THE NEGRO IN EARLY OHIO*
BY CHARLES JAY WILSON
"If men were angels," wrote
John Jay in the fifth
of the Federalist papers,
"no government would be
necessary." Few people of today
who live the richer
intellectual life which follows
naturally upon an en-
deavor to sound out modern social
phenomena and strike
something deeper than the superficial
aspects will find
much in this principle with which to
quarrel. In fact,
a majority more likely would contend
that the New York
barrister should have carried his statement
a little far-
ther to say, "If men were angels,
there would be no his-
tory." After all, history is the
story of the relative
strengths and weaknesses of mankind,
and if there were
no weaknesses to throw the strengths
into greater relief,
there would be no story worth the
telling. Quite con-
sistently, then, the historical field
affords an abundance
of proof in support of the truism that
when the lamb of
idealism and the lion of practicality
lie down together,
very frequently it is the lion alone
which arises again.
No better example of the modification
of a nebulous
theory in the light of the cold facts
presented by practical
considerations can be found than the
change in the atti-
tude of the people of Ohio toward the
negro between
* Awarded the annual prize offered by
the Ohio Society of Colonial
Wars for the best essay in early Western
history and offered as a thesis for
the degree of Master of Arts in the
University of Cincinnati, June, 1929,
History Department.
(717)
718 Ohio
Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
1787 and 1815. It is not within the
province of a his-
torical discussion to argue the merits
and demerits of
such a transition in its ethical
relations. The problem
of the student of history is to note
the change, assign the
causes responsible for it, and sound
the warning that in
case similar conditions should present
themselves in the
future, history probably will repeat
itself.
In view of this fact it will be the endeavor
of this
paper to show that in their attitude
toward the negro, the
people comprising the population
centering in Ohio be-
tween 1787 and 1815 varied at the time
of their immi-
gration. A further attempt will be made
to prove that,
except in cases embodying unusual
circumstances, com-
mon exposure to common conditions led
to the adoption
of a common attitude toward the black
man, regardless
of previous views in the matter.
Influenced by the environment they had
known be-
fore coming into the Northwest, the
early settlers rep-
resented different degrees of
experience in relation to
the negro, and, accordingly, different
degrees of ideal-
ism concerning him. This variety of
attitudes was re-
flected in their political and social
dealings with the
black, and the result was that the
negro could expect
treatment of an entirely different
nature in each section
of Ohio during the early years of
statehood. In time,
however, the opinion of those whose
altruism for the
colored man had been based upon
inexperience gradually
swung around to square with the
viewpoint of those who
understood thoroughly from the
beginning the problems
involved in racial intermixture.
Association with the
blacks killed any sentimentality that
may have existed
in the hearts of the erstwhile
theorists, and they became
The Negro in Early Ohio 719
practical in their racial relations to
the fullest extent.
Yet, one element of this theoretical
group, being settled
in a section of the state remote from
any contact with
the negro, tended to retain its
idealism intact. Practical
conditions had not required the
subversion of theory.
In order to make an intelligent
investigation into
the negro question in early Ohio, it is
necessary for one
who would understand the problem thoroughly
to allow
two general premises and to keep these
thoroughly in
mind throughout the course of his
analysis. The first
of these is that there was at no time
in the history of the
state any preponderant pro-slavery
sentiment in Ohio;1
and the second is that the ultimate
disagreement in the
state over the negro question was not a
struggle waged
by pro-slavery against anti-slavery
forces as such. It
was a clash between one element
instilled with the
humanitarian spirit in the apotheosis
of its idealism and
another group which was grimly
determined to prevent
the admission of negroes into the state
under any cir-
cumstances. The former wished to make
Ohio a haven
for negroes who had escaped bondage elsewhere,
while
the latter was decidedly opposed to the
presence of the
negro in the state whether as slave or
freeman. Both
rejected slavery in principle. It was
largely a struggle
between a theoretical group which
understood compara-
tively nothing about the problems
involved in the daily
contact of whites and blacks as opposed
to a very prac-
tical group which understood the negro
thoroughly and
which desired his exclusion from the
state on economic
and social grounds. The idealists
considered him
1 E. O. Randall and D. J. Ryan, History
of Ohio (6 vols., New York,
1912), Vol. IV, p. 119.
720 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
"God's image in ebony," while
the practical element
viewed him as a cloud on the horizon at
the dawn of
statehood. The latter group in general
was somewhat
apathetic as to the condition of the
negro, for his status
concerned them little, but they were
emphatic that he
should not remain among them, whatever
his condition.2
It is not hard to understand the
attitude of this class
when it is noted that many of them were
Southerners
who had left the South not only to get
away from the
evils of slavery, but because they did
not particularly
relish an environment which was marred
by the presence
of a shiftless, ignorant, and
irresponsible race. Their
opposition to the theorists of early
Ohio was based on
several points. The first was their
feeling that the
state was being made the dumping
grounds for pen-
niless blacks from the South;3 the
second was their dis-
trust of the innate characteristics of
the negro;4 and
the third was their fear that an overly
cordial reception
to negroes escaping slavery either
legitimately or ille-
gitimately would disrupt amicable
commercial and social
relations that had been established
with the South by
means of the Ohio River.5 While
the practical and theo-
retical groups were important, they did
not include all
elements in the state. They were merely
the active
classes, and among the non-rioting
citizens every shade
of opinion on the negro question was
represented. Yet,
even so, the history of Ohio reveals in
a majority of the
inhabitants a consistent and unwavering
opposition to
2 Randall
and Ryan, History of Ohio, Vol. IV, p. 119.
3 Robert E. Chaddock, Ohio Before
1850 (New York, 1908), p. 82.
4 Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio, Vol.
IV, p. 122.
5 Chaddock, Ohio Before 1850, p.
81.
The Negro in Early Ohio 721
the attempts of a stubborn minority
both within and
without the state to bring about the
introduction of
slavery. Furthermore, events indicate
an increasing op-
position to the settlement of negroes
within the state
under any circumstances.
In order to appreciate the attitude
toward the negro
in Ohio, it is necessary to know
something of the back-
ground of the people who comprised the
population of
the state in its embryo form as a part
of the Northwest
Territory. In a sense, Ohio between
1787 and 1800,
when it was divided off as a separate
territory, had been
a melting pot for reducing to common
metal the people
of diverse sections of the country.6
The most important
routes of travel at the time focused
the streams of im-
migrants seeking a new life in the West
into the present
confines of Ohio. It is a
well-established principle that
in general only the hardest-handed,
sternest-willed, and
stoutest-hearted elements of a
population possess the
initiative and the determination
necessary to emigration
to the wilds of a pioneer country and
to adaptation to
frontier conditions. In this sense Ohio
drew the cream
of a population on the seaboard which
represented a
transplantation of some of the
healthiest elements of
European civilization.
One of the most important classes of
people coming
into Ohio was the Scotch-Irish. A large
part of them
were from Pennsylvania and the Middle
States, but the
same type flocked in by the hundreds
from Virginia and
Kentucky as well.7 Although
these people represented
6 B.
A. Hinsdale, The Old Northwest (New York, 1888), p. 284.
7 Jervace Cutler, Ohio, Indiana
Territory and Kentucky, (Boston 1812),
p. 17.
Vol. XXXIX--46.
722 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
all sections of their original states,
many of them came
from the back-country as this region
began to fill in.8
This Scotch-Irish element rather
generally scattered
itself along the counties facing the
river. Those from
Virginia and Kentucky, representing the
poorer, more
democratic, non-slave-holding class
from these states,
centered to a great extent in the
Virginia Military Dis-
trict.9 The Pennsylvanians,
on the other hand, dispersed
themselves over the lands of the Ohio
Company, the
Symmes Purchase and the seven ranges
retained by
Congress. While the Scotch-Irish were
largely united
in their opposition to slavery, their
reason tended to be
economic rather than moral. They were
interested in
bettering their financial condition,
and this seemed im-
possible so long as they were competing
with slave labor.
So far as the Southerners were
concerned, they had been
attracted to this region by the
prohibition of slavery in
the Ordinance of 1787 as much as by
anything else.10
Yet, while they were opposed to
slavery, these men
looked with decided disfavor upon the
presence of the
free negro in Ohio. Many of them had
never been slave-
holders, many others had freed their
slaves before cross-
ing the Ohio River, and practically all
of them dreamed
of establishing a new home on free
soil.11 Those who in-
sisted upon slavery very largely stayed
in Kentucky. Of
the southern Scotch-Irish who crossed
the Ohio River,
it would seem that they made the mental
reservation that
"free" applied only to white
persons, for at no time did
8 F. J. Turner, Rise of the New
World, (Amer. Nat. Ser. New York,
1906), p. 76.
9 Chaddock, Ohio Before 1850, p.
33.
10 Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio,
Vol. IV, p. 119.
11 Chaddock, Ohio Before 1850, p.
78.
The Negro in Early Ohio 723
they indicate in any manner that they
intended to permit
Ohio to become a dumping-grounds for
escaped or
emanicipated blacks.12 They
distrusted the negro's in-
nate qualities, and they did not intend
to assume "the
white man's burden" if this
entailed permitting the
negro to reside among them. Their
Southern background
enabled them to see too clearly the
train of social and
economic problems that was bound to
follow. Accord-
ingly, it naturally would be expected
that the Virginians
would stand opposed to slavery in Ohio,
but that they
would favor any restrictive legislation
aimed at keeping
the negro out of the state. Thomas
Worthington and
Edward Tiffin, brothers-in-law, both of
whom were later
governors of Ohio, are excellent
examples of settlers
from Virginia who freed their slaves
and then came into
the Northwest.13 Yet it was
Tiffin, as president of the
state constitutional convention, who
cast the deciding
vote to deprive the negro of the
ballot,14 and it was dur-
ing his terms as governor that the
repressive "black
codes," directed against the negro
were passed in 1804
and in 1807.
Of the Scotch-Irish from Pennsylvania
and the other
Middle States, few had ever held
slaves. Whatever
slavery they had seen had failed to be
profitable enough
to cause them to favor the institution.
