 

3 Blaine, James G. Memorial address on life and public services

of James A. Garfield, House of Representatives, February 27, 1882.



Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 185

Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 185

and enduring peace. In 1881 it took the life of a

president to start political parties on the road to the

redemption of platform pledges with regard to the civil

service. Garfield did not die in vain. The conscience

of our guilty nation was touched. A movement to miti-

gate the evils of the spoils system was inaugurated

in the United States Senate under the leadership of

George H. Pendleton. To his credit be it said, on this

question he took up arms against the traditions of his

own party and the demoralizing and debasing practices

of both parties.

A brief review of the progress of civil service re-

form in the United States may not be out of place

here. Such a survey is appropriate in view of the fact

that famous Ohioans, officially prominent in the service

of the nation, had much to do with the inauguration

and promotion of this policy.

From the organization of political parties in this

country there has been a temptation to use the appointive

power to reward faithful partisans. In the earlier years

of the Republic, rewards for partisan service were com-

paratively few and far between. They varied somewhat

under different administrations. It was left for Presi-

dent Andrew Jackson to apply very generally the prin-

ciple in politics that "to the victor belong the spoils,"

although he did not originate that declaration so often

attributed to him. Jackson was severely criticised for

the inauguration of the spoils system on a grand scale.

His successors, however, for the most part followed his

example, and the tendency was then as it is today in

other matters when an act of the appointing power is

criticised to excuse it on the ground that it is not so

bad as a similar exercise of the power by a predecessor,



186 Ohio Arch

186     Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

The Civil War and the stirring events leading up

to it crowded out of the public thought the reform of the

civil service system and other matters of minor interest.

At the close of the war the Nation was enormously in

debt and retrenchment in expenditures was imperatively

demanded in order that the payroll of the government

might be reduced and its obligations might be met.

In 1864, Charles Sumner, then United States sena-

tor from Massachusetts, introduced a bill "to provide

for the greater efficiency of the civil service." This

bill authorized the appointment of a board of examiners,

competitive examinations, promotion by seniority and

removal for good cause only. The bill did not reach

a vote.

On May 25, 1868, Thomas Allen Jencks, congress-

man from Rhode Island, presented in Congress an elab-

orate report which is generally considered as the "start-

ing point of civil service reform in this country." The

plan recommended and finally included in a bill intro-

duced by Mr. Jencks, followed closely that authorized

in the bill introduced by Sumner. It was ably discussed

by Mr. Jencks, who was a man of wealth, culture and

influence and highly respected by his associates. Some-

what to the surprise of Congress and those interested

throughout the country it received very substantial sup-

port and came within seven votes of passing the house.

In the meantime able advocates of the reform of

the civil service began to announce their attitude. Prom-

inent among these were George William Curtis and Carl

Schurz. In spite of this evidence of progress, how-

ever, the outlook for effective legislation was not

encouraging.



Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 187

Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 187

Shortly after the failure of the Jencks bill substan-

tial aid to the movement came from an unexpected quar-

ter. General Ulysses S. Grant, shortly after his election

to the presidency, let it be known that he favored the

reform. In subsequent years his early advocacy seems

in large measure to have been forgotten by the people.

His close association in the presidency with such men

as Conkling, Logan and other practical politicians has

left the impression that like his friends and advisors he

favored rotation in office. The centenary of the birth

of General Grant was appropriately celebrated in his

native state, Ohio, April 27-29, 1922. Able addresses

reviewing his services to the country in war and peace

were delivered by President Harding and Senators Wil-

lis and Pomerene, at his birthplace and other points in

southern Ohio where he spent his boyhood days. These

addresses, however, contained no reference to the fact

that he was the first of all the presidents of the United

States to recommend to Congress the enactment of laws

for an effective reform   of the civil service.  In his

second annual message to Congress, December 5, 1870,

he made the following recommendation:

Always favoring practical reform, I respectfully call your

attention to one abuse of long standing which I would like to

see remedied by this Congress. It is a reform in the civil

service of the country. I would have it go beyond the mere

fixing of the tenure of office of clerks and employees who do

not require "the advice and consent of the senate" to make

their appointments complete. I would have it govern, not the

tenure, but the manner of making all appointments. There is

no duty which so much embarrasses the Executive and heads

of departments as that of appointments, nor is there any such

arduous and thankless labor imposed on senators and representa-

tives as that of finding places for constituents. The present

system does not secure the best men, and often not even fit

men for public place. The elevation and purification of the civil



188 Ohio Arch

188       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

service of the government will be hailed with approval by the

whole people of the United States.4

Assuredly this is a frank statement that must have

been gratifying to the friends of civil service reform.

