Ohio History Journal

THOMAS JEFFERSON AND THE REMOVAL OF

GOVERNOR ST. CLAIR IN 1802

BY RANDOLPH CHANDLER DOWNES, M. A.,

Instructor in History and Economics, Marietta College

While going through the papers of Thomas Jeffer-

son at the Library of Congress and the Territorial

Papers in the State Department last summer seeking

to determine the relationship of Jefferson to the political

situation in the Northwest Territory from 1800-1802, I

obtained, among other things, copies of several letters

that passed between Jefferson and his advisers concern-

ing the removal from office of Arthur St. Clair, Gov-

ernor of the Northwest Territory. I have taken ex-

cerpts from some of these letters, and in some cases the

letters themselves, which are printed below, in an at-

tempt to show how Mr. Jefferson handled this embar-

rassing question when his political supporters in the

Northwest Territory sought to remove the staunch old

Federalist, St. Clair, from the governorship. By way

of introduction, I will present the background of the

situation in the Northwest Territory in 1802.

It will be remembered that the desire for self-gov-

ernment that existed among the subjects of St. Clair's

colonial government became much more articulate in

1799 when the first popularly elected Legislature met

to assume its share in governing the Territory. This

advance in status was made possible under the terms

of the Ordinance of 1787, which provided that when the

(62)

64      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

these frontiersmen, who were too busy with their strug-

gle with the wilderness for anything else, a governmental

structure based on the most solid foundation. In time

they might take it over for themselves, but only after it

had been founded on the soundest principles of ap-

proved law, and only after the people themselves were

economically and politically ready to take over the con-

trol.

Everyone knows why such a system, however ideal

it may have been in theory, was thoroughly impractical

in American frontier conditions. The resourceful

pioneer was quite convinced that he was as capable in

the art of government as he was in the art of winning

a living from the most discouraging environment that

the frontier presented.  Self-government was one of

the most treasured principles carried by the American

pioneer into his new home.

Hence, we see why human nature decreed that, from

the meeting of the first popularly elected legislature in

the Northwest Territory in 1799, there should be an

ever increasing misunderstanding between the Gov-

ernor, the Federalist St. Clair, and the governed, the

people, whose will was subordinate to one over whom

they had no control.

It is not my purpose to rewrite the story of this

struggle at this time. I wish only to reproduce hitherto

unpublished letters to illustrate one of the closing phases

of the struggle.

We recall that the second territorial legislature in

December of 1801, under the domination of Federalist

political influences, passed an act giving its consent,

if Congress deemed it wise, to an alteration of the

Thomas Jefferson and the Removal of St. Clair.  65

Ordinance of 1787 changing the boundaries of the

states to be formed out of the region northwest of the

Ohio River. The eastern state was to be bounded on

the west by the Scioto River, thus cutting in half what

the Republicans hoped would become, and what actually

did become, the state of Ohio. The natural result of

this bisecting of what is now the state of Ohio would be,

of course, to delay the time when any part of the region

could reach the population of sixty thousand required

by the Ordinance for statehood and self-government.

The line of the Scioto River, furthermore, cut straight

through the middle of the region that was the strong-

hold of the supporters of self-government -- Ross and

Adams counties. These counties thus halved and with

part attached to the eastern division dominated by the

Marietta Federalists, and part to the division to the west

dominated by the Federalists of Cincinnati and Detroit,

would be politically paralyzed.

As a result, we find the Republican leaders, led by

Thomas Worthington of Chillicothe, heading a counter

movement against their political opponents for the de-

struction of the hopes of the latter for division. This

quickly developed into the movement that brought state-

hood and self-government to Ohio. One of the leading

features of this counter movement was the proposed

removal of Governor St. Clair by the President.

It is obvious that the executive removal of the Gov-

ernor would not be necessary if statehood and self-gov-

ernment should be gained at an early date. However,

an analysis of the various collections of manuscripts

will show that the movement of the Republicans for the

immediate removal of St. Clair came in the moments

Vol. XXXVI--5.