They felt that its
introduction into Ohio not only would
lower the status of
free labor and create a difficult form
of competition, but
that it would also create a situation
unfriendly to the
simplicity and industry they desired.15
Then, too, they
12 Chaddock, Ohio Before
1850, p. 82.
13 Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio,
Vol. IV, p. 119.
14 Journal Ohio
State Constitutional Convention, p. 24.
15 Chaddock, Ohio Before 1850,
p. 79.
724 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
represented the transition region
between the intolerance
of New England and the grim
determination of the
lower South, in so far as these
attitudes were developed
at the time. For these reasons, the
Middle States men
might reasonably be expected to be
rather liberal. That
they had personal convictions, for
whatever reasons,
was amply attested by the fact that
they did not hold
slaves themselves. Yet they were not particularly
op-
posed to the practice by other people
provided this slav-
ery did not interfere with their
well-being. Accordingly,
they were opposed to slavery in Ohio,
but their moral
sensibilities seemingly were not
sufficiently developed to
cause them to concern themselves with
the slaves of
other states. Certainly if they did not
want the negro
among them as a slave, they would not
desire him as
a free man. It is not surprising, then,
that the Middle
States Scotch-Irish lined up with
Southerners of their
racial type, not only in opposing
slavery, but also in
supporting legislation to discourage
colored immigra-
tion into Ohio.
One of the most important as well as
interesting of
the groups which came into early Ohio
was the New
England delegation. These people
settled almost ex-
clusively either in the Western Reserve
or on the lands
of the Ohio Company centering around
the Muskingum
River. In both Cleveland and Marietta,
then, settlers
of the substantial Puritan type were to
be found. A
number were former Revolutionary War
officers; they
were efficient, law-abiding, educated,
and, unlike the
Scotch-Irish, they were opposed to
slavery on humani-
tarian and moral grounds, as distinct
from economic rea-
The Negro in Early Ohio 725
sons.16 Having had little
practical experience with the
negro, they were in a position to
theorize about his vir-
tues. Distance appears to have lent
enchantment, for as
long as the negro remained a novelty to
both settlements,
he was regarded with favorable eyes. It
was only after
the people of Marietta had experienced
some of the
problems involved in the constant
association of whites
with blacks that the edge was taken off
their idealism.
As a result of their somewhat rude
awakening, they split
in opinion with their New England
brethren in the Re-
serve, and they tended to accept the
more mundane at-
titude of other settlers in the state
who were very prac-
tical in their views concerning the
negro.
Another interesting element of
population in the
state was the Quaker group. They were
divided into a
northern and a southern branch, the
former coming
largely from Pennsylvania, and the
latter representing
southern Virginia and the Carolinas.17
Regardless of
the region from which they came, the
Quakers were op-
posed to slavery. In fact the
emigration of the south-
ern Quakers was but a concrete form of
protest against
the institution.18 Even
though these latter had experi-
enced contact with the negro, and were
as fully aware of
his shortcomings as anyone, the
peculiar mildness of
their religion led them to shut their
eyes to practical con-
siderations and to cling tightly to
their ideals of the
rights of the negro as a man. Their
consistency was
ample testimony of their sincerity. To
a large extent,
the Quakers settled in the central and
the southeastern
16 Hinsdale, The
Old Northwest, p. 351.
17 Chaddock, Ohio Before 1850, p. 35-36.
18 Randall and Ryan, History of
Ohio, Vol. IV, p. 124.
726 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
counties of the state, and, together
with the New Eng-
landers at Marietta, they comprised a
majority in this
region that at first was disposed to
accord the negro fair
treatment. Later, when the New
Englanders reversed
opinions previously held and the
balance swung over to
oppression of the blacks, the Quakers,
with dogged de-
termination, composed a stubborn
minority that fought
bitterly for what it believed was
right. It was partly
from this group that the ardent Ohio
Abolitionists of the
'thirties and 'forties were drawn.
Ohio, then, was the meeting-place for
the population
of many states. Some regions of the
present state, such
as the Virginia Military District and
the Western Re-
serve, were settled almost entirely by
homogeneous peo-
ple. Others, such as the Symmes
Purchase, represented
a curious mixture of cosmopolitan
elements. Yet in
the state as a whole there was a
measure of unity in pur-
poses, beliefs, and ideals, one of the
most striking of
which was a deep-seated opposition to
slavery.19 It is
true that this common viewpoint was
reached through
entirely different channels of
reasoning, but this fact
rendered no less impenetrable the
united front presented
to attempts from outside Ohio to
introduce slavery into
the state. The diversity in the
processes of reasoning
by which this common attitude was
evolved is indicated
by the various stands taken toward
permitting the negro
to live in Ohio at all. While agreeing
completely that
slavery should not be permitted in the
state, the early
settlers could not reconcile
preconceived ideas of the ad-
visability of admitting the colored man
into the com-
munity as a freeman.
19 Chaddock, Ohio
Before 1850, p. 46.
The Negro in Early Ohio 727
During the early history of the state,
the religious
denominations taking the most decided
stand against
slavery were the Quaker, the Baptist,
the Methodist, and
the Presbyterian. The pressure of
religious teaching
was important in maintaining the
attitude against
slavery and in nourishing the
fair-minded viewpoint
that the negro should be treated
humanely and fairly.
However, as the social and economic
life of the settlers
became more closely identified with
that of the South,
which bordered Ohio for more than 150
miles in the
case of Kentucky and 225 in the case of
Virginia,20 the
earlier moral attitude was transmuted.
The new view-
point became one of not objecting to
slavery in principle
except in Ohio.21 Gradually
was engrafted upon this
conception the quite logical conclusion
that if slavery
itself were not permitted in the state,
the negro was not
wanted at all, for in his free
condition he created prob-
lems that bore heavily upon the whites.
Yet, in spite of
this switch of general opinion, which
was evident chiefly
among the New Englanders of Marietta,
there remained
the little group of irreconcilables who
formed the nucleus
of the later militant Abolitionists.
Subsequently, when
the question of affording freed and
escaped negroes a
haven in the state became acute, those
few in Ohio who
seriously wished the introduction of
slavery joined with
those opposed to the presence of the
negro in making life
miserable for the Abolitionists. On the
surface it would
appear that an analogous situation
exists today, when,
as is charged by some modern
politicians, the prohibi-
tionists and those engaged in the
illicit liquor traffic, al-
20 Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio,
Vol. IV, p. 121.
21 Ibid, p. 119.
728 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
though they differ entirely in motive,
join forces and
fight shoulder to shoulder against the
"wets" submerg-
ing their differences temporarily in
the face of the
activities of the common foe.
It is not to be assumed that the fact
that a majority
of the early settlers in Ohio opposed
slavery was a mere
coincidence. The definite provision of
the sixth article
of compact in the Ordinance of 1787
that "there shall
be neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude in the said
territory, otherwise than in the
punishment of
crimes--"22 was
sufficient, as has been indicated, to keep
many slaveholders out of the state. It
also acted as a
magnet to attract many persons who were
flying from
the economic evils of slavery. In spite of the fact that
the Ordinance specifically forbade
slavery, there is no
doubt that the institution existed on a
small scale and
for a limited time in the Northwest
Territory.23 How-
ever it did not exist, except, perhaps
in isolated cases,
in that part of the territory which
subsequently became
the state of Ohio.
The first official mention of slavery
in connection
with the West is contained in
Jefferson's ill-fated Ordi-
nance of 1784. This document provided
for deferred
emancipation, stipulating that after
the year 1800
neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude should be per-
mitted in any of the land between the
Appalachians and
the Mississippi River.24 While
the Ordinance was
22 Laws of the Northwest Territory, (Cincinnati, 1796), p. 13.
23 Hinsdale, The Old Northwest, p.
350.
24 Charles T. Hickok, The Negro in
Ohio (Cleveland, 1896), p. 10, and
C. B. Galbreath, "Thomas
Jefferson's Views on Slavery" in Ohio Archaeo-
logical and Historical Society
Publications, Vol. XXXIV (Columbus,
1925),
p. 189.
The Negro in Early Ohio 729
passed by Congress, the slavery clause
was eliminated
but in the end the whole instrument was
abandoned and
an entirely new scheme of government
was adopted.
However, had the Ordinance of 1787 in
its proposed
form been adopted, and not the
Ordinance of 1787 been
substituted for it, slavery would have
had legal existence
in the Northwest Territory until
January 1, 1801.25
The next step leading to the Ordinance
of 1787 was
a motion offered by Nathan Dane of
Massachusetts for
the formation of a committee to report
a form of tem-
porary government for the territory.
The motion
passed Congress, and Monroe was made
chairman of
the committee. On May 10, 1786, a bill
was reported,
but no provision in regard to slavery
was incorporated
in the scheme of government.26 After
a long series of
delays and re-appointments to the
committee, an entirely
new bill was reported to Congress on
July 11, 1787.
This bill likewise contained no reference
to slavery, and
it was not until the next day, when the
bill was up for
a second reading, that Dane moved that
an anti-slavery
provision be attached as the sixth
article of compact.27
The next day, July 13, 1787, the
Ordinance passed with
the unanimous vote of all the states
represented.28 Of the
eighteen men voting, only one, Abraham
Yates of New
York, cast a dissenting ballot. It has
been rather neatly
said of him that he "insisted on
leaving to all future
25 Jay A. Barrett, The
Evolution of the Ordinance of 1787 (New York,
1891), p. 18, and C. B. Galbreath,
"Thomas Jefferson's Views on Slavery,"
p. 190.
26 Barrett, Evolution of the
Ordinance of 1787, p. 30.
27 Charles
R. King, The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King (6
vols., New York, 1894), Vol. VI, p. 278.
28 William H. Smith, The St. Clair
Papers (2 vols., Cincinnati, 1882),
Vol. 1, p. 131.