It is sincere in tone and was followed by subsequent

declarations that indicated clearly President Grant's

deep interest in this subject. One year later, in his third

annual message to Congress, he followed up his initial

recommendation with an encouraging statement of

progress:

In my message to Congress one year ago I urgently rec-

ommended a reform in the civil service of the country. In con-

formity with that recommendation Congress in the ninth section

of "An act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of

the government and for other purposes," approved March 3,

1871, gave the necessary authority to the Executive to inaug-

urate a civil service reform, and placed upon him the responsi-

bility of doing so. Under the authority of said act I convened

a board of gentlemen eminently qualified for the work to devise

rules and regulations to effect the needed reform. Their labors

are not yet complete, but it is believed that they will succeed

in devising a plan that can be adopted to the great relief of the

Executive, the heads of departments and members of Congress,

and which will redound to the true interest of the public service.

At all events, the experiment shall have a fair trial.5

 

In his fourth annual message to Congress, Decem-

ber 2, 1872, he again reported progress and urged addi-

tional legislation:

A earnest desire has been felt to correct abuses which have

grown up in the civil service of the country through the de-

fective method of making appointments to office. Heretofore

federal offices have been regarded too much as the reward of

political services. Under authority of Congress rules have been

4 Richardson, James D., Messages and Papers of the Presidents,

Vol. VII, p. 109.

5 Ibid., 155.



Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 189

Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 189

 

established to regulate the tenure of office and the mode of

appointment. It can not be expected that any system of rules

can be entirely effective and prove a perfect remedy for exist-

ing evils until they have been thoroughly tested by actual

practice and amended according to the requirements of the

service. During my term of office it shall be my earnest en-

deavor to so apply the rules as to secure the greatest possible

reform in the civil service of the government, but it will re-

quire the direct action of Congress to render the enforcement

of the system binding upon my successors; and I hope that the

experience of the past year, together with appropriate legisla-

tion by Congress, may reach a satisfactory solution of this

question and secure to the public service for all time a practical

method of obtaining faithful and efficient officers and em-

ployees.6

President Grant's earnest and persistent effort in

this new   field of executive endeavor entitles him    to

honor as a progressive statesman whose policy in re-

gard to the civil service was in harmony with the

advanced thought of his time.

After his re-election to the presidency, in his in-

augural address, which was brief, he still found room

to express his continued interest in this reform:

It has been, and is, my earnest desire to correct abuses

that have grown up in the civil service of the country. To

secure this reformation rules regulating methods of appoint-

ment and promotion were established and have been tried. My

efforts for such reformation shall be continued to the best of

my judgment. The spirit of the rules adopted will be main-

tained.7

On April 18, 1874, President Grant transmitted the

report of the Civil Service Commission "authorized by

the act of Congress of March 3, 1871." He still ex-

pressed undiminished faith in the establishment of a

merit system and asks Congress to continue appropria-

6 Richardson, James D., Messages and Papers of the Presidents,

Vol. VII, p. 205.

7 Ibid., p. 223.



190 Ohio Arch

190      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

tions for the support of the work of the Civil Service

Commission.

In his annual message of December 7, 1874, Presi-

dent Grant expressed his discouragement resulting from

the failure of Congress to carry out his recommen-

dations with reference to the reform of the civil service.

"The rules adopted to improve the Civil Service of the

government," he declared, "have been adhered to as

closely as has been practicable with the opposition with

which they meet. The effect, I believe, has been bene-

ficial on the whole, and has tended to the elevation of the

service. But it is impracticable to maintain them with-

out direct and positive support of Congress."8 He

seemed sensitive to criticism of what had been done to

improve the service and disappointed at the action of

Congress. "Under these circumstances," he continued,

"I announce that if Congress adjourns without positive

legislation on the subject of 'Civil Service reform' I will

regard such action as a disapproval of the system and

will abandon it, except so far as to require examinations

for certain appointees, to determine their fitness. Com-

petitive examinations will be abandoned."9

The only action on the part of Congress thus far had

been a provision in an appropriation bill in 1871 author-

izing the President "to prescribe such rules and regu-

lations for the admission of persons into the civil service

of the United States as will best promote the efficiency

thereof." It further gave him power, "to employ suit-

able persons to conduct said inquiries," and appropriated

$25,000 to inaugurate this service. The appropriation

 

8 Richardson, James D., Messages and Papers of the Presidents,

Vol. VII, p. 300.

9 Ibid., p. 301.



Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 191

Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 191

was not renewed at the end of two years and the

President was left without means to proceed with the

reform in which he was so deeply interested. At the

same time Congress recognized the rules that had al-

ready been established by the enactment of a law pro-

hibiting the assessment of the salaries of government

employes for political purposes. This represented the

sum total of what was accomplished under the Grant

administration.

In the presidential campaign of 1876 the two leading

political parties pledged themselves to Civil Service re-

form. Rutherford B. Hayes was known to be especially

friendly to the movement. In his inaugural address he

devoted two paragraphs to the subject. Among other

things he said:

I ask the attention of the public to the paramount necessity

of reform in our Civil Service -- a reform not merely as to

certain abuses and practices of so-called official patronage which

have come to have the sanction of usage in the several depart-

ments of the government, but a change in the system of ap-

pointment itself; a reform that shall be thorough, radical and

complete; a return to the principles and practices of the founders

of the government.10

He further directed attention to the fact that in the

preceding political campaign both parties had been

pledged to civil service reform and accepted the mandate

"as the expression of the united voice and will of the

whole country upon this subject."11 His plea for a merit

system was followed with the famous declaration of the

duty that came to him as chief executive of the nation,

concluding with the expression that has become a classic:

 

10 Richardson, James D., Messages and Papers of the Presidents,

Vol. VII, p. 315.

11 Ibid., p. 445.



192 Ohio Arch

192       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

The President of the United States of necessity owes his

election to office to the suffrage and zealous labors of a political

party, the members of which cherish with ardor and regard as

of essential importance the principles of their party organiza-

tion; but he should strive to be always mindful of the fact that

he serves his party best who serves his country best.12

In his first message to Congress December 3, 1877,

President Hayes again drew attention to the necessity

of reform in the Civil Service and the demand for

such reform on the part of the two leading political

parties. In conclusion he said:

I have fully believed these declarations and demands to be

the expression of a sincere conviction of the intelligent masses

of the people upon the subject, and that they should be rec-

ognized and followed by earnest and prompt action on the part

of the legislative and executive departments of the government

in pursuance of the purpose indicated.13

In his annual message of December 1, 1879, the

President gave much space to civil service reform    and

its growth in popular favor. "The grave evils," he de-

clared, "and the perils of a partisan spoils system of

appointment to office and of office tenure are now gen-

erally recognized."14 He drew attention to previous rec-

ommendations of President Grant, devoted space to a

discussion of what has been attempted to date to im-

prove conditions and concluded by asking Congress "to

make the necessary appropriations for the resumption

of the work of the Civil Service Commission."15 He

declared that economy would "be promoted by author-

izing a moderate compensation to persons in the public

 

12 Richardson, James D., Messages and Papers of the Presidents,

Vol. VII, p. 445.

13 Ibid., p. 465.

14 Ibid., p. 561.

15 Ibid., p. 564.



Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 193

Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 193

service who may perform extra labor upon or under the

commission, as the executive may direct."16

In his message of December 6, 1880, he draws at-

tention to the extension of the merit system to the

"custom-houses and post-offices of the larger cities of

the country." He reported that "In the city of New

York over 2,000 positions in the civil service have been

subject in their appointments and tenure of place to the

operation of published rules for this purpose during

the past two years. The results of these practical trials

have been very satisfactory, and have confirmed my

opinion in favor of this system of selection."17

Under date of February 28, 1881, President Hayes

transmitted the report of Dorman B. Eaton, Chairman

of the Civil Service Commission, on the results of the

application of the merit system to the postoffice and

custom house of the city of New York, and declares

that the result of a practical test of the system had

been very gratifying.

