sign in sign up
<<
Home , Indiana Territory, Jonathan Jennings, Waller Taylor

INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY VOLUMEXXXIII SEPTEMBER, 1937 NUMBER3

The Southern Influence in the Formation of JOHND. BARNHART James Bryce wisely observed that state constitutions furnish invaluable material and are a mine of instruction for the history of democratic communities. If this be true, the first constitution of a state should reveal some of the social and political ideals of its citizens at the time of its adoption. A study of such a document, which includes the antecedents of the members of the convention, the contests in framing the constitution, and the ideas of which it was formed, aids one in understanding the part played by the settlers from the various sections of the nation in the founding of the new commonwealth. The movement for statehood in Indiana was a natural outgrowth of the contests of the earlier period. During his governorship of the territory, be- came identified with the interests of the capital city of Vin- cennes, with the group of officials that he appointed to the various county and territorial offices, and with the settlers who believed that the prohibition of slavery north of the River was excluding desirable immigrants, delaying the de- velopment of the territory and interfering with the estab- lishment of the type of society which many preferred.' The Harrison group came to be called the Aris- tocrats.* Although a number of important positions were

'Tho Amm'm Commonwealth (London. 1891). I. 434. 'Dorothy B. Goebel, William Henw Harrison, Indiana HMtoriccJ CoUsct+ (Indl- UUDOI~ 19%). XN (1926). 63-68: Jamb P. Dunn. Iudtana, A Redmnptum from Slawor# (Batan, lWO), 294416; knn. Indiana and Indiathw, 6 rols. (Chicapo. 1919). I 286408. 'Donn. Indiaw 397. 262 Indiana Magazine of History held by Virginians,’ all of the members of the group did not come from that state. Negro servants were held in Indiana by some of these aristocrats, although slavery was forbidden by the .’ Petitions requesting the modi- fication of the ordinance were forwarded to Congress6 and a system of indentured servitude was permitted by the terri- torial legislature.‘ Aristocratic manners, characteristic of the plantation South or of the old country had been carried into this frontier region. General James Dill, a native of Ireland whom Harrison appointed a prosecuting attorney, attended court in the costume of a gentleman of the Revolutionary pe- riod, knee breeches, silver buckles, and cue “a mild protest against the leveling tendencies of the age.8” When the can- didate of this group was defeated by in 1809 in the election of a delegate to Congress, , a Harrisonite, tried to pick a quarrel with Jennings; and Thomas Randolph, the defeated candidate, challenged a critic to fight a due1.O Certain developments occurred which lessened the in- fluence and security of the Harrison group. was sepa- rated from , disturbing existing relations and reducing the number of Harrison’s supporters.1o Vin- cennes was no longer centrally located, and in 1813 the capi- tal was moved to Corydon.ll Immigration increased the im-

‘Among these may be mentioned Waller Taylor. Chancellor of the territory, 1807. 1814. Thomas Randolph Attorney General, 180~1811:and Samuel Gwathmey. a awn- ber Af the legislative dycil. Nina K. Reid, Sketches of Early Indiana Senatore- Waller Taylor 1816-1826 Indiana Mamzins of Histmy IX (1913). 92-96: William W. Woolen, Biog&hid a& Historical Sketches of Eariu Indiana (Idnianapolis 188S), 391-99: Dunn, Indiana, 326 : Louis B. .Ewbank and Dorothy 5 Riker (eds.). Ths Lam of Indiuna Territory 1809-1818. I?uhanu HwtO+id Collectunrs, XX (1934) 1817-80* Bwgraphid Direct& of Amcrriwr Congrsse. 1774-1887 (Washington, lb8). ld ‘Dann Lsnn. Luke Decker. and David Robb will aeme aa illustrations. Skdches of Lynn,- Witlip& H.- EngKsh Collection (University of Chleago Library), Indiana Bio. graphic+ Sketches, L: sketches of +bb, ibid., R: ylliam W. Woolen, st d. (A), “Executive Journal of Indiana Territory. 1800-1816, Indiana Historical Society Prb lications (Indlanapolis, 1897-). III (1900). see index for these names: Histow of Dsar- born and Ohio Countiee.. Indiana (Chicago, 1886). 100, 490: Dunn. Indiana and Indi- anans. I, 301: Gil R. Stormont. Histmu of Gibson Countu, Indiana (Indianapolis, 1914). 41-43: History of Knoz and Dames8 Counties. Indiana (Chicago, 1886). 86-86; aee ad- vertisement by Samuel Gwathmey in Vincennes Western Sun, ADril 30. 1814. O.Jaq.ob P . Dunn (ed.). “Slavery Petitions and Papers,” Indiana Historical Society, Publtcattonu., I1 f, 18961. .. 443-629.- 7 “Laws of Indiana Territory. 1806 ” ch. XXVI. Francis S. Philbrick (ed.), !I% Laws of Indiana Territory, 1801-1809: Illinois State Historical Library, Cdlectionr (Springfield. Illinois. 1903-), XXI (1930). 89-168. sHistoru of Dearborn and Ohio Counties, Indiana, 148-49: 0. H. Smith, Early IndG am Trials and Sketches (Cincinnati, 1868). 172-73; sketches of James Dill, English Collection, Biographical Sketches, D: Dunn, Indiana and Indianians, I, 287: “Exeiutive Journal of Indiana Territory.” Zoc. cit., 117, 164. 167. 174. 180. 201. 205. 209. 217. Woolen, Biographical Sketches 391-99- Dunn Indiana A Rsdemption from S~UQ~, 398-401: Charles Kettleborough, Cdrstitution Madng in Ihiana, 8 vols. (Indianapolis, 1916). I, 64. lo Dunn, Indiana, 832-83. Logan Esarey, A (, Indiana, 1924). 1. 242. Southern Influence an Indiana 263

portance of the eastern and southern parts of the territory.’* The voters were permitted to choose the delegate to Congress and the members of the territorial council as well as of the house of representatives.18 Jonathan Jennings was elected delegate to Congress and an opposition group led by him and closely associated with the Territorial Legislature came into being.” The indenture law, by which the proslavery interests had circumvented the Northwest Ordinance, was repe~1ed.l~ The only feature of the Harrison regime that was not over- thrown was the governor’s control over patronage, and Jen- nings made attacks on that in Congress.1e The gave Harrison an honorable escape from the growing opposition. The extent to which the old divi- sion disappeared with him is disputed. Jacob P. Dunn thought that the old issues continued until the constitution was framed. Governor , who succeeded Harrison, was also a Virginian and a soldier.“ He had petitioned for the admission of slaves. “It was only natural,” wrote Dunn, “that the personal friends of General Harrison became Posey’s personal friends; and in equally natural sequence he fell heir to Harrison’s political estate as well as to his office.”l* The Jennings group was determined to wrest control from this aristocratic, proslavery circle which was strongly centered in Vincennes and Knox County. The election of delegates to the constitutional convention was a great victory for the Jen- nings or popular party, which made possible an antislavery constitution. Professor Logan Esarey has disputed these points : In the selection of delegates to the convention no definite political parties nor political issues appeared. . . . Even the old issues of slav-

laZbid I 230-38 . Waldo F Mitchell “Indiana’s Growth 1812-1820 ” Indiana Maga- zine of H&tiru X (i914) 36i-96. N& Weeklu Repieter iX (1816)’ 171 186. Dunn. Indiana 391-9i. Ninth demu.8 0) the lb70 StiatiS&a 0) Po;rJbtbn (Wasbi&bn, 1872). 26-26; Stephen B. Weeks. South& &lf... a+ SZavurg. . . In Johns. Hopkins University Studies in Nratoncd and Polrttcd Sctence, Extra Voi: XV (Baltlmore. 1896), 261-84. ““Acts of Indiana. Territory. 1811,” ch. XVI, in Ewbank and .Rik.er (edn.!, T+ hws of Indiana Temtory, 1809-1816, 209-94: Kettleborough. Conatttutwn Making sm Indiana. I. 66-67. “Dorothy Riker, “Jonathan Jennings,” in Indiana Magazine of Histmu XXVUI (1932). 223-39; Logan Esarey Messages and Pa era of Jonathun Jennings . .’. Indiana Hiatorid Collections, XI1 (1b24). 6-1, 27-28: Eiographiod Directory of the Amencan COn~W’ess, 1917. 1149. “Acts of Indiana Territory. 1810 ” ch XXVIII, in Ewbank and Riker (ede.). The hws of Indiana Tem‘tory. 1809-1816,’ 89-iO8. la Riker. “Jonathan Jennings,” loc. cit.. 231. I’ James Hall, “Memoir of Thomas Poser.” in Jared Sparks (ed.), The Libram of American Biowqhu. Second Series, 15 vols. Boston, (1862-18g6), IX (1862). 869-403: Woolen, Biographical Sketches, 21-28. “Dunn. Indiana, 417-18. 264 Indiana Magazine of History ery and aristocracy belonged to the era of territorial strife. The slaverp question seems to have played a very minor part in the selection of delegates and in the work of the convention. . . .18 Undoubtedly Professor Esarey has made a much needed correction in calling attention to the overemphasis on the slavery question, but it is possible that he has gone too far in the opposite direction. Animosities and prejudices die slowly, voters are not especially rational, and politicians hesitate to surrender a useful issue. Jennings was a skilful politician,m slavery was discussed,21 and something like the old division is to be seen in a careful analysis of the work of the conven- tion.22 Something of the aristocratic social order might be maintained with indentured servitude, and convictions must be honored even in defeat. Only statehood could give the populgr party control over patronage and the executive. A state constitution, with a rigid prohibition of negro indenture as well as slavery, would guard the people against the possible future introduction of negroes, and check permanently the development of an aris- tocratic society that was patterned on that of the plantation South. Of great importance, also, was the desire for com- plete local self-government and participation in national af- fairs. The old Harrison group was opposed to this develop ment, for it would end the regime that gave them honors and positions. I After the territorial assembly petitioned for statehood and an adequate population was indicated by a census, Con- gress passed an enabling act authorizing a constitutional convention.28 The passage of the act came so shortly before the date set for the election of delegates, that a campaign, such as had occurred before the convention of 1802 in Ohio,H was impossible. A few letters and editorials appeared deal- ing chiefly with Jennings and the slavery question.26 Timothy Flint, who was in Indiana at the time, wrote: Esarey, Mesaanes and Papers of Jonathun Jennings. . .. 6-12 ; id., Historv oj k diana. I. 242-43, 247-49. =Riker, “Jonathan Jennings,” bc. dt., 239. a Vincennea Western Sun, February 8. March 2, SO, 1818 ; T’plotEy Flint, &+. lectwns of the Last Ten Years (New York, 1932). 67; Dunn. Indtcrna A Redempha, from Slaweru, 219 ff.. and Dunn, Indium and Indianians, I. 290-91 ; Kettiebborough Cat. stitution Making in Indiana, 1, xv-xvii. Below, pp. 264-276. e, Francis N. Thorpe (o~mp.),Federal and Stat8 Constitutions . . . and Other Or. ganic Laws . . . , 7 vola (Washington. 1909). II, 1036-1066; Esarey, HistotV of Indioy I, 242-47. John D. Barnhart. “The Southern Influence in the Formation of Ohio,” Journal of Southern History (Baton Rouge, 1936-), 111 (1937). 28-42. Vincennea Western Sun, January 27, February 3. March 2, 80, April 20. May 8, It and June 1, 1316. Southern Influence in Indiana 265

The question in all its magnitude, whether it should be a slave- holding state or not, was just now agitating. I was often compelled to hear the question debated by those in opposite interestes with no small degree of asperity.26 The most valid argument against statehood was the ex- pense it would involve, although the objection to the haste with which delegates must be chosen was not entirely point- less. The election resulted in a victory for the popular or Jen- nings party, to which almost two-thirds of the delegates ap- pear to have belonged. A survey of the members of this group is instructive.27 Although its opponents were called Virginians, the Old Do- minion was the birthplace of the largest group of delegates who were members of the popular party. Four of them came from the Piedmont2* and one from the Valley of Virginia.2Q They may have been a part of the exodus of farmers who emigrated as the plantation system spread to the weStward.*O

a Flint, RecoUectione, 67. “The political alipnment of the delegates was estimated on the basis of the re corded roll calls of the convention. Those who voted similarly were sdllluned to- belong to the same group or party. The likelihood of error was greatest in classfymg the &ksaten who were moderate or independent. The roll calls are found in “Journal of the Convention of the Convention of the Indiana Territory.” in State Bar Association of Indiana, Report of the Sizteenth Ann& Meeting (Indianapolis. 1912). 187-231. Very Wef biographical notes about members of the mnvention are fo.nnd in “Members of the Indiana Constitutional Convention of 1816,” in Indiana Magazine of Hiat0l.y. XXVI (19SO). 147-61.

ahuel Smock was born in Berkeley County. Virginia. He lived In Kentucky for WemI years and was married while there; sketch of Smock in English Collection. Bio- mDhfeal Sketches, S: “Executive Journal of Indiana Territory,” loo. cit. 167, 166. 168, 171 202 206 220. Jacob Vawter. “Early History of Madison,” in India& Magazine of R&#,’XII’ (191i). 227-231. John D. Barnhart “Sources of Southern Migration into the Old Northwest,” In MWpPi VaUev Hietokcal Review (Cedar Rapids. 1916-). XXII (1986). 49-62, See 6667. and references cited. 266 Indiana Magazine of History The exact nativity of two has not been determinedPl Four of the seven lived in Kentucky for a time before moving to Indiana and all but one received appointments from Governor Harrison. Four other members of the popular party were born in Maryland, and they seem to have been connected with the population movements in the “Old West.” One was born in Hagerstown, all but one later lived in Kentucky, and the other spent much of his life on the frontier. Not one of these was appointed to office by Harrison.8a Only two of Kentucky’s native sons were members of the popular group. One was a Quaker, an active supporter of Jennings, and an opponent of slavery.88 He was not given an office by Harrison, but the other Kentuckian, who was John DePauw, a son of Charles DePauw, the friend and associate of Lafayette, was appointed a judge and an official in the militia.84 The influence of Kentucky was heightened because nine other members of the controlling party had re- sided there before coming to Indiana.86

=These were Davis Floyd and John Bennefield. Floyd wan said to be a memk of a famous Virginia family. He became a friend of Harrison and waa appointed to a number of official positions, but became involved in the Burr conspiracy. Hir com- missions were revoked and no further appointments were given to him by H.rrirOn. He cad to he a member of the Harrison group. became a member of the DopaLr party and wan made clerk to the lower house of the Territorial Assembly. Sketch of Floyd, English Collection, Biographical. Sketch:#, F: 1- J. Cox, “The Burr CUB- spirnq in Indlsna” in Indtona Maoaano of Hutoru, XXV (1929). 11-80: ‘‘Execdm Journal of Indiana Territory.” &c. cit., 101, 112. 121. 122, 184. 137, 147, 186. 187. 197: Lerington, Indiana WsshEa&. April 1, 1814. Colonel Bennefield WM a VirglnIu~, but he waa the only successful candidate in Knox County who waa not a member Oi the Harrison group and who held antislavery views: H. V. Helms to John C. Br and John C. Brim to W. H. English in English Collection. Biopraphid Sketches!!: Dunn, Indiana and Iudhnam, I. 296. “They were the Reverend Hugh Cull. Thomas Carr, William H. Eads, and Chula Polk. Cull was horn in Havre de Grace of Catholic parents with whom he went to Pennsylvania at an early ape. As a young man he went weat to Kentucky whera ha waa married. He served aa a Idpreacher in the Methodist Church after he moved to Indiana Sketches of Cull. Endish Collection. