COLUMBUS: OHIO'S CAPITAL*
BY ELMER EDWARD NOYES
It has been stated by some authorities
that Columbus was
born a capital,1 that Lucas
Sullivant, an early surveyor who laid
out Franklinton in 1797,
foresaw the future political
possibilities
of the district.2 At the same
time, it is claimed by another au-
thority that this was hardly possible,
since state lines had not
yet been drawn at that early date.3
In any case, the seat of
government was moved to Columbus in
October, 1816,4 and the
legislature convened there on December
2, 1816.5
The towns of Columbus and Franklinton
were now con-
nected by an "elegant bridge"
thrown across the Scioto River.6
Furthermore, by the next year, local
papers contained accounts
of the pleasing development of the
capital, these claiming that
in 1817 there were nearly 200
houses--"elegant mansions" re-
placing log cabins.7 The
embryo city also supported two news-
papers, and an "academy for young
ladies in which are instructed
most of the branches of polite
literature of that class of schools,
in the seaports and principal
towns."8 The same source claimed
that Columbus was a place where one
could enjoy good health
and cheap living. One could find
refreshment and relaxation
in the tavern owned and operated by J.
B. Gardiner, this estab-
* This
article is based upon a revised chapter taken from a Master's thesis
written in 1940 at the Ohio State
University and entitled, "The Selection of a
Site
for the Permanent Location of Ohio's
Capital." The content of the
chapter has
been left intact, but the form and expression have been
altered slightly. The writer
has felt it advisable to omit a number
of footnote references in his revision.
1 Alfred E. Lee, History of the City
of Columbus, Capital of Ohio (New York,
1892), I, 201. Hereafter this work will
be cited as Lee, Hist. of Col.
2 Joseph Sullivant, A Genealogy and Family Memorial (Columbus,
1874), 115; Lee,
Hist. of Col., I,
135.
3 General John Beatty,
"Franklinton-An Historical Address," Ohio State Ar-
chaeological and Historical
Quarterly, VI, 61.
4 Ohio Laws, XIV, 245.
5 Item in Chillicothe, Ohio, Supporter,
Dec. 6, 1816.
6 Ibid.; Lee, Hist. of Col., I, 218, for a discussion of
bridge and tolls, etc.
7 Zanesville, Ohio, Muskingum Messenger, June 26, 1817, quoting
item from
Columbus Ohio Monitor.
8 For this material the writer has
referred to an item from Ohio Monitor, quoted
by Muskingum Messenger, June 26, 1817.
(72)
COLUMBUS: OHIO'S CAPITAL 73
lishment being known as "The Rose
Tree in Full Bearing."9
Furthermore, the public buildings were
completed, and were in
most respects deemed satisfactory,
although one of the authorities
cited above claimed that the
"penitentiary . . . is deficient in size
and strength."10 Nor was this the
only disdainful remark made
about the civic and cultural attractions
of Columbus, for Dr.
John Cotton, physician of Marietta, had
the following to say of the
new capital:
It [Columbus] is of only three year's
growth. . . . The people have
been collected from every quarter and
having great diversity of manners
and habits . . . do not make the most
agreeable company. An elegant
state house is here being erected. . . . One thing
seems truly ridiculous.
Inscriptions are set up over the doors
on beautiful slabs of marble taken
from Joel Barlow's Columbiad, holding
forth the detested principles of
the French Revolution. There is a state
prison also, or, as it is here
called, a penitentiary, for convicts,
though quite too small, one would be
apt to judge for that purpose.11
But not all the criticism applied to
Columbus was of so
adverse a nature, and perhaps Governor
Thomas Worthington
voiced the happiest outlook for the
future of the new capital
when he said:
The beauty and advantages of the site
fixed . . . are more apparent
as it progresses in improvement. You may
be subject to some inconveniences
. . . but there is every reason to
expect that . . . the growth of the town
will remedy these. . . .12
Thus the daily life of the capital went
on. Seldom was there
any open indication during the years
immediately following 1816
that the seat of government should be
moved elsewhere, although
during that year there was probably some
smoldering feeling in
this respect. For instance, on May 16,
1816, a letter appeared
in the Western Intelligencer addressed
to "All Lovers of Good
Roads," in which the point was made
that certain towns--Zanes-
ville, Lancaster, and Chillicothe--hoped
to change the course
of the "Great National Turnpike
Road" so that the road would
9 Advertisement in Supporter, Dec.
17, 1816.
10 Muskingum Messenger, June 26, 1817, quoting item from Ohio Monitor.
11 Rufus King, Ohio First Fruits of
the Ordinance of 1787 (New York, 1888),
340, quoting diary of Dr. Cotton based
on his trip to Columbus in 1815.