730 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
ages a record of his want of good
judgment, right feel-
ing and common sense."29 The
fact that the southern
states voted to support a measure which
incorporated an
anti-slavery clause is probably best
explained through
the financial embarrassment of the
government, which
was seized upon as an opportunity to
sell laud in the
West to the Ohio Company. One of the
conditions of
sale these New Englanders insisted upon
was that
slavery be forever prohibited in the
region of their pur-
chase.30
Although the facts indicate that there
was never
much pro-slavery sentiment in that part
of the Territory
which was to become Ohio, there can be
no doubt that
considerable feeling was worked up in
Indiana and in
Illinois against the sixth article of
compact. Some of
the old French "habitants" at
Vincennes and at Kas-
kaskia, together with some of the
southern settlers who
took slaves into that part of the
Northwest in the hope
that the sixth article of compact might
be repealed be-
came so insistent in the matter that
Governor St. Clair
deemed it advisable to issue a
statement as to what was
implied in the anti-slavery clause. He
took as the
occasion to offer this definition the
presentation of a
petition by Bartholomew Tardiveau,
representing the
"habitants" of Illinois. The
petition challenged the
legality of the Ordinance, yet asked
St. Clair to request
Congress to modify the sixth article.31
While the Gov-
29 Bancroft, History of the United
States, quoted in Hickok, The Negro
in Ohio, p. 19.
30 Hinsdale, The Old Northwest, p.
346, and W. P. and J. P. Cutler,
The Life, Journal and Correspondence
of the Rev. Manasseh Cutler (2
vols., Cincinnati, 1888), Vol. I, p.
242.
31 Smith, The St. Clair Papers, Vol. II, p. 117.
The Negro in Early Ohio 731
ernor did not take this action, his
statement recognized
the claim of the "habitants"
that the sixth article ap-
proximated ex post facto legislation
so far as they were
concerned. Therefore he declared that
the clause was
not intended to be retroactive, but
merely to prevent the
importation of slaves into the
Territory. It was not,
he stated, designed to free those in
the Territory who
were in bondage at the time of the passage
of the Ordi-
nance, for slavery was recognized by
French and Eng-
lish laws when the United States
assumed jurisdiction.32
Inasmuch as this interpretation came in
1789, it applied
to Ohio, which, of course, was still a
part of the North-
west Territory. However, the
application was purely
incidental, so far as the Ohio country
was concerned,
and the importance of the matter for
the purposes of this
paper is negative. It indicates simply
that whatever
slavery sentiment existed in the
Northwest was outside
the limits of present-day Ohio.
The first mention of slavery in
connection with
legislation in the Northwest Territory
came on May 29,
1795, in a meeting of the Governor and
the Judges at
Cincinnati. Judge Turner proposed that
a law be
adopted authorizing the courts of
common pleas to bind
out for a reasonable term the free
children born of
slaves. The motion was ordered to lie
upon the table
and was not reconsidered.33 Inasmuch
as the laws
adopted subsequently do not include
such a provision,
apparently nothing was done about the
matter. The im-
portance of this incident is that it
indicates that St. Clair
and the Judges were acting upon the
interpretation the
32 Smith, The St. Clair Papers, Vol. II, p. 118.
33 The Western Spy, August 22,
1795, p. 2.
732 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Governor had made of the sixth article
of compact in re-
sponse to Tardiveau's petition.
Obviously slavery was
being practiced in the Territory.
Equally as obvious was
the fact that the Governor and the
Judges were aware of
this, but that they winked at the
matter. Actually, then,
gradual emancipation was carried out in
the Northwest
Territory, although the importation of
slaves was for-
bidden.
More evidence in support of this
contention was
forthcoming in 1796, when the first
active attempt was
made while the Territory was a unit to
upset the sixth
article of compact. This was in the
form of a petition
to Congress stating that while slavery
was being per-
mitted in the territory, it was
desirable that a law be
passed legalizing the enslavement of
the children of
slaves, a condition which was not being
tolerated, al-
though apparently there was no law on
the subject. It
further asked that the sixth article be
modified or re-
pealed, an action which would have
profoundly affected
Ohio.34 There were thousands of slaveholders just
across the river eagerly awaiting an
opportunity to
transfer their property into the
fertile valleys of this
rich region with some assurance that
the slaves could
not be taken away from them legally.
However, the
hopes of the petitioners were dashed
somewhat rudely
when the Congressional Committee to
whom the petition
was referred rather summarily recommended
the re-
fusal of the plea.35 It is
to be noted that this petition
originated in the Indiana and Illinois
counties, a fact
which accentuates the point that the
slavery sentiment in
34 Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio,
Vol. III, p. 55,
35 Hinsdale, The Old Northwest, p.
351.
The Negro in Early Ohio 733
the Northwest Territory was not found
within the limits
of what was to become Ohio, but
centered in the area
that later was to be incorporated as
other states.
In September, 1799, the first
Legislature of the
Northwest Territory met in Cincinnati.36
A petition
from Kentucky was introduced on
September 25th at
the instance of several former officers
of the Virginia
line "praying" that they be
allowed to settle with their
slaves in the Virginia Military
District.37 This peti-
tion bore directly upon the future of
Ohio, for had it
been granted, the action would have
established slavery
in the state in spite of the explicit
prohibition contained
in the sixth article of compact. As a
result, slave-
holders would have poured into this
region in such
numbers that it is even conceivable
that slavery might
have been guaranteed in the
constitution of Ohio, which
was drafted three years later. It was
possible to make
out a fairly strong case in favor of granting
the wish of
the petitioners, but the members of the
Territorial Legis-
lature felt strictly bound by the terms
of the Ordinance,
and they unanimously agreed, September
27th, with the
report of the committee composed of
William Goforth
of Hamilton County; Thomas Worthington
and Elias
Langham of Ross County, and John Small
of Knox
County, Indiana, that the petition was
incompatible with
the provisions of the Ordinance and
should be rejected.38
Subsequently, (November 18th) a similar
petition from
Thomas Posey, on behalf of himself and
several other
officers of the Virginia line was
presented.39 This me-
36 Journal Territorial House of Representatives, 1799, p. 1.
37 Ibid, p. 6.
38 Ibid, pp. 19-20.
39 Ibid, p. 108.
734
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
morial "prayed" that an act
be passed authorizing per-
sons "holding slaves under the
laws of the state in which
they acquire that species of property
and removing into
this territory to bring their slaves
with them under cer-
tain restrictions."40 On
November 22nd, the matter
was discussed in the committee of the
whole house with
the final resolution that it be
referred to a committee
composed of Elias Langham of Ross County;
John
Smith of Hamilton County, and Paul
Fearing of Wash-
ington County, "to report thereon
by bill or otherwise."41
No report was ever made, and the
proposition apparently
was killed in committee. After the fate
of the original
petition from the officers of the
Virginia line, nothing
else could have been expected. Jacob
Burnet, in speak-
ing of the rejection of the first
memorial, stated, "Their
only course was to reject the petition,
although it was
apparent that if the application could
have been granted
it would have brought into the
territory a great acces-
sion of wealth, strength and
intelligence. Yet the pub-
lic feeling on the admitting of slaves
was such that the
request would have been denied by a
unanimous vote of
the Legislature had they possessed the
power of grant-
ing it."42 This
statement indicates with singular frank-
ness that any pro-slavery sentiment in
Ohio, at least, was
in a hopeless minority.
In this same session of the Territorial
Legislature a
motion passed, November 15th, that a
committee be ap-
pointed to draw up bills on the subject
of "persons
escaping into this territory from whom
labor or service
40 Journal Territorial House of
Representatives, 1799, 108.
41 Ibid, p. 117.
42 Jacob Burnet, Notes on the
Northwestern Territory (Cincinnati,
1847), p. 306.
The Negro in Early Ohio 735
is lawfully claimed by any other
persons" and on "ad-
mission of people of color by
indenture." Both matters
were referred to a committee composed
of Elias Lang-
ham of Ross County, and John Smith of
Hamilton
County.43 What the bills
contained is unknown, except
by inference. At any rate, both of them
came up for
final vote on December 2nd. The
fugitive slave pro-
posal was hopelessly snowed under 16-1,
Langham alone
voting for it.44 The
unanimity of opinion is probably
best explained by the fact that the
Southerners of Ross
County were more opposed to the
institution of slavery
at the time than they were to the
admission of a few
scattered negroes to refuge in Ohio,
while the Hamilton
County people had not yet become closely
enough asso-
ciated with the South through commerce
to cause them
to be especially considerate of the
Southern viewpoint
in the matter. Quite likely the
representatives of other
regions opposed the bill for
humanitarian reasons.
An explanation of the failure of the
indenture bill,
which was voted down the same day,
presents a greater
obstacle. When it was up for final
vote, a motion was
made to strike out after the word
"no" the phrase "per-
son shall be held to labor or service for
a longer time
than until he or she arrives at the age
of 35 years" and
substitute the words "species of
slavery shall be ad-
mitted into this territory under any
qualification what-
ever, nor shall any contract made
without this territory
with any black or mulatto person be
binding on such
black or mulatto person herein."45
It is rather surpris-
43 Journal Territorial House
of Representatives, 1799, pp. 100-101.
44 Ibid, p. 139.
45 Ibid.
736 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
ing to notice that this amendment
failed 15-2, Langham
of Ross County and Goforth of Hamilton
County, alone
favoring it.46 Inasmuch as
the general tenor of the
whole bill is unknown, it is difficult
to assign a reason for
this vote. It might be argued that the
people of Ohio
were benefiting from indentures
arranged through the
slaveholders of Kentucky and Virginia,
but it is hard
to reconcile the votes of the Marietta
delegates with such
a theory. The matter is complicated
still more by the
rejection of the entire bill, 16-1,
Langham playing a lone
hand in support of his measure. Perhaps
the members
of the Legislature opposing slavery for
moral reasons
voted with those whose opposition was
based on eco-
nomic grounds in defeating a definition
of indenture
because they believed it to be a local
matter to be inter-
preted as the people of each district
saw fit. After all,
indenture was not forbidden by the
Ordinance. What-
ever the motive, the Legislature of
that year adjourned
without taking specific action on the
question, but inas-
much as the issue was far from a dead
one, it was bound
to reappear in a subsequent session.
In 1800 the Northwest Territory was
divided. That
part of the original region which
approximates the pres-
ent limits of Ohio became the Northwest
Territory, and
the balance became the Indiana
Territory. In the ses-
sions of the Northwest Territorial Legislature
after
1800 then (until 1803, when Ohio became
a state) ex-
pressions of sentiment are tantamount
to indications of
the will of the people of Ohio. In view
of this assump-
tion, two petitions presented during
the legislative ses-
sion of 1801 are of particular
interest. One of these
46 Ibid, p. 140.
The Negro in Early Ohio 737
was offered by Jacob and Katharine
Hubbard, whose
place of residence was unspecified,
while the second one
originated with "a number of
citizens from the terri-
tory." Both of them requested that
a definite act be
passed declaring the intent of the
sixth article of com-
pact and authorizing the courts to
compel the perform-
ance of indentures entered into.47 These memorials
called for positive as distinct from
negative action of a
nature that would, to say the least,
contravene the spirit
of the Ordinance, so they were tabled
with the under-
standing that they would not be taken
up. Burnet
states that every member of the
Assembly favored the
tabling arrangement,48 but
even so it is impossible to
determine whether this sentiment was
inspired by a de-
sire to prevent indenture or whether it
simply indicated
a laissez-faire policy of
permitting the different regions
to act in the matter as they saw fit.
At any rate, on
December 24, 1801, Jacob White of
Hamilton County,
and Zenas Kimberley of Jefferson
County, were ap-
pointed to prepare a bill on the
subject of indentured
servants and apprentices. What the bill
contained is
problematical as the journal of the
Legislature gives no
clue, but it was voted down, December
29th, with no
record of the vote.49 On the
same day, Elias Langham
of Ross County, moved to lay before the
House a reso-
lution concerning refugee negroes. Here
again it is
possible merely to guess as to the
content, for there is
no record of what the resolution
actually embodied, but
the proposition was voted down December
31st, also
47 Journal Territorial House of Representatives, 1801, p. 79.
48 Burnet, Notes on the
Northwestern Territory, p. 332.
49 Journal Territorial House of
Representatives, 1801, p. 87.
Vol. XXXIX--47.
738
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
without a record of the vote.50 The
similarity between
these instances and those appearing in
1799 makes it pos-
sible to hazard the opinion that both
sets of measures
bore a pronounced resemblance, that the
vote on both
was approximately the same and that
they were defeated
for about the same reasons, for there
is no evidence to
show that there was any particular
reason for a great
shift of opinion in regard to the negro
between 1799 and
1801. One thing is certain from the
nature of the peti-
tions presented in 1801. The spirit of
the Ordinance in
regard to slavery was being contravened
and indentures
were being made outside the Territory
calling for per-
formance within it. The petitions
merely requested
that this practice be recognized, and
that the courts be
empowered to prevent fraud on the part
of unscrupulous
masters. The Legislature of 1799 had
adopted a laissez-
faire policy in the matter of indentures, and the local dis-
tricts of the Territory apparently had
taken their cue
from this attitude. The people residing
there simply
were making the most of the
opportunities presented by
the indenture system of reaping the benefits
of slave
labor while undergoing none of the
inconveniences
usually associated with it. Yet the
practice could not go
on entirely unregulated, and it was
necessary either that
it be legalized or that it be
definitely outlawed. Since the
Legislatures obviously shied away from
taking any
positive action, it would seem logical
that the question
should be threshed out once and for all
in the constitu-
tional convention whenever the
Territory should become
a state. The events of 1802 justify
this assumption.
The Ohio State Constitutional
Convention began its
50 Ibid, p. 106.
The Negro in Early Ohio 739
sessions at Chillicothe, November 1,
1802. Although
there were fewer than five hundred
negroes in Ohio, (a
ratio of about one to ten with the
whites) more than
one hundred propositions concerning the
colored people
in the state were presented to the
Convention.51 Almost
every shade of opinion was represented
in these peti-
tions. Some indicated the wish to make
the blacks citi-
zens and to encourage their
immigration, others to grant
them merely the protection of the law,
and still others
to exclude them from the courts as
witnesses against the
whites.52 The noteworthy
feature is that, so far as is
known, there was no demand for the
legalization of
slavery. Yet there doubtless was an
element in the Con-
vention that favored the institution.
Another group of
vacillating individuals did not seem to
know exactly
what it wanted. Some of them were not
opposed to
slavery except in Ohio, some felt that
slavery was a
necessary evil, and some few believed
that it was neces-
sary in order to maintain friendly
relations with the
South, something to be accomplished at
all costs.53 If
this wavering group could be won over
by the pro-
slavery element there was danger that
involuntary servi-
tude might be introduced into the
state, for, in spite of
the Ordinance of 1787, there were those
who felt that
the sixth article of compact was not
binding upon the
state when it entered the Union. Then,
according to
this view, the people were free to
decide upon all points
at issue.54 With such a
highly differentiated set of
51 Hickok, The Negro in Ohio, p. 33, and Chaddock,
Ohio Before 1850,
p. 79.
52 Chaddock, Ohio Before 1850, p. 78.
53 Ibid, p. 81.
54 Ibid, pp. 79-80.
740 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
opinions it is easy to see why there
was little fixed judg-
ment in the Convention and thus the
continual shifting
of ground by the delegates is
explained.55
Such a warmth of opinion developed over
the negro
question before the Convention opened
that there were
fears the main object of the assembly
might be wrecked
upon a minor point. Accordingly it was
tacitly agreed
to table all the petitions and to
attempt to fight the mat-
ter out in committee.56 This
plan, in a measure, was
successful, and the anticipated
explosion was largely
avoided, but an unlooked-for bomb was
dropped into
camp when the question of the
qualifications for electors
came onto the floor of the Convention
for discussion.
The original plan had been to draw up a
constitution
based upon a population of free whites,
who alone were
represented, and while this was finally
accomplished, the
scheme was seriously endangered for a
time when the
theorists appeared to have the upper
hand.57
It is commonly believed that the
Convention came
within one vote of establishing slavery
in Ohio,58 but
the actual fact is that it came closer
to establishing negro
suffrage.59 Whatever pro-slavery element existed
was
unable to win the support of the
doubtful group, and
there is no evidence to show that there
was any attempt
on the floor of the Convention actually
to introduce
slavery. The journal of the assembly
contains noth-
ing to support such a charge, for there
is not even a
55 Hickok, The Negro in Ohio, p.
36.
56 Burnet, Notes on the Northwestern
Territory, p. 355.
57 Ibid, p. 356.
58 J. P. Cutler, The Life and Times
of Ephraim Cutler (Cincinnati,
1890), p. 77.
59 Burnet, Notes on the Northwestern
Territory, p. 356,
The Negro in Early Ohio 741
record of anything that might be
construed as an at-
tempt to prevent the adoption of the
anti-slavery sec-
tion of the bill of rights. In other
words, there was not
only no positive attempt to fasten
involuntary servitude
onto the state, but there was not even
a negative effort
made to prevent its being definitely
outlawed. The
actual point of attack, so far as the
bill of rights was
concerned, was not the section prohibiting
slavery, but
the clause forbidding indentures under
specified condi-
tions grafted onto Section II of the
bill of rights.60
Seeing at an early time that the effort
for slavery in its
fullest sense was hopeless, those
favoring the institution
evidently hoped to preserve for
themselves a limited
form of servitude by ridding the
constitution of any
reference to indenture, then
interpreting the word so
broadly as to permit virtual slavery in
the state through
connivance with Kentucky and Virginia owners.
This
was merely consistent with what they
had been doing
since the failure of the Territorial
Legislature to act in
1799 and in 1801. But the anti-slavery
sentiment in the
state was too strong, and the hopes of
the pro-slavery
group were completely shattered when
the motion to
strike out the anti-indenture clause
was defeated.
Superficially it may appear strange
that a majority could
be rallied in the Convention to support
an anti-indenture
clause when only three years
previously, by an over-
whelming majority, the same kind of
proposal had been
rejected, and just a year before (1801)
the Legislature
had refused to deal with a measure of a
similar nature.
Yet these instances do not indicate
that anti-slavery
sentiment was dead at the time. It must
be remembered
60 Journal Ohio State Constitutional
Convention, 1802, p. 20.
742 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
that under the Ordinance of 1787 there
were property
restrictions on the franchise.61 Members
of the Terri-
torial Legislature were thus chosen by
a restricted vote.
Under the enabling act for Ohio,
however, virtual man-
hood suffrage was provided, and
accordingly, members
of the Constitutional Convention were
chosen under this
widely extended suffrage provision.
Naturally, then,
the latter group more nearly represented
popular opin-
ion, and certainly the landless
day-laborer would be more
likely to oppose indenture than the
large property-
holder. It is also quite likely that
while those who op-
posed slavery for moral reasons might
have been willing
to let each region determine for itself
the question of in-
denture without a specific law on the
subject so long as
Ohio was a territory, they now realized
that the situa-
tion facing them was different. In 1802
a constitution,
representing the fundamental law of the
state was being
framed. The laissez-faire attitude
had to be abandoned
and a definite stand taken one way or
another. Under
these circumstances, the moralists
asserted themselves,
and they combined with other groups to
defeat inden-
ture. Although the lines were rather
tightly drawn on
this point, it must be admitted that
the vote did not rep-
resent the relative strength of the
pro- and anti-slavery
forces, for undoubtedly many
representatives who fa-
vored indenture would have opposed an
attempt to intro-
duce slavery into Ohio.
In order to understand clearly exactly
what hap-
pened in the Convention with reference
to the negro, it is
wise to divide the discussions
involving him, for con-
venience's sake, into distinct groups,
keeping in mind
61 The Laws of the Northwestern
Territory, 1796, pp. 6-7.
The Negro in Early Ohio 743
that these are related only in a remote
manner. The first
of these groups is the discussion over
the bill of rights,
the second is that over the
qualifications of electors, and
the third is the debate over the
negro's civil rights.
In accordance with the agreement to
keep the discus-
sion of slavery as much as possible off
the floor of the
Convention, President Tiffin referred
the troublesome
question to the committee on the bill
of rights, a group
of nine men whose chairman, John W.