While President Hayes throughout his administra-

tion manifested a lively interest in the reform of the

Civil Service his recommendations to Congress did not

meet with a cordial response and no legislation on the

subject was accomplished in advance of what had been

secured under the administration of President Grant.

The election of President James A. Garfield was

hailed with satisfaction by the civil service reformers.

He had on various occasions expressed his approval of

the merit system. He was one of the most scholarly

 

16 Richardson, James D., Messages and Papers of the Presidents,

Vol., VII, p. 565.

17 Ibid., p. 636.

Vol XXXIII -- 13.



194 Ohio Arch

194      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

of all our Presidents. It was believed that his influence

with Congress would powerfully aid in the enactment

of an effective civil service law. In his inaugural ad-

dress he declared that the civil service could never be

placed on a satisfactory basis until it was regulated by

such a law. Beyond this, however, the paragraph that

he devoted to civil service reform was guarded and in-

definite.18 He evidently reserved for his message to

Congress a fuller statement of his views and a more

specific intimation of the provisions that should be in-

cluded in the desired legislation. Unfortunately his

tragic death prevented the statement of his policy in a

message to Congress. The manner of his death, how-

ever, was a powerful agency for the overthrow of the

system responsible for it.

It must be borne in mind that while George H.

Pendleton turned his back upon the traditions and prac-

tices of his party he kept strictly within the platform

pledges of that party. Beginning with the year 1872,

the Democratic party in its national conventions had

gone on record in no uncertain language, in favor of

the reform of the civil service. The platform on which

Greeley was nominated demanded the merit system and

denounced the then existing order in the following

terms:

 

The civil service of the government has become a mere

instrument of party tyranny and personal ambition, and an

object of selfish greed. It is a scandal and reproach upon

tree institutions and breeds a demoralization dangerous to the

perpetuity of a republican government.

 

18 Richardson, James D., Messages and Papers of the Presidents,

Vol. VIII, p. 11.



Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 195

Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 195

Succeeding conventions of the party in even more

forceful and definite language demanded civil service

reform and condemned the spoils system.

In plain and simple terms, what is the spoils system ?

It is the giving of official positions in return for party

service. It says to the ward worker, the caucus manipu-

lator and professional vote getter, "You help elect me

mayor or congressman or governor, and I will give

you an office in return. I will either throw cut some

one to make a place for you or have a new office created

for you." In short, it is a system of legalized corruption.

In the language of the San Francisco Call, "The spoils

system declares that men shall make a living out of

politics. It implies that they shall give or withhold their

votes because a valuable consideration has been offered

less disgraceful than outright bribery, it is more per-

nicious, for the briber pays his obligations out of his

own pocket; the spoilsman makes the public pay them."

To this one might add that while the briber cor-

rupts the voter, the spoilsman, as a rule, through the

appointment of inefficient men, not only corrupts the

voter but demoralizes the public service.

Every time an agent of the government appoints an

incompetent man, or any man, for the sole purpose of

paying a political debt he sets a corrupt example for

the whole people. And this is none the less true when

done without sinister motive. The corrupt practices of

high finance and debased politics are natural and

logical results of the spoils system against which Pendle-

ton inveighed.

From a purely business point of view, the supreme

folly and criminal waste of such a system is apparent.



196 Ohio Arch

196     Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

How long would a great railroad system operate suc-

cessfully if every two years a new president of the road

should be elected, who in turn should fill all positions

on the basis of political service, drive out the trained

and experienced men and put the vote getters in charge ?

There would be jobs and sinecures and fancy salaries;

there would be wrecks and broken bones and mangled

bodies that would make humanity shudder. What would

happen if the same policy were applied to our public

schools and colleges and universities? In a compara-

tively short time there would be chaos and confusion

intolerable and disastrous. And yet prior to 1883, the

vast and complex machinery of our government was ad-

ministered on the basis of spoils.