12 Worthington, Ohio, Western
Intelligencer, Dec. 5, 1816, quoting Governor's Mes-
sage of Dec. 3; House Journal, 10
Assem., 1 Sess., 12, Proceedings, Dec. 3, 1816.
74
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL
QUARTERLY
run through them. A change like this, so
the letter stated, might
result in the capital's being removed
from Columbus to one of
these towns. One way, according to the writer, to keep the
capital in a central location and at
Columbus, was to do every-
thing possible to have the road go
through the capital. Although
the writer claimed that removal of the
capital from Columbus was
impossible, the mere fact that he used
the hopes of the towns
mentioned above as a threat shows that
the deplorable condition
of the roads leading to Columbus was
being offered as adverse
criticism of the site.13
Furthermore, the possibility arose in
January, 1817, that the
penitentiary might be removed from Columbus to Muskingum
County, since a report of a committee
which was investigating
penitentiary affairs claimed that the
country near Zanesville af-
forded more advantages than any other
place for the location of
a new prison. Accordingly, a resolution
was drawn on January
21, 1817, for a bill to authorize the
erection of a new penitentiary
in the town of Putnam (formerly known as
Springfield), or on
the banks of the Muskingum River.14
Nothing came of this at-
tempt to withdraw one of the most
important state buildings from
the capital. Such a withdrawal might
have led to further similar
actions resulting in the possible final
changing of the seat of
government itself, but, as has been
stated, the effort to move
the penitentiary failed.
The next indication that the capital
might be removed from
Columbus either temporarily or
permanently came in the autumn
of 1822.
The Cleveland Herald of December 12,
1822, stated
that the
Columbus papers contain a notice that
petitions will be presented to
the present legislature for the removal
of the seat of government across
the river to Franklinton. It is also
said that attempts will be made for its
removal to Zanesville; and we do not know
but Steubenville will . . . be
thought of, by one person at least, as
the most eligible and central spot for
the state capital.15
13 Western Intelligencer, May 16, 1816, quoting letter of "An Old Fashioned
Fellow."
14 Senate Journal, 15 Assem., 1 Sess., 157-60, Proceedings of Jan.
4, 1817.
15 Annals of Cleveland, A Digest and
Index of the Newspaper Record of Events
and Opinion (Multigraphed by Cleveland W. P. A. Project 16823,
1937), V, 217,
abstract 304 quoting Cleveland
Herald, Dec. 12, 1822.
COLUMBUS: OHIO'S CAPITAL 75
It is true that the Columbus press did
contain notices praying
for the removal of the seat of
government from Columbus to
Franklinton, but no mention is made of
any other location.16 A
few days after the appearance of the
first of these petitions, an
editorial from the Steubenville Gazette
was quoted in the Co-
lumbus Gazette as making the
following statement:
From
the sickness that has prevailed the present season, in . . .
Columbus, we learn that it will become a
serious question, at the ensuing
sessions of the legislature, whether a
more eligible and healthy situation
cannot be found, if not for the
permanent, at least for the temporary,
seat of government of this state.
Zanesville is the place spoken of as
the place pointed out by nature of our
seat of government; and it is
predicted that there it must come at
last.17
It is hardly necessary to say that this
editorial aroused com-
ment from several sources. The Columbus Gazette,
in reply to the
Steubenville editor, stated that there
was no truth in the statement,
that there had been but ittle sickness
in Columbus during the
past season, and that
we were well aware of Mr. Wilson's
hostility towards our place, but had
never indulged the belief that he was
actuated by so base and fiendlike
disposition. . . . And we confess that
we are extremely sorry to see so
great a Statesman and so good an Editor, sacrificing truth
to satisfy his
hellish appetite. We say from such a man
"Good Lord deliver us."18
This somewhat vitriolic denunciation of
Editor Wilson and
his motives was softened by a milder
reply coming from the Ohio
Monitor on
November 23, 1822. In this statement, it was ad-
mitted that charges were made by various
sources that Columbus
was an unhealthy place.19 It
was maintained, however, by the
same source that
we hardly believe . . . Zanesville
enjoys more health than Columbus.
Besides, the Legislature sits in
Columbus in the winter and the health of
Columbus will then compare with that of
any place in the world.
In referring to the health of the
legislature the paper stated,
16 Notice in Columbus Gazette, Oct.
31, Nov. 7, 21, 1822.
17 Columbus
Gazette, Nov. 21. 1822, quoting editorial in Steubenville Gazette. See
also Muskingum Messenger, Nov.
19, 1822.