Browne of Ham-
ilton County, frankly was in favor of
the introduction
of slavery into Ohio, at least in a
limited form. The
bulwark of the committee, so far as the
anti-slavery
forces were concerned, was that
independent and sturdy
New England Federalist, Ephraim Cutler.
Of the re-
maining seven members, two were
from Hamilton
County, two from Ross and one each from
Adams, Jef-
ferson, and Belmont Counties.62 Inasmuch
as the com-
mittee was considering such an
important question, it
was invited to hold its sessions at the
home of President
Tiffin.63 At the first
meeting, Chairman Browne, when
the slavery question arose, proposed a
section which
would have permitted the enslavement of
negro men
until they were thirty-five years of
age, and of negro
women until they were twenty-five.
Cutler was sure
the proposal was in Jefferson's
handwriting, a thing
which is quite possible when it is
noted that Jefferson
had told Thomas Worthington, before the
Convention
was called, that he hoped some such
plan would be ac-
cepted.64 Even after the
constitution had been adopted
62 Journal Ohio State Constitutional Convention, I803, p. 12.
63 W. E. Gilmore, The Life of Edward
Tiffin (Chillicothe, 1897), p. 316.
64 Cutler, The Life and Times of
Ephraim Cutler, p. 74.
744
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
with the total exclusion of slavery,
Jefferson told Jere-
miah Morrow, "It would have been
more judicious to
have admitted slavery for a limited
time."65 At any
rate, Cutler was opposed to such a
proposition, an oppo-
sition to be expected when his New
England antecedents
and environment are considered, so he
suggested that at
the next meeting of the committee each
member should
present a section expressing his views
on the subject.
Called upon the next morning for his
ideas, Cutler read
the second section of the eighth
article as it now stands,
definitely forbidding slavery,
prohibiting indenture ex-
cept by free will and for a
consideration, and declaring
illegal all indentures made outside the
state, and those
within the state for longer than a
year. On the vote
within the committee, Cutler's proposal
was accepted
5-4.66 It naturally would be expected
that the two Ross
County Southerners would be opposed to
the measure,
not because it prohibited slavery but
because it prevented
indentures which might be profitable to
them--a pro-
hibition which might prevent other
Southerners from
coming into the state. While both men
were opposed to
it, one of them, Baldwin, supported
Cutler's proposal.
The explanation of this action is to be
found in the fact
that Baldwin believed he faced the
alternatives of ac-
cepting Cutler's plan or of supporting
a measure that
legalized a limited form of slavery.
Inasmuch as he
felt the latter to be illegal, Baldwin
sacrificed his wishes
concerning indenture. In this
committee, then, the
chances for slavery reached their peak,
and by one vote
it was decided to recommend to the
Convention the pro-
65 Randall and Ryan, History
of Ohio, Vol. III, p. 127.
66 Cutler, Life and Times of Ephraim
Cutler, p. 77.
The Negro in Early Ohio 745
hibition of slavery and the regulation
of indenture. Yet
it is to be noted that even if Cutler's
proposal had not
been accepted by the committee, the
most the slavery
advocates would have received was the
recommendation
to the Convention of a limited form of
slavery on the
basis of Browne's proposal. There
simply was not
much pro-slavery sentiment in Ohio.67
When the committee's report was read
before the
Convention, several attempts were made
from the floor
to weaken it, but only one of these
suggestions from the
opposition came to a vote. This was the
one previously
mentioned as proposing to strike out
the entire part con-
cerning indentures. The motion failed
21-12; but be-
cause of the modification of actual
attitudes by the ad-
vantage to be derived from the practice
of indenture,
the vote does not represent the true
sentiment of the
various delegations. For example, the
group from
Hamilton County gave a majority in
favor of eliminat-
ing the indenture clause, but on every
other motion in
which the black man was involved, it
contributed more
votes in his favor than it did against
him. However,
reflecting the diverse elements which
had settled at Cin-
cinnati, it remained split on the negro
problem through-
out the Convention. The vote of Ross
County on this
proposal was also unorthodox, as a
majority of the Chil-
licothe men cast their votes in favor
of retaining the
clause. On first glance, this might be
considered as an
indication that the Ross County men
were taking a sym-
pathetic view toward the negro, but the
actual fact prob-
ably is that they were willing to
sacrifice the advantages
of indenture in order to make sure that
slavery itself
67 Chaddock, Ohio Before 1850, p. 81.
746 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
would not be given a foothold in Ohio.
In this sense, of
course the vote represented the true
sentiment in the
Virginia Military District. The
delegates from Wash-
ington County left little doubt in
anyone's mind as to
what the sentiment was at Marietta when
they cast a
unanimous vote against striking out the
provision pro-
hibiting indenture. The two Trumbull
County dele-
gates, representing the New Englanders
in the Western
Reserve, divided equally on the motion,
and the chances
are that the one supporting it simply
wished the old
laissez-faire policy to be carried on. Perhaps he felt
that inasmuch as the Western Reserve
was not troubled
with negro problems and had nothing to
gain or lose by
permitting indenture to be practiced he
should not con-
cern himself with an attempt to
restrain those sections
more vitally interested in the matter.68
Of the constructive suggestions
concerning the bill
of rights only one, a measure which
provided that the
clause regulating indenture be modified
to apply specifi-
cally to persons of color, came to a
vote. On this ballot
a slightly truer indication of the
sentiment in the differ-
ent regions of Ohio was evident. The
motion passed,
20-13,69 and while Hamilton County gave
it a majority,
the delegation was badly split. The
Ross County votes
were evenly divided, and in the
Washington County
group, which contributed three votes in
favor and one in
opposition, the first signs of heresy
from a humani-
tarian viewpoint appear.70 John
McIntire, who opposed
the insertion of the words "negro
or mulatto" in the
68 Journal Ohio State Constitutional Convention, 1803, p.
24.
69 Ibid, p. 26.
70 Ibid.
The Negro in Early Ohio 747
clause regulating indenture, voted
consistently, during
the remainder of the Convention,
against every proposi-
tion intended to favor the negro.
Little is known of
McIntire's ancestry, inasmuch as his
name is not to be
found in the pioneer biographies or
county histories, but
from external evidence it does not seem
unlikely that he
may have been a Scotch-Irish Southerner
who had
drifted into Washington County, and
that he was at this
time voting from personal convictions
and not concern-
ing himself greatly with the views of
his constituency.
It may or may not be significant that
he was not a mem-
ber of the first State Legislature the
following year. At
any rate he represented a change of
sentiment which was
to work itself out at Marietta within a
few years, but
whether or not he was a true
representative of feeling
in 1802 seems somewhat doubtful. The
two Trumbull
County delegates supported the motion
making the appli-
cation of indentures specific, and
this, of course, was an
attitude logically to be expected from
them, even though
their stand with regard to the negro
was not always
consistent. Yet on this ballot they
contributed to the
majority, and the bill of rights, as
thus amended, is the
one which was finally adopted.71
The question of negro suffrage was the
one which
brought out the truest indications of
sentiment in refer-
ence to the colored man, and also the
one which best rep-
resented the indecision of the
Convention as a whole.
The matter was opened on November 22nd,
when a
motion was made to strike out the word
"white" in the
provision of Section IV which read
"all white males
shall enjoy the right of an
elector." This, of course,
71 Journal Ohio State Constitutional Convention, 1803, p. 26.
748
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
would have established negro suffrage
by implication.
The motion failed, 19-14, and the tally
bore character-
istics that were to be expected.
Hamilton County was
again split, although a majority
favored the motion. In
Ross County, three of the delegates
opposed the pro-
posal, but one, James Grubb, voted in
its favor. In
previous votes Grubb had favored the
negro, and he
continued to do so until the latter
part of the Convention
when he executed an about face, and
voted with the bal-
ance of his delegation. McIntire was
the only one of
the Washington County delegates to
oppose, and only
one of the Trumbull County men voted.
He opposed
the motion but as he had indicated in
earlier votes that
he was not entirely orthodox, this was
not surprising.72
In this indirect fashion, then, the
proposal for negro
suffrage first made its appearance in
the Convention.
While it was defeated, the theorists
were not discour-
aged, for the matter had not been put
squarely before
the delegates to accept or reject as
such. It was the be-
lief of those favoring colored
enfranchisement that the
indirect method of giving the negro the
ballot had been
rejected because it was not sufficiently
specific. Ac-
cordingly, they immediately proposed to
add to the
qualifications of electors that all
negroes and mulattoes
then residing in the Territory should
be entitled to the
ballot, if, within a specified time,
they made a record of
their citizenship. The faith of the
idealists was justi-
fied when the motion passed 19-15.73
On this vote,
Hamilton County was overwhelmingly in
favor of the
motion, a fact that can be best
explained with the sug-
72 Journal Ohio State Constitutional Convention, 1803, p. 21.
73 Ibid.
The Negro in Early Ohio 749
gestion that the Cincinnati men, seeing
that the negro
was to be among them as a free man,
desired that he
should bear his part of governmental
responsibility. In
Ross and Washington Counties, the votes
remained un-
changed, as Grubb and McIntire again
stood out alone
against their colleagues who opposed
the measure in the
former case and supported it in the
latter. The Trum-
bull County delegates again split in
opinion, and one
voted in favor of the motion while the other
rejected it.
It is hardly safe, however, to attempt
any conclusions
from this fact.
The theorists, elated at their victory,
now attempted
to strike while the iron was hot, and
introduced a new
provision to extend the suffrage to the
descendants of
the colored people just enfranchised.
This motion was
barely lost--17-16. Hamilton County
voted for it 9-1,
while Ross and Washington Counties
remained dead-
locked as before. Both of the Trumbull
County New
Englanders opposed the motion, a fact
that can be ac-
counted for only by suggesting that the
natural con-
servatism of these men led them to
believe that the step
of binding the state irrevocably to
negro suffrage was
being taken in too hasty a fashion.74
But with all the foregoing shifting of
ground, the
climax of inconsistency had not yet
been reached. On
the 26th of November, one of the men
opposing negro
suffrage offered a motion to strike out
the section
adopted only four days previously
enfranchising the
blacks. When the ballots were tallied,
it developed that
a 17-17 tie had resulted. President
Tiffin, an Englishman
by birth, a Virginian by early
residence, and a citizen
74 Journal Ohio State Constitutional
Convention, 1803, p. 26.
750 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
of Ross County by choice, was therefore
called upon to
break the deadlock. There was little
doubt as to what
a man of his background would do, and
he effectively
quashed the enfranchising clause when
he voted in favor
of the motion.75 In addition to
Tiffin's personal convic-
tions in the matter, he doubtlessly
realized that with the
close proximity of Kentucky and
Virginia, two slave
states, it was dangerous for Ohio to
offer too great in-
ducement to negroes lest they over-run
the state. On
this question nine of the ten Hamilton
County delegates
voted to retain the measure. The Ross
County
Southerners were unanimous in voting to
abolish the
negro's right to vote, for apparently,
in some manner,
Grubb's powers of resistance had been
beaten down.
Washington County still remained
deadlocked 3-1, in-
asmuch as McIntire, with that
singleness of purpose
which is dubbed stupidity in some
relations and genius
in others, doggedly held to his
convictions. He is of
especial interest as his attitude
denoted that the New
England Federalist stronghold was being
broken down
in Washington County, and his stand in
the Convention
was, of course, the forerunner of a
complete change of
sentiment toward the negro in
southeastern Ohio.
Trumbull County's vote remained
unchanged, and thus
by the narrow margin of one vote was
the negro pre-
vented from voting in Ohio.76
The question of endowing the negro with
civil rights
now remained to be settled. When
Article VII, the ar-
ticle embodying the general provisions
of the constitu-
tion came up for consideration, a
motion was made to
75 Ibid.
76 Journal Ohio State Constitutional
Convention, 1803, p. 26.
The Negro in Early Ohio 751
deprive the negro of civil rights and
obligations such as
holding office, giving oath in court
against white persons,
and being subject to military duty or
payment of poll
tax. The Hamilton County men had
favored negro
suffrage, and in view of this it would
be logical to expect
them to oppose this limitation of
rights. The vote by
which the motion passed 19-16, reveals
this to be the
case, although the delegation remained
split. For some
unaccountable reason, Tiffin voted on
this motion, and
all five of the Ross County delegates
supported it. Even
Grubb retained his change of heart and
dutifully fol-
lowed the lead of his chief. The
monotonous 3-1 vote in
Washington County remained intact, as
McIntire cast
his dissenting ballot with the patience
worthy of a saint.
Both of the Federalists from the north
voted against
the motion, indicating an attitude more
consistent with
the views of the inhabitants of the
Reserve.77
Four days later, on November 26th, a
motion was
made to strike out this very same
section, and the Con-
vention again reversed a former
decision by agreeing,
17-16. The Hamilton and Trumbull County
delegations
remained consistent with their previous
vote. The Ross
County men likewise stood pat with the important
excep-
tion that Tiffin did not vote. Probably
much to the relief
of the Washington County
representatives, McIntire
was absent, and this fact, coupled with
Tiffin's failure
to vote and the change of vote on the
part of an Adams
County delegate enabled the motion to
pass.78 But the
matter was not entirely settled, for on
the next day a
motion was offered to revive the civil
rights limitation in
such a way as to render the negro
forever ineligible to
77 Journal Ohio State Constitutional
Convention, 1803, p. 25.
78 Ibid, p. 22.
752 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
any office as well as to relieve him
from military duty.
On the question as to whether the
motion should be put
to the Convention, it was resolved in
the negative, and
the motion was squelched without a
record of the vote.
Yet the closeness of the vote by which
the limitation of
the negro's rights was stricken out
indicated that there
was considerable sentiment in Ohio for
restricting the
negro and making conditions unpleasant
for him within
the state. Having failed to accomplish
this purpose in
the Convention, it is only natural that
the proponents of
the idea should seize the first
opportunity which pre-
sented itself to incorporate this view
in the laws of the
state. The procedure of the Legislative
Session of 1803-
04, proves the validity of this
conception.
While it is evident from the foregoing
votes that the
Convention was really controlled by men
formerly of the
slave-holding states of Virginia and
Kentucky, it is to
be noted that this majority agreed on
only one thing,
and that was that they did not want
slavery in Ohio.
On other questions concerning the
negro, they could ef-
fect no compromise. Byrd, a native Virginian
from
Hamilton County, consistently stood
firmly for negro
suffrage, but, on the other hand,
Huntington of Trum-
bull County, a scion of New England
stock, voted with
Massie and Worthington of Ross County,
against it.
But these men were exceptions to the
general rule. As
a usual thing, the Virginians stood
opposed to the negro
on all questions, while the Washington
County Federal-
ists favored him. Hamilton County,
although disagree-
ing radically on most questions, was
inclined to be sym-
pathetic with the black man, and the
Puritans from the
northern part of the state, while not
consistent on all
The Negro in Early Ohio 753
occasions, on the whole indicated a
favorable attitude.79
Following upon this, the results of the
Convention, in-
sofar as the negro was concerned, can
be summed up
with the statement that slavery was
definitely prohibited,
and, by the indenture clause it was
made reasonably
certain that there would be no
circumvention of the
will of the majority. The framers of
the Constitution
of 1802 evidently intended the negro to
occupy the same
position in relation to the state as
the Indian does to
the Federal Government today. He was
permitted to
live in the state and he was extended
the protection of
the laws, but he had no part in the
government. No
duties were demanded of him, but, on
the other hand, no
privileges of citizenship were extended
to him.80
However, those who were disappointed in
the pro-
visions of the constitution concerning
the negro were
not content to take their medicine
without a struggle.
When the Legislature met under the new
constitution,
in December, 1803, they appeared in
force, this time
comparatively well organized, and they
pushed through
the Assembly a series of provisions
known as the first
of the "black codes." The
negro problem was becoming
acute. There had been 337 blacks in the
Territory in
1800; by 1810 this number was to be
increased to 1,899,
most of whom probably had come in
before the stringent
"black codes" were passed.81
A tabulation of the adver-
tisements for fugitive slaves reveals
that there are more
of them in the Cincinnati newspaper in
1795, before the
first "black code" was passed
than there are in 1805,
after the act was put into effect. This
probably indi-
79 Massie, Life of Nathaniel Massie, p.
87.
80 Hickok, The Negro in Ohio, p. 39.
81 Chaddock, Ohio Before 1850, p. 82.
Vol. XXXIX--48.
754
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
cates that the negro was not so anxious
to escape slavery
when he realized he would be given a
very cold recep-
tion in free territory.
The "black code" of 1804 was
the product of south-
ern men from the river counties of Ohio
who wished
to render conditions in the state so
uncomfortable for
the negro that he would be discouraged
so far as immi-
gration was concerned. Furthermore,
they wished to
persuade those free negroes living in
Ohio to go else-
where. These men can hardly be blamed
for their at-
titude. They felt that the state was
being made a
dumping-grounds, and as most of the
negroes settled in
southern Ohio, the inhabitants there
had to protect
themselves. Another reason was that the
Kentuckians
and Virginians were protesting at the
escape of negroes,
and in order to maintain economic
relations with them,
it was necessary to engineer through
the Assembly a
law which would have the content of a
fugitive slave
measure without advertising the fact in
the title in such
a way as to offend the moralists in the
state.82 The New
England element in the north, to whom
as late as the
Civil War the negro was a novelty, were
in position
to theorize about the rights of man,
and naturally it is
to be expected that they would oppose
restrictive legis-
lation. The attitude of the Puritans of
Marietta is of
most interest, however, for it is here
that the earlier
moral view was modified by experience.83
The bill which became a law in January,
1804, con-
tained the following provisions: no
negro or mulatto
was to settle in the state unless he
furnished a certifi-
cate of freedom from a United States
court. The blacks
82 Ibid, p. 81.
83 Hickok, The Negro in
Ohio, p. 40.
The Negro in Early Ohio 755
already in the state were to be
registered, together with
their children, by June 1st, at the
office of the clerk of
the county court, and a registration
fee of 12 1/2 cents a
head was to be charged. It was made a
penal offense
to employ a negro for more than an hour
unless he could
present a certificate of freedom, and
violators were sub-
jected to a fine of not less than $10
or more than $50.
It was further provided that the same
penalty should be
assessed against any one aiding a
fugitive slave, and
that the fine should be raised to $100
if the slave were
to be assisted in escaping from the
state, the informer
to receive one-half of the fine.
Finally it was provided
that anyone employing a negro without a
certificate
was liable to a payment of fifty cents
a day to the slave's
master in addition to the fine.84 The
bill passed the
House 19-8. Most of the southern
counties favored it,
but Washington County and Trumbull
County, New
England centers, opposed.85 With
slight modifications
the bill passed the Senate, 9-5.
Strange to say, the vote
in the Senate did not show the
sectional characteris-
tics of that in the House. Two Hamilton
County men
supported it and two opposed, reflecting
again the hetero-
geneity of Cincinnati; but, of course,
both of the South-
erners from Ross County supported the
measure. The
interesting point is that both of the
Senators from
Marietta also voted to restrict the
negro.86 The moral
viewpoint was beginning to show signs
of strain.
Articles on slavery in the newspapers
of early Ohio
attest the fact that the people of the
southern part of
the state were interested in
emancipation, but it is im-
84 Acts of the Ohio State
Legislature, 1803, pp. 63-66.
85 Randall and Ryan, History of Ohio,
Vol. IV, p. 121.
86 Journal Ohio State Senate, 1803,
p. 72.
756 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
possible to avoid the attitude
evidenced by the vote of
their delegates on the "black
code" that they did not
want free negroes in Ohio. This
position is not hard to
understand when one reads the Centinel
of the North-
western Territory and the Western Spy, newspapers
of the time, and encounters the
constantly recurring
items concerning negro felons. James
Dorsey, a free
negro, is dubbed an incorrigible
offender, and is pun-
ished with appropriate severity;87 a
mulatto person is
apprehended with a gun which he says he
stole from a
canoe at Cincinnati;88 Ned assists two
white men in
breaking out of jail and in stealing a
canoe in which
all escape;89 two other blacks are
committed for criminal
offenses;90 two men from Cumberland,
who were taking
some slaves into Tennessee, are
murdered by their blacks
who evidently are at large in Ohio;91
and a slave of
Hubbard Taylor of Clarke County,
Kentucky, stabs his
overseer to death.92 With
instances such as these trans-
piring regularly there was little
reason why the inhab-
itants of the river counties should not
be rather cynical
in their attitude toward the negro.
But the anti-slavery societies
carefully nourished
whatever Abolition sentiment existed in
the state. Some
of this feeling flourished in
Cincinnati, but it was
stronger in the southeastern counties
and in the north.
In 1802, a group of interested
citizens, probably some of
them from Cincinnati, met at
Washburne's Tavern, in
northern Kentucky, and drew up a
comprehensive
87 Centinel of the Northwestern Territory, March 22, 1794.
88 Ibid, August 16, 1794.
89 Ibid, October 4, 1794.
90 Ibid, February
27, 1796.
91 The Western Spy, August 26,
1801.
92 The Western Spy, August 26,
1801.
The Negro in Early Ohio 757
scheme for gradual emancipation.93
An article entitled
"Short Observations on
Slavery" occupied the entire
front page and a large part of the
second in the Western
Spy for July 3, 1802. This article had been sent into
the west from Philadelphia.93 Again
on September 4,
1802, the Western Spy carried an
excerpt from a letter
to his friend written by a member of
the Humane So-
ciety of Virginia.94 The churches apparently were
doing their part also. The Methodists
seemed to be in
advance of the rest, for as early as
1808 their Western
Annual Conference appointed a committee
to draft a
ruling on the subject of slavery. The
main question at
issue was: "What shall be done
with a member of our
society who shall enter into the slave-trade
and who shall
either buy or sell slaves?" The
ruling was that the cir-
cuit rider should cite such a person to
the quarterly
meeting of the Conference, and that
this body should
determine if the defendant sold for
mercy and humanity
or for speculative motives. If a
majority decided it was
the latter, the person should be
expelled.95 This certainly
is concrete evidence of the attitude of
the early ministry
on the problem. Again, in 1812, the
Methodist General
Convention voted that no slaveholder
should continue
as a local elder.96 However,
these are merely first steps
and indicate tendencies alone. The
organized church
movement in opposition to slavery did
not come until
later.
The effect of these educating
influences, so far as
93 Ibid, July 3, 1802.
94 Ibid, September 4, 1802.
95 W. W. Sweet, The Rise of
Methodism in the West (Cincinnati, 1920),
p. 147.
96 A. B. Hart, Slavery and Abolition
(New York, 1906), p. 160.
758 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
theory is concerned, was reflected in
the legislative ses-
sion of 1805, when a resolution was
received from North
Carolina proposing an amendment to the
National Con-
stitution to enable Congress to forbid
the importation of
slaves before 1808. The Ohio
Legislature rejected the
proposal, but plainly stated that the
reason for so doing
was based merely upon the inexpediency
of such ac-
tion.97 In the resolution
which embodied the rejection,
the Legislature stated that although
"this inhuman prac-
tice" was "repugnant" to
the principles upon which the
Government was founded, yet a mutual
agreement had
been reached by the states forming the
Constitution that
Congress should not have the power to
disturb the slave-
trade for a given period.98
It is surprising then to discover an
about-face atti-
tude on the part of the Legislature of
the succeeding
year. In accordance with proposals from
Maryland and
Tennessee, a resolution was adopted by
both the House
and the Senate urging the Ohio
Congressmen to favor
an amendment to the Federal
Constitution that would
empower Congress to abolish the
importation of slaves.
This attitude was consistent with the
sentiment in Ohio
and with the moral view expressed the
year previously,
but why the Legislature should
contradict itself by ap-
proving a proposition almost identical
with one it re-
jected only a year earlier is puzzling.
No record of the
vote is given, and it is possible
merely to conjecture that
the change of personnel in the Assembly
brought a suffi-
cient influx of men who were more
concerned with the
moral phase than the practical aspect
of the problem to
97 Randall and Ryan, History of
Ohio, Vol. III, p. 155.
98 Ibid.
The Negro in Early Ohio 759
push the resolution through.99 Yet,
however lofty their
ideals in regard to the principle of
slavery may have
been, the Ohio people had not changed
greatly in their
attitude toward the negroes within
their own state. The
"black code" of 1807 affords
sufficient evidence in sup-
port of this fact.
In order to account for the "black
code" of 1807, it
must be assumed that the legislation of
1804 was not
sufficiently severe to remove the
negroes already in the
state or to prevent a few from coming
in. Accordingly,
the irate representatives of an aroused
constituency in
the southern part of the state felt the
urge to tighten up
the restrictive legislation.
Originating in the Senate
during the session of 1806-07 under the
title "An Act
to Amend the Act Entitled 'An Act to
Regulate Black
and Mulatto Persons',"100 the
bill in its final form pro-
vided that no negro was to be allowed
to settle in Ohio
unless within twenty days he could
provide a $500 bond
signed by two white men guaranteeing
his good be-
havior and support. This particular
section did not
affect, of course, the negroes already
in the state. That
would have been ex post facto legislation.
On the other
hand, it meant virtual exclusion for
all other negroes,
for the possibility that a negro could
produce two bonds-
men willing to risk $500 between them
was so slight as
to be almost ridiculous. This
undoubtedly was in-
tended, and, in fact total exclusion
probably would have
been adopted had it not been felt that
exceptional cases
might arise in which it was desirable
to permit a negro
to enter Ohio. The act continued with
raising the fine
for aiding a fugitive slave from $50 to $100, half still
99 Journal Ohio State House of Representatives, 1806, p. 62.
100 Journal Ohio State Senate, 1806, p. 49.
760 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
to be paid the informer. Friendship
might as well be
cultivated with the South, for Ohioans
had everything
to gain and nothing to lose. In
conclusion, the act pro-
vided that no negro was to be permitted
to give evi-
dence in any case in which a white
person was in-
volved.101 It will be
remembered that this was a time-
honored provision, which had made its
first appearance
in the Constitutional Convention of
1802.102 However,
it was a pernicious measure, for it
placed the negro at
the mercy of unscrupulous whites. The
white man
could rob, beat, or even kill a negro,
and unless there
was a white man present, the offender
escaped punish-
ment. A case which later arose exemplifying
the in-
justice of such a law involved a white
man who had
murdered a negro when there were eight
colored wit-
nesses, but whose case was dismissed
for lack of evi-
dence because the blacks could not
testify against him.103
But regardless of the ethics involved,
the bill passed
the House of Representatives 20-9 and
the Senate with-
out a record of the vote, becoming a
law in January,
1807. Of the three Hamilton County
representatives,
two supported the measure, a stand to
be expected in-
asmuch as the negro problem was
menacing Cincin-
nati perhaps more than any other town.
Three of the
four representatives from Ross County
voted in favor
of the bill, and the two delegates from
the Western
Reserve threw away their votes by
disagreeing. The
importance of the roll call, however,
is that it shows
that the entire Washington County
delegation voted to
101 Acts of Ohio State Legislature,
1806, p. 53-54.
102 Journal Ohio State Constitutional
Convention, p. 22.
103 Hickok,
The Negro in Ohio, p. 42.
The Negro in Early Ohio 761
adopt the "black code."104
The New England moral at-
titude had finally given way to the
pressure exerted by
contact with the negro, and the change
of viewpoint
foreshadowed by McIntire in 1802 had
finally come
about. The irony of the situation is
that these Wash-
ington County Puritans were more
overwhelmingly in
favor of harsh treatment of the negroes
than were the
Virginians of Ross County. In other
words, there was
almost unanimous agreement on the part
of all the del-
egates from the southern part of the
state that some-
thing had to be done to protect
themselves against the
black menace, and they voted
practically in a block
against the northern representatives. A
vote in the
Senate which may afford a clue as to
how the final
vote there ran, concerned itself with a
motion to elimi-
nate the provision regarding testimony.
The ballot
revealed Hamilton County's two Senators
as disagree-
ing. The two men from Washington County
also split
over the question, but the Ross County
delegates were
united in opposition, and the Trumbull
County man,
oddly enough, supported them. With
scattered aid, the
opposition were able to defeat the
motion, 9-5, and
the clause was retained.105
The results of the legislation of 1807
are interest-
ing to consider. Under its provisions
the negro could
be brutally maltreated by whites and he
would have no
recourse. If his case were brought to
trial he probably
would appear before a prejudiced white
jury. He could
not even tell his story in court, and
the worst part of it
was that he had no ballot with which he
might force a
104 Journal Ohio State House of Representatives, 1806, p. 74.
104 Journal Ohio State Senate, 1806, p. 30.
762
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
redress of his grievances. His status
was determined
by a Legislature in which he was not
represented.106 On
the other hand, he came into the state
of his own voli-
tion, against the wishes of a majority
of the white in-
habitants, and as a result, he had to
accept conditions
as he found them. He certainly knew
what the condi-
tions were, and he could not doubt that
the legislation
was aimed at keeping him out of Ohio.
It is true, that
for a number of years following their
passage the
"black codes" were not
adequately enforced, but they
remained upon the law books of the
state. Even though
they were invoked only infrequently, a
judge of one of
the state courts was moved to say that
in all his ex-
perience both at the bar and as a
member of the court
the could not recall a single instance
in which these laws
had been subservient to the ends of
justice.107
The "black codes" marked the
high water mark of
anti-negro legislation in Ohio, at
least until the close
of the War of 1812, which marked an
epoch in western
history and the close of the period
with which this paper
deals. While they were, to all intents
and purposes,
dead statutes within these years, they
were potentially
harsh, but by the very nature of this
harshness they
undoubtedly had a constructive
influence that is hard
to measure. It can hardly be doubted
that they played
a most important part in solidifying
the Abolition sen-
timent which always had existed to a
greater or less
extent in various parts of the state--a
sentiment which
up until 1807 had been disorganized,
leaderless, and
essentially without voice. The result
was that following
1815, the Abolition movement began to
flare up in
106 Hickok, The Negro in Ohio, pp.
43-44.
107
Ibid, p. 43.
The Negro in Early Ohio 763
Ohio, and was soon burning with all its
intensity. The
"black codes," then,
constituted the foundation upon
which a new phase of the negro problem
was built in
the succeeding period of the history of
Ohio.
From the foregoing discussion it is
evident that
although Ohio was settled by diverse
population ele-
ments from all parts of the country, in
general its peo-
ple had a common attitude in their
opposition to slavery,
regardless of their previous surroundings.
Even so,
there was a difference in the
underlying reasons for
this attitude. The Scotch-Irish
Southerners and most
of the Middle States men opposed the
institution for
practical reasons, while the New
Englanders and the
Quakers were inclined to be idealistic.
As time passed
and the New Englanders who settled
along the river
came to know the negro better, and
after they had suf-
fered some of the disadvantages of too
intimate con-
tact with him, they became somewhat
disillusioned with
the man whom they had romantically
hailed as "God's
image in ebony." They then tended
to vote with the
Southerners and Middle States men to
deprive the negro
of his rights and to discourage his
immigration. The
New Englanders of the Western Reserve,
although
there is hardly sufficient evidence to
justify a dogmatic
statement in this regard, tended to
retain their idealism,
an attitude which was easy to maintain
considering
their infrequent relations with the
blacks. These Puri-
tans also were somewhat consistent in
their attempts to
alleviate the negro's sufferings.
It has been indicated further that the
population of
Hamilton County was particularly
cosmopolitan, and
that the diverse views of these
heterogeneous elements
were reflected in the inability of the
Cincinnati dele-
764
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
gates to act as a unit on specific
points. The one gen-
eral principle upon which all Ohio
agreed was that the
negro probably should be emancipated
throughout the
South, but most of the inhabitants felt
that when he
was freed he should stay in the South.
He was the
South's problem, one which the
Southerners had brought
upon themselves, and at least the
residents of southern
Ohio, for the most part, were
determined that the re-
sponsibility for raising the black to a
reasonable cultural
level was not to be shuffled off onto
them if they could
prevent it. They displayed the utmost
cynicism for the
negro's potentialities, although it
must be noted that the
Cincinnatians had, at first, favored
making him a mem-
ber of the body politic. However, the
motive behind
this stand was not particularly
elevating. The Quakers
and the Conservatives gradually
constituted the nucleus
of the later Abolition group and, with
the assistance of
the propaganda sent into Ohio from
outside the state,
and aided by the teaching of the
ministry, they dis-
covered that it was but a short step to
establish them-
selves firmly on the concept of the equal
rights of man-
kind. Thus this group tended to expand
rather than to
diminish, for the slavery question was
developing into
a moral crusade with them. To their
standard were at-
tracted all who had no practical
considerations to upset
their complacency.
While the anti-slavery sentiment in
Ohio between
1787 and 1815 was at all times
overwhelming, the stim-
ulus to the feeling that involuntary
servitude should be
outlawed within the state did not
always imply idealism
nor did it necessarily mean that the
principle of slavery
was condemned. Caleb Atwater, in his History
of Ohio
published in 1838, illustrates the
viewpoint of the prac-
The Negro in Early Ohio 765
tical man when he says it is "in
the interests of Ohio to
have slavery continue in the South for
one hundred
years. Otherwise our growth will be
checked."108 This
was simply an innocuous way of saying
that after Ohio
had sucked all the best blood from the
South, she would
be willing to let her conscience have
its way in regard
to slavery. But, on the other hand,
there were many
men in southern Ohio who were not mere
theorists, for
they had subjected their sincerity to the
acid test by
freeing their slaves before coming into
the Territory.
As a result of the unity of belief
throughout the
state on the abstract theory that there
should be no
slavery in Ohio--for whatever
reason--it was natural
that there should be no struggle in the
State Constitu-
tional Convention over slavery, and it
is quite logical
that the provision to enfranchise the
negro should be
the test of the relative strength of
the theorists and the
practical men. The ultimate defeat of the measure
bears out the assertion that the
Southern men controlled
the Convention, but the bitterness of
the struggle indi-
cated that their ascendency was based
on a very slim
majority due to heresies within their
own ranks. The
closeness of the vote further indicated
that there were
many people, even in the southern part
of the state who
were willing to permit their hearts to
rule their heads
in regard to the negro.
Yet the effort to deprive the negro of
his civil rights,
lost by the wayside in the
Constitutional Convention,
was revived by the Assembly of 1803-04,
and the first of
the "black codes" was its
product. The theory embodied
in this was that harsh measures would
keep the negro
108 Caleb Atwater, History of Ohio (Cincinnati,
1838), p. 331.
766 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
out of the state. As the law was a
failure in this re-
gard, the harsher and more radical
legislation of 1807
was a logical consequence. In the vote on this provi-
sion, the lines seemed somewhat more
tightly drawn
than was usually the case. The
representatives from
southern Ohio, smarting under the
indignities of previ-
ous years, swept all before them, and
those from the
northern part of the state offered only
a feeble resist-
ance.
But even so, it was evident that the Quaker
element and a part of the Middle States
group in Ohio
had not been won over by the anti-negro
contingent,
even though the former moralists at
Marietta had re-
versed opinions they held earlier.
Although the "black
codes" were not immediately
enforced, they presented
a basis for potential rank injustice,
and inasmuch as
they were not repealed until 1849, a
free negro in Ohio
was not really "free" until
approximately a decade be-
fore the Civil War.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. SOURCES
A. Printed
1. The Acts of the Ohio State Legislature, 1803,
1806. Chillicothe, 1804, 1807.
2. The Journal of the House of Representatives and
of the Legislative Council of the
Territorial Leg-
islature, 1799. Cincinnati, 1800.
3. The Journal of the House of Representatives of
the Territorial Legislature, 1801. Chillicothe,
1802.
4. "The Journal of the Ohio State
Constitutional
Convention, 1802," in
the Historical Magazine,
Ser. 2,
Vol. 6, No. I. July, 1869.
5. The Journal of the Ohio State House of Repre-
sentatives, 1806. Chillicothe, 1807.
6. The Journal of the Ohio State
Senate, 1803, 1806.
Chillicothe, 1804, 1807.
The Negro in Early Ohio 767
7. The Laws of the Northwest
Territory (Max-
well's Code). Cincinnati, 1796.
8. The Constitutions of Ohio; ed.
by I. F. Patter-
son. Cleveland, 1912.
9. The Records of the Ohio Company; ed.
by A. B.
Hulbert. 3 vols. Marietta, 1917.
10. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson; ed. by P. L.
Ford. 10 vols. New York, 1892-1899.
11. The St. Clair Papers; ed. by W. H. Smith. 2
vols. Cincinnati, 1882.
II.
NEWSPAPERS AND PAMPHLETS (In the Library
of the Historical and Philosophical
Society of Ohio).
A. Newspapers
1. The Centinel of the 'Northwestern Territory,
1793-1796.
2. The Western Spy and Hamilton Gazette, 1799-
1806.
B. Pamphlets
1. Jay A. Barrett. The Evolution of
the Ordinance
of 1787. New York, 1891.
2. James E. Campbell. How and When Ohio Be-
came a State. Columbus, 1925.
3. Charles Cist. Cincinnati in 1841. Cincinnati,
1841.
4. Manasseh Cutler. Description of Ohio. (Old
South Leaflet, Series No. 40). Salem,
1887.
5. Jervace Cutler. Ohio, Indiana Territory and
Louisiana. Boston, 1812.
6. Benjamin Drake and E. D. Mansfield. Cincin-
nati in 1826. Cincinnati, 1827.
7. Charles B. Galbreath. "Thomas Jefferson's
Views on Slavery," in Ohio
Archaeological and
Historical Society Publications, Vol. XXXIV.
Columbus, 1925.
8. John F. Schemmerhorn and Samuel J.
Mills.
West of the Alleghanies.. Hartford, 1814.
III. SECONDARY AUTHORITIES
A. Caleb Atwater. History of Ohio. Cincinnati,
1838.
B. Jacob Burnet. Notes on the
Northwestern Territory.
Cincinnati, 1847.
C. Robert E. Chaddock. Ohio, Before 1850. New
York, 1908.
768 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
D. Julia P. Cutler. The Life and
Times of Ephraim
Cutler. Cincinnati, 1890.
E. William P. and Julia P. Cutler. The
Life, Journal
and Correspondence of the Rev.
Manasseh Cutler.
2 vols. Cincinnati, 1888.
F. Elliot H. Gilkey. The Ohio Hundred
Year Book.
Columbus, 19O1.
G. William E. Gilmore. The Life of
Edward Tiffin.
Chillicothe, 1897.
H. Albert B. Hart. Slavery and
Abolition. (Amer. Na-
tion Series, Vol. XVI). New York, 1906.
I. Charles T. Hickok. The Negro in Ohio. Cleveland,
1896.
J. Burke
A. Hinsdale. The Old
Northwest. New
York, 1888.
K. Charles R. King. The Life and
Correspondence of
Rufus King. 6 vols. New York, 1894.
L. Rufus King. Ohio: First Fruits of
the Ordinance
of 1787. Boston, 1888.
M. Andrew C. McLaughlin. The
Confederation and
the Constitution. (American Nation Series, Vol. X).
New York, 1905.
N. John Bach McMaster. History of the
People of the
United States. 8 vols. New York, 1893-1913.
O. David M. Massie. Nathaniel Massie.
A Pioneer of
Ohio. Cincinnati, 1896.
P. Frederick A. Ogg. The Old
Northwest. (Chron-
icles of America Series, Vol. XIX). New
Haven,
1920.
Q. Frederick L. Paxson. History of the American
Frontier. Boston, 1925.
R. Emilius 0. Randall and Daniel J.
Ryan. History of
Ohio. 6 vols. New York, 1912.
S. William W. Sweet. Rise of
Methodism in the West.
Cincinnati, 1920.
T. Frederick J. Turner. Rise of the
New West. (Amer-
ican Nation Series, Vol. XIV). New York,
1906.
U. George W. Williams. History of the
Negro Race in
America. 2 vols. New York,
1882.