As already intimated, the spoils system is to be con-

demned because it blunts the moral sense of the citizen

and loots the public treasury under the guise of the

law. One of its fruits was a goodly number of influ-

ential citizens with two codes, one for dealing with pri-

vate and another for dealing with public affairs. It

is even said that in those degenerate days there were

men who would not take a penny from a neighbor, even

in the dark, but who still seemed to think it was not

very wrong to steal a little from the state.

The struggle for place, the demoralization of the

public service and the tragic result to which reference

has been made led to a widespread demand for a reform

of the civil service. With this George H. Pendleton

was in hearty sympathy and he was prompt to respond.

He devoted his influence and energies to end this

saturnalia of spoliation by the establishment and en-

forcement of the merit system. In his speech in the

United States Senate in December, 1881, he said:



Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 197

Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 197

This spoils system opens up to every thoughtful man, nay

to every man who will see, even without thinking, visions of

wrong, injustice, brutality, wastefulness, recklessness, fraud,

peculation, degradation of persons and parties, which have

driven from public life much of the cultivated intellect and

refined morality of the country, and fill even the most hopeful

mind with sadness for much in the present and grave anxiety

for the future.

Again in the same speech he said of this system:

It is the prolific parent of fraud, corruption and brutality.

* * * It lowers the tone and degrades the sentiment, not

only of the public men, but, more important still, of the whole

people behind them.

This arraignment he followed up with an able

presentation of the merit system proposed in his bill.

If his vision of what he hoped his measure would

accomplish, has not been fully realized in the almost

forty years that have elapsed, it is the ideal toward

which, in spite of temporary delays and reverses, the

practices of state and nation are slowly but assuredly

moving.

A year later, in December, 1882, he again spoke in

favor of his bill for the enactment of which he had

labored unceasingly. In his brief speech he said in

part:

The existing system which, for want of a better name, I

call the "spoils system," must be killed or it will kill the Republic.

I believe that it is impossible to maintain free institutions in

this country upon any basis of that sort. I am no prophet of

evil, I am not a pessimist in any sense of the word, but I do

believe that, if the present system goes on until 50,000,000 peo-

ple shall have grown into 100,000,000 and 140,000 officers shall

have grown into 300,000, with their compensation in proportion,

and all shall depend upon the accession of one party or the

other to the presidency and to the executive functions, the

presidency of this country, if it shall last in name so long, will



198 Ohio Arch

198      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

 

be put up for sale to the highest bidder, even as in ancient

Rome the imperial crown was awarded to those who could raise

the largest fund.

Our population has grown to over 100,000,000, and

there were in the classified service along in 1917, 327,000

persons. In 1918, this number had reached approxi-

mately 600,000, due largely to the World War. The

number reported in 1923 was 411,398.19

The civil service reform movement, as we have

seen, did not originate with Pendleton. The bill that

he introduced was largely the work of the National

Civil Service Reform Association and its president, Dor-

man B. Eaton. Similar measures had previously been

introduced and considered in Congress. But neverthe-

less to Pendleton is due the credit for sponsorship and

chief influence in the enactment of the national civil

service law. The peculiar political condition at this

time and his relation to it should not be forgotten.

After the tragic death of Garfield, following the bitter

factional fight in the Republican party, the congressional

elections went strongly Democratic. The prospect for

Democratic victory at the coming presidential election

was bright. The practical politicians of that party very

naturally did not relish the prospect of the enactment of

a civil service law that would perpetuate in office many

thousand Republican appointees. If there was to be

any civil service law, they much preferred that it be

deferred until their party came into power, and their

hungry friends and retainers were comfortably estab-

lished in the berths for which they had waited so long.

This feeling was shared by Democrats in Congress. Un-

der these circumstances, the leadership of George H.

 

19 United States Civil Service Commission. Report, 1923, p. 187.



Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 199

Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 199

Pendleton, in the movement for civil service reform,

was most fortunate if not absolutely essential to the

enactment of the law.

Just a word, by way of parenthetical diversion, for

the "practical politicians." Hard names should not be

applied to them. The rank and file are firmly con-

vinced that they are rendering their country a patriotic

service in the support of their party and that they are

entitled to recognition for this service. They were and

where they are still found are the product of a system

for which they should not be held responsible.

After all, the "workers," those who come into actual

contact with the voters and arouse "patriotic party in-

terest" are perhaps less reprehensible than the "higher

ups" who contribute cash lavishly and claim their re-

ward in consulships, ministerial posts, ambassadorships

and other appointive positions of trust and honor.

Senator Pendleton was aware that his action was

not pleasing to many Democratic party workers, to "the

boys in the trenches," but believing that his course was

right and that it would ultimately inure to the benefit

of his party, he never wavered in the fight that he

led for the merit system. His bill passed the Senate

December 27, 1882, by a vote of 38 to 5; it passed the

House January 5, 1883, by a vote of 155 to 47, and

was approved by President Arthur January 16, 1883.

For his courageous support of the measure he in-

curred the ill will of "the boys" in Ohio, and they quietly

prepared to retaliate. When his senatorial term came

to an end he suddenly found that he had a large fight

on his hands in the legislature which was controlled

by his party. "The boys" pitted against him the old



200 Ohio Arch

200       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

war horse, Durban Ward. The fight waxed warm, for

"the boys" were after the scalp of Pendleton.

January 8, 1884, was the date set for the caucus

of the Democratic members of the General Assembly

of Ohio to determine who should be nominated to suc-

ceed Senator Pendleton. There were three candidates

for the honor, Henry B. Payne, Durban Ward and Pen-

dleton who sought to succeed himself. The contest be-

came exciting and charges of bribery were freely made.

The situation became so tense that Ex-senator Allen

G. Thurman, always deeply interested in the welfare of

his party, felt called upon to issue the day of the caucus

the following letter that expresses his view of the con-

test and is here reproduced in full:

I have nothing against either of the candidates. They are

all men of ability. My personal relations with each of them

have always been friendly and pleasant. But there is some-

thing that shocks me in the idea of crushing men like Pendleton

and Ward, who have devoted the best portions of their lives to

the maintenance of Democracy, by the combination against them

of personal hatred and overgrown wealth. I hear Payne men

say: "We can not support Pendleton because we disapprove of

his civil service reform bill," forgetting that convention after

convention of the Democratic party, both State and National,

had resolved in favor of civil service reform, and also for-

getting that the Republicans now in office are just as liable to

be turned out as if the Pendleton bill had never passed. I do

not advocate that bill. I think it ought to be amended or re-

pealed; but I would not slaughter a life-long Democrat because

in a long public service he happened to make one mistake.

But if these gentlemen can not support Pendleton, why

can not they support Ward? He is not responsible for the

civil service reform bill. Indeed, I have always understood

that he disapproves of it. That he is a man of ability, every

man must admit; that he has performed immense labor for our

party, no one will deny. Why, then, prefer Payne to him? The

answer, I fear, is perfectly plain. There never has been any

machine politics in the Democratic party of Ohio. We have,

as a party, been freer from bossism than any party that ever



Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 201

Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 201

 

existed. But some men seem to thing that we ought to have a

machine, amply supplied with money to work it, and under ab-

solute control of a boss or bosses, to dictate who shall and who

shall not receive the honors and rewards within the gift of the

party. To set up such a machine it is necessary, in the first

place, to kill the men who have heretofore enjoyed the con-

fidence of the party--the men whose ability, hard labor, and

principles did so much to keep the party together in the terrible

ordeal through which it has passed. I am unwilling to see this

done. It does not concern me personally, for I am a mere

private citizen, having no expectation or wish to ever hold office

again. But although I have never sought for revenge upon my

enemies in the party--if I have had any--on the other hand,

I have never deserted my friends, and I do not want to be

called on to be a pall-bearer at their political funerals. I want

to see our officers elected in the good old-fashioned Democratic

mode, and not by some new-fangled mode that, to say the least

of it, wears an evil-omened and inauspicious aspect. I want to

see all true Democrats have a fair chance, according to their

merits, and do not want to see a political cut-throat bossism in-

augurated for the benefit of a close party corporation or syn-

dicate.20

Allen O. Myers, state representative from Franklin

County and strongly opposed to the election of Payne,

in his account of this contest speaks thus of the principal

reason brought forth by Democratic members of the

General Assembly for opposing Pendleton:

The argument used against Mr. Pendleton, was that he was

the author of the civil service law. But the platform upon

which the state ticket had been elected, and the legislature had

been carried, was the most emphatic endorsement of civil service

reform, that the Democratic party of Ohio had ever made. The

pretext for opposing Mr. Pendleton was the most flimsy and

pitiable that could be presented. This feature of the Senatorial

canvass only demonstrates the insincerity of political parties

and promises.21

Opinions still differ as to what extent this argument

was sincere or a matter of excuse. It seems clear, how-

20 Columbus Evening Dispatch, January 8, 1884.

21 Myers, Allen O., Bosses and Boodle in Ohio Politics, p. 228.



202 Ohio Arch

202      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

ever, that members of the General Assembly relied upon

it to justify their action with their constituents and it

may be truly said that Pendleton made the fight for

principle and paid the penalty. He was defeated in the

Democratic caucus and Payne succeeded him in the

Senate.

When the civil service bill was up for consideration,

friends warned him of its effect on his party. In answer

he said:

It has been said that the abandonment of the spoils system

will exclude Democrats from office when the day of our vic-

tory shall come. I do not think so. On the contrary I believe

the adoption of this policy as our party creed will hasten the

day of the victory of our party, and its adoption as a law will

under any administration fill many offices with Democrats. I

think it will bring to our aid very many men not hitherto of our

political faith, who believe this reform a vital question in our

politics.

In 1884 Grover Cleveland was elected President.

He won on a margin of less than 1,500 votes in the

state of New York. The result depended upon a num-

ber of influences, all of which were necessary to his

success. He had the support of Harper's Weekly and

the civil service reformers, the so-called mugwumps, of

that day. Without their aid he could not have been

elected. George H. Pendleton and his civil service act

were very material influences in bringing about this

result. He knew what he was talking about when he

said, "It will bring to our aid very many men not here-

tofore of our political faith who believe this reform a

vital question in our politics." He helped to win the

national victory for his party, but fell outside of the

breast-works at the hands of "the boys."



Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 203

Ohio's Contribution to National Civil Service Reform 203

In 1885 he was appointed by President Cleveland

minister to Germany, a post that he filled with credit to

himself and his country. On his way back to America,

he died at Brussels, Belgium, November 24, 1889. He

was survived by two daughters and a son, Frank Key

Pendleton, a successful lawyer and eminent jurist of

New York City. His wife, whose maiden name was

Alice Key, was a daughter of Francis Scott Key, the

author of The Star Spangled Banner. Her death by

accident, while her husband was in the foreign service,

almost prostrated him. From the shock he never fully

recovered.

George H. Pendleton was familiarly known as "Gen-

tleman George," and it is the testimony alike of sup-

porters and opponents that he was at all times and

under all circumstances the perfect gentleman. High

tribute is paid to his domestic virtues, his eminent

ability and his personal honor that was never sullied.

His great achievement, the civil service law, still

stands. In spite of all assaults, it is today more firmly

established than ever before. It will never be repealed.

Its place is as secure as if it were embedded in the con-

stitution. It has been extended and municipalities and

states are following the example of the national gov-

ernment. We do not realize what we owe to the merit

system. Its preventive agency is like that of pure water.

We are conscious of slight defects in the latter without

thought of its continuous contribution to our health and

the health of the community. So with the merit system.

We notice its defects, its limitations, its faulty admin-

istration without a thought of what would happen if

we went back to conditions of forty years ago. If the

great number of positions under the protection of the



204 Ohio Arch

204      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications

national civil service law were, as of old, thrown into

the lottery of a presidential campaign, it would rock the

Republic to its foundations.

It is easy often from surface indications or the noise

of interested parties to conclude that the civil service

law, or any law that runs counter to the interest of a

considerable number of people, is a farce. On the whole,

however, it must be conceded that the merit system is

a pronounced success, and the law that established it

is the greatest achievement in constructive statesman-

ship to the credit of an Ohioan since the close of the

Civil War.