66      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

immediately following the passage by the Territorial

Legislature of the Division Act in December of 1801.

In the consternation of the moment, the only devices

that occurred to the Republican leaders were the pre-

vention of the carrying out of the wish of the majority

of the Legislature and the removal of the person whom

they felt to be the mainspring of the opposition. Later,

when it was realized that the political situation of Con-

gress made it quite possible not only to reject the Divi-

sion Act, as was done, but also to rush a statehood en-

abling act through, it then became unnecessary to re-

move St. Clair at all. However, the effort once begun,

could not be abandoned. Not until the Act of April 30

was passed, and a Republican constitutional convention

assured, could the Republican politicians see that St.

Clair's days were numbered. These facts are brought

out, in part, in the letters to follow.

Worthington, as an official delegate of the Territory

to Congress to accomplish the purposes mentioned, had

one great advantage over the Federalists. Thomas Jef-

ferson had become President of the United States in

March, 1801, at the head of the growing anti-Federalist

or Republican-Democratic party. Presented with the

opportunity of receiving a new state into the Union

which would bring two Republican senators and one

Republican representative, as well as three Republican

electoral votes for President, Jefferson and his Repub-

lican Congress could scarcely be expected to oppose the

movement which would make them politically stronger.

In this, Worthington, as we know, was successful, be-

cause he was able to show that the majority of the

people in the Territory desired self-government.

Thomas Jefferson and the Removal of St. Clair.  67

In his other purpose, the removal of St. Clair,

Worthington's chances were not as good. Jefferson, as

may be seen in his inaugural address of 1801, said, "We

are all Republicans, we are all Federalists," did not in-

tend to use his power to remove government officials too

flagrantly for purely political purposes.

We find, therefore, from the following letter an at-

tempt to proceed only after due consultation with his

cabinet. We find further that, even after that delibera-

tion, he refused to accede to the desires of the Chilli-

cothe Republicans because their case was not strong

enough, and, after all, there was no longer any need to

fear St. Clair with statehood promised.

Jefferson knew, of course, that, since Congress on

April 30 had authorized a convention to meet at Chilli-

cothe in the fall for the purpose of forming a state con-

stitution, the Chillicothe politicians had received enough

to be thankful for. He knew also that it would be po-

litically unwise to remove a man of the opposite party

when he had only a few more months to serve. If the

Territory were truly Republican, there need be no fear

of St. Clair being elected governor to succeed himself.

I have not reproduced in detail the charges against

St. Clair. They are to be found in the papers of Thomas

Worthington, Governor St. Clair, and Thomas Jeffer-

son. They are too intricate and would require a great

deal of explanation and analysis of past events, for

which we have not room. A list of them will be found

in W. H. Smith, The Life and Public Services of

Arthur St. Clair, Vol. II, pp. 566-567. Summarized,

they are as follows:

68                 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

(1)       Illegal formation of new counties and fixing their seats

of justice by his sole authority.

(2)      Veto of useful and necessary acts.

(3)      Taking illegal fees.

(4)      Approving legislation providing fees for himself which

were supposed to be compensation for fees of which

he was deprived by other legislation which he vetoed,

thus keeping both sets of fees.

(5)  Attempting to dismember the Territory and delay the

will of the people for statehood.

(6) Appointing his son Attorney General during good be-

havior while all other appointments were made subject

to the Governor's pleasure.

(7)  Bringing pressure to bear on the courts by threat of

removal.

(8)  Appointing to offices of one county residents of

another.

(9)  Neglect of organization and disciplining of the militia.

(10) Public announcement of hostility to a republican form

of government.1

Having    received a copy    of these charges from

Thomas Worthington, with the papers substantiating

each, Jefferson, on April 29, 1802, sent them with St.

Clair's answers to the cabinet members with the fol-

lowing note asking for their opinion on the matter:

Th Jefferson asks the favor of the heads of the Departments

to examine and consider the charges of Col. Worthington against

Govr. St. Clair with the answer of the latter and the documents

in support or in validation of the charges; & to favor him with

their opinion in writing on each charge distinctly, whether "es-

tablished" or "not established," and whether those "established"

are sufficiently weighty to render the removal of the Governor

proper

[Signed]    TH JEFFERSON.²

1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, vol. 124, Library of Congress. Letter of

Madison to Jefferson, dated June 19, 1802.

2 Ibid. vol. 123. Letter addressed to Heads of the Departments, dated

April 29, 1802.

Thomas Jefferson and the Removal of St. Clair.   69

On the next day, April 30, Albert Gallatin,³ Secre-

tary of the Treasury, replied with a very long analysis

of each of the charges. He summarized his conclusions

thus:

* * * Of the preceding charges the 3d, ₅th, 6th & 8th are

the only ones which appear established. The two last, although

the  Acts evince  improper partiality  for his family, do

not seem to afford alone, sufficient grounds for removal. Either

of the two others, the taking of illegal fees, or attempting to

dismember the Territory or State, is, in the Secretary's opinion,

sufficiently weighty to justify the appointment of a Successor:

the first obviously so; the last, though not morally, yet politically

still more reprehensible. As an Administrator of that Govern-

ment and the Organ of the general Government in the Territory,

it was his duty to keep it entire according to the existing pro-

visions established by those from whom he derived and in whose

name he exercised his authority; instead of which he seems to

have been the prime mover of Acts tending to foment internal

dissensions and to defeat the ordinance of 1787, an ordinance

which was grounded on a compact between the United States &

Virginia, and is the charter of the people of the Territory. The

boundaries therein established could not until the admission of

the State in the Union, when it will be embraced by the pro-

visions of the Constitution, be alter'd without the consent of the

people of the Territory, of Congress & of Virginia. Any act of

the territorial legislature on the subject was an assumption of

power not belonging to them & ought to have been discounte-

nanced & negatived by the Governor.

But although a removal is justifiable on those grounds, the

propriety of that measure under present circumstances, appears

doubtful. Congress having provided for the admission of the

new State in the Union, the Age, infirmities & past services of

the Governor, may be a sufficient reason why the mortification

of a removal should be spared, if by the Assent of the territorial

Convention, his Office shall of course expire with the Colonial

form of Government. Should, however, by the dissent of the

Convention, the present form of Government continue any longer,

those reasons could not have any weight. In the present situa-

tion of things, the difficulty of appointing a proper Successor

3 Gallatin was greatly interested in western lands in the Northwest

Territory as can be seen from the correspondence of Nathaniel Massie,

Worthington, and Duncan McArthur.

70        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

affords an additional reason for continuing the Governor until

the result is ascertained. It would be extremely difficult to find

a proper Character out of the Territory, who could, under pres-

ent circumstances, consent to remove there for that purpose; nor

does it seem eligible, when the Colony is merging into an inde-

pendent State, that the Supreme Executive should seem to be-

lieve, that it is necessary to seek for a man fit to govern, out of

the Territory And yet, although there are doubtless, there, many

Individuals perfectly qualified, the information of the President

is very limited on that subject; and the Characters most conspicu-

ous from Office or other circumstances, either are amongst the

Accusers of Governor St. Clair, or intimately connected with

them, or would not exchange their present situation, for that of

a temporary Governor.

Respectfully submitted by

[Signed]    ALBERT GALLATIN.⁴

On June 19, 1802, James Madison, Secretary of State,

replied at length on each charge, the tenor of which

reply is contained in his closing paragraph:

* * * Upon the whole it appears that altho the conduct

of the Governor has been highly culpable in sundry instances,

and sufficiently so in the particular cases of commissioning his

son during good behavior, and in what relates to fees, to plead

for a removal of him from his office, yet considering the revo-

lutionary and other grounds on which some indulgence may be

felt for him, it is the opinion of the Secretary of State, that it

will be proper to leave him in posession of his office under the

influence of a salutary admonition.

[Signed]    JAMES MADISON.⁵

These conclusions of Madison and Gallatin, showing

the similarity of their views on the impropriety of

drastic measures, need no comment. On the basis of

these opinions, Jefferson determined his action in leav-

ing St. Clair in possession of his office. It was, how-

4 Thomas Jefferson Papers, vol. 123. Letter of Gallatin to Jefferson,

dated April 30, 1802.

5 Thomas Jefferson Papers, vol. 124. Madison to Jefferson, dated June

19, 1802.

Thomas Jefferson and the Removal of St. Clair.         71

ever, on the basis of Madison's suggestion to do so, but

"under the influence of a salutary admonition", that

specific action was taken, as the following letter of Mad-

ison to St. Clair shows:

Department of State

June 23d, 1802.

GOVERNOR ST. CLAIR.

SIR:

The several charges against you as Governor of the North

Western Territory with the vindication offered in your several

communications ending 17th June 1802, have been duly consid-

ered by the President. Altho' he is disposed to view with much

indulgence the transactions of an officer, who has stood in so

many honorable and interest [sic] relations to his country, he has

judged it indispensible that his particular disapprobation should

be expressed to you, of your conduct in granting to your son an

illegal tenure of office; and in accepting yourself illegal fees, an

abuse which he expects will be immediately rectified by proper

notice to the agents collecting them. He has charged me also to

make known to you, that in continuing, since the commencement

of the Legislative power under the second grade of Government,

to lay out Counties and fix their seats of justice by your sole

authority, you have not pursued the construction put by the Ex-

ecutive on the Ordinance constituting the Territorial Government.a

(a) This statement is a complete reversal of an opinion submitted

February 2, 1802, by Jefferson's Attorney General, Levi Lincoln. This

opinion, in strictly legal language, very carefully stated the grounds for

allowing the Governor of the Northwest Territory to lay out new counties.

It was not written in reply to Jefferson's letter to the Department heads.

Madison's and Gallatin's are the only ones to be found in Jefferson's papers.

The only reference to the politics of the situation in Lincoln's statement

is to be found in the closing sentence: "Knowing that some very respect-

able gentlemen are decidedly of the opinion that the governor has no right

to lay out counties under the Ordinance, I have slept many nights on my

first impression of the subject, and am still inclined to the opinion I have

above expressed, notwithstanding anything I have been able to learn re-

specting the matter."  Worthington had been in Washington for about

two weeks when this opinion was submitted.

I am indebted to Mr. E. L. Valentine of the University of Wisconsin

for calling my attention to the above document which is to be found in

Volume 1, pp. 102-106 of the Official Opinions of the Attorneys General of

the United States Advising the President and Heads of Departments in

Relation to Their Official Duties . . . Washington, 1852.

72        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

From the regret which the President has felt at an occasion

for the animadversions now conveyed, you will be sensible how

much you will contribute to his satisfaction by such a line of

official conduct as may best obviate discontents among the people

under your administration, foster their respect for the laws, and

coincide with the benevolent policy of the federal Government

towards their rights and interests.

I have the honor to be etc.

[Signed]    JAMES MADISON.⁶

One cannot refrain from indulging in an expression of

admiration for Madison's verbal agility in handling so

adroitly this delicate task.

It is to be expected that this decision of the admin-

istration was extremely displeasing to the Territorial

Republicans.    The following letter of Worthington to

Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina, Speaker of the

House of Representatives, shows his disappointment

with Jefferson:

* * * St. Clair has not yet arrived we are told he is not to

be removed you may rest assured Mr. Jefferson in this business

will loose ground with the republicans of the west. It was ac-

knowledged in the city by all who were made acquainted with the

charges that the govr ought to be removed you will no doubt

recollect Mr. Gallatin's observations on this subject the day be

[sic] we parted The people here have been oppressed for 8 or

10 years past by Sargent & St Clair alternately they have com-

plained & not been attended to & now when Congress have en-

abled them to form for themselves a govt of their own choice

the executive of the U. S. is about to permit a tyrant by his acts

& intrigue to destroy the prospects & thwart the wishes of the

people. I have stated these things over & over again to Mr. Jef-

ferson & his councillors yet I fear without effect, I wish most

heartily my predictions may not be true at least 2/3 of our citi-

zens I am sure are decidedly republican & anxious to form a

6 Domestic Letters, State Dept., vol. 14, pp. 29-30. This letter is

catalogued in D. W. Parker's, Calendar of Papers in Washington Archives

relating to the Territories of the United States to 1873, Washington, D. C.,

Carnegie Institute, 1911, No. 6386.

Thomas Jefferson and the Removal of St. Clair.    73

State Govt this is what affords me the hope that we shall get

more easily thro our difficulties be this as it may, Mr. Jefferson

in my humble opinion is bound to equal justice to the citizens of

every part of the U. S. * * *7

Although the Republicans were balked in their im-

patient desire to be rid of St. Clair, their political activi-

ties bore fruit in the overwhelmingly Republican Con-

stitutional Convention that met in November of 1802.

In the meantime, the following complaint from the

Secretary of the Territory, Charles Willing Byrd⁸ was

sent to Jefferson under date of October 15, 1802:

Secretary's Office -- Cincinnati.

Northwestern Territory. 15th of Oct. 1802.

SIR:

The subject of this Letter will, I trust, plead my apology

for the liberty I now take in trespassing on your time.

Governor St. Clair has at last committed an act which, unless

he should be immediately removed from office, will preclude the

possibility of my discharging, any longer, some of the most essen-

tial duties that are attached to the office of Secretary of the Ter-

ritory.

Not contented with the violation of the Act of Congress,

which in the absence of the Governor, invests the Secretary with

all the powers and injoins upon him all the duties of the first

Magistrate, by taking with him from the Territory on one of his

visits to his private Estate at Ligonier in Pennsylvania the public

Seal of the Territory (with a view to prevent me from appointing

Republicans to office) -- not satisfied with having removed several

meritorious Republicans whom I had commissioned during his

last absence, and with throwing every obstacle in my way, merely

because I enjoy the confidence of the Republican Party who have

7 Letter Book of Thomas Worthington, Library of Congress, pp.

116-117.

8 Secretary Byrd was responsible only to the President. His letters to

Nathaniel Massie, a family relative, are rich in their political significance.

See D. M. Massie, Nathaniel Massie, Cincinnati, 1896. Byrd became act-

ing governor after St. Clair's removal in November. After Ohio became

a state, he was appointed by Jefferson as the first United States District

Judge for Ohio.

74        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

lately elected me to the Convention, -- he withholds from me the

Records of my office which he obtained the possession of (some

months ago) by deceiving me with a promise of returning them

as soon as he should have looked over the statement of my offi-

cial proceedings during his late visit to the Atlantic States.

The relative situation in which I stand as the second Officer

in the Government, together with the other motives of delicacy

and the prospect of our having a State Government in the course

of the ensuing Summer, has prevented me heretofore from repre-

senting to the General Government some of his manifold mis-

deeds. Indeed it is with much reluctance that I am constrained

to do it on this occasion: but it is a duty of justice which I owe

to my Office to give you the above statement as I can no longer

perform some of the most important duties injoined upon me,

unless he should be compelled to return to me the Journals of my

Office immediately, which he will not do until he is removed.

There is another consideration to which I beg leave to call

your attention. The last Session of our Legislature cost the

Territory ten thousand dollars; and the Session to be held on the

fourth Monday⁹ in next month promises also to be an expensive

one. It is the opinion of all those persons, who are not depend-

ent on the Governor for their continuance in office, that as we

are so soon to have a State Government and a State Legislature

(which is now fully ascertained by the Returns of the Members

chosen to the Convention) that there is no necessity for another

Session of the Territorial Assembly.  But the People are so

thoroughly satisfied that an application to Governor St Clair for

the postponement of the Legislature, would prove abortive, that

they are discouraged from making it. They have told me that

they would petition for his removal from Office even at this late

hour, in order to save the useless expense of another Session of

the Territorial Assembly; if they had not been convinced by

experience that their petitions on this subject would not be at-

tended to.

I have the honor to be Sir

With very high respect

Yr-mo-ob-Servt--

[Signed]    CHARLES WILLING BYRD.1⁰

9 This second meeting of the Legislature had been set at the close of

the first meeting in January, 1802, Smith, St. Clair, II, p. 561, but, due to

the meeting of the Constitutional Convention, it was never held.

10 Thomas Jefferson Papers, vol. 126. Byrd to Jefferson, dated Oct.

15, 1802.

Thomas Jefferson and the Removal of St. Clair.  75

For some reason or other, this letter was not re-

ceived by Jefferson until December 1, several days

after St. Clair was removed for his nullification speech

to the Constitutional Convention, so no action on it was

necessary.

On November 1, the Convention met and decided in

favor of forming a constitution. On November 3, Gov-

ernor St. Clair was permitted to address the Conven-

tion. In his speech, he made the statement that the act

of Congress enabling the people to meet in convention

was "not binding on the people" and was a "nullity".

The entire speech, with this and other intemperate re-

marks, was soon in Jefferson's hands and provided suf-

ficient grounds, lacking earlier in the year, for the re-

moval of the Governor by letter of November 22.11

Once more, apparently, Jefferson addressed the

Heads of Departments. On November 20, two days

before the dismissal letter of Madison to St. Clair, he

received the following advisory letter from Gallatin,

which needs no comment:

DEAR SIR:

The enclosed communication of Gov. St. Clair to the con-

vention is so indecent, & outrageous that it must be doubtful

whether, notwithstanding his approaching political death, it is

not incumbent on the Executive to notice it. He calls the act of

Congress a nullity -- He misrepresents all its parts, as you will

perceive by a recurrence to the Act -- He advises them to make

a constitution for the whole Territory in defiance of the law --

He asserts that they are entitled to more than one representative,

and for that purpose misquotes the case of Tennessee who,

(though by the census, under which they were admitted, they

were entitled to two members,) obtained only one on the ground

of the census of 1790 by which the other States were then rep-

11 See Smith, St. Clair, I, pp. 244-246.

76        Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

resented; and by the census of 1800 by which all the States are

now represented Ohio State is entitled to only one -- &c -- &c.

Your's with sincere respect

[Signed]    ALBERT GALLATIN.

May I keep your message till tomorrow? A. G. Saturday.12

Endorsed: Departm. Treasury. Nov. 20. 1802.

recd. Nov. 20.

Two days later the letter removing the Governor was

sent to St. Clair by Madison.

A copy of St. Clair's speech was sent to Jefferson by

Worthington. In the letter of November 8 accompany-

ing the copy of the speech, Worthington has apparently

forgotten his earlier criticism of Jefferson, due to the

optimistic turn of events as described in its contents.

It contains an element of confidence with which we may

well close:

Chillicothe, Nov. 8th, 1802.

SIR:

I have the honour to enclose to you herewith the Sioto

Gazette from which you will find our convention has commenced

its sitting -- you will also see a communication made by governor

St. Clair to the convention which is expressive of his wishes &

opinions in this business -- Having taken a very active part in

obtaining the passage of the law of Congress for our ad-

mission I have felt very deeply interested in the event of our

elections for members to the Convention -- My gratification has

in some measure equalled my anxiety The republican ticket has

succeed [sic] beyond my most sanguine expectations. 26 decided

Republicans have been elected 7 federalists & 2 doubtful in all

35 the number given us by the law -- I feel the greatest pleasure

sir in giving you this information as our republican friends in

Congress have exhibited the strongest proof of thir friendship

towards in [sic] enabling us to form for ourselves a constitution

and state government congenial to the feelings of free men with-

out respect to any difference in political opinion. I have good

12 Thomas Jefferson Papers, vol. 127, Gallatin to Jefferson, dated Nov

20, 1802.