18 Columbus Gazette, Nov. 21,
1822. (Mr. Wilson, the "one person" referred to
in citation 15 and in this note was the
grandfather of President Woodrow Wilson.)
19 For this material and the two quotations following, the writer has
referred to
an editorial appearing in the Ohio
Monitor and Patron of Industry, Nov. 23, 1822.
76
OHIO ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL
QUARTERLY
"They have held six sessions in
this place, averaging nine weeks
each year; and, out of one hundred men,
ONE only has died,
during the whole period."
Nor was Zanesville silent during this
give-and-take between
Columbus and Steubenville. Taking a
somewhat cynically amused
attitude, the editor of the Muskingum
Messenger and Democratic
Republican stated that
anything which we, here about
Zanesville, could say in favor of a removal
of the seat of government, would have
but little effect with those who
have the power to accomplish the object
. . . that we were actuated by
interested and selfish motives.20
This comment was followed by a statement
supporting the legality
of such a transfer of the seat of the
government, and it was main-
tained that the "People of Franklin
County have to admit the
legality of such a move because of their
attempts to have the
seat of justice for their county which
had been permanently fixed
at Franklinton removed to
Columbus."21
At this time notices were appearing in
the local Columbus
press praying for the removal of the
seat of justice of Franklin
County from Franklinton to Columbus.22
A few days later the
Muskingum Messenger stated further that the "People of Colum-
bus seemed greatly alarmed over the
removal because they would
lose their business and their property
would depreciate."23
The statement then goes on "We, of
Zanesville would reap
so many advantages--our business would
flourish still more,
and we should be blessed with the
neighborship of many of our
Columbus friends."
From
an analysis of the above statements, it can be seen
that Zanesville was very likely still
suffering from the sting caused
by the removal of the capital from
Zanesville to Chillicothe in
1812, that there was considerable dissatisfaction felt
toward Co-
lumbus as the capital city, and that
this dissatisfaction was ex-
pressed chiefly through charges that the
site of the capital was in
an unhealthy place. Naturally, the
Columbus inhabitants defended
20 Editorial
in Muskingum Messenger and Democratic Republican, Nov. 19, 1822.
21 Ibid.
22 Notice in Columbus Gazette, Nov.
13, 1822.
23 From this and the following excerpt
the writer is indebted to an editorial
appearing in the Muskingum
Messenger, Dec. 3, 1822.
COLUMBUS: OHIO'S CAPITAL 77
their city with as much vigor as they
could, but it must be stated
here that an altogether true picture of
the town's state of health
was not presented in the newspapers. In
fact, for over a year
Columbus had been suffering from much
sickness, as can be shown
by the following excerpts from letters
written by Mrs. Betsy
Green Deshler, a member of one of the
early families of Columbus,
to various relatives of hers.
On March 17, 1821--over a year
before the charges made by
Editor Wilson--Mrs. Deshler wrote to her
father: "Almost
everybody here has been sick owing to
the disagreeable weather."24
A few months later she wrote again:
"There has been this
season, considerable sickness in
Columbus. . . ." A few weeks
after that, in October, 1821, "It
is, and has been, more unhealthy
this season than for many years. . . .
The most that appears to
occupy the minds of the people this year
is sickness, taking care
of the sick, going to funerals. . .
."
Finally, just prior to the time of the
charges made by Editor
Wilson, Mrs. Deshler remarked:
"There has been much more
sickness this season than has ever been
known since the settlement
of Franklin County. Our burying ground
has averaged ten new
graves per week, for a number of weeks
past. . . ."
Judging by the contents of the above
letters, it would seem
that Editor Wilson's charges were not so
far from the truth, and
since Mrs. Deshler's letters continue in
much the same vein until
the spring of 1826, it would seem too,
that the statements made
by Columbus newspapers to the effect
that there had been but
little sickness in Columbus during this
period were somewhat
erroneous,25 if not untrue.
Such was the momentary flurry in the
fall of 1822 when the
smouldering resentment and
dissatisfaction felt toward the capital
city flared into open flame. Aside from
the comments made by
various newspapers, nothing of further
importance developed in
connection with the issue. Although the
chief criticism of the
capital was directed at its unhealthy
situation, little more was
heard of this despite the fact--as has
been shown--that a great deal
24 For these letters the writer is
indebted to Lee, Hist. of Col., I, 269-71.
25 Editorial in Columbus Gazette, Nov. 21, 1822.
78
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL
QUARTERLY
of sickness prevailed in Columbus for
several years following
1822. Certain it is
that Editor Wilson had some basis for his
charges, but nothing ever came of them.
It was not until the
latter part of the next decade that the
fourth and final stage
of the contest over the permanent
location of the capital of Ohio
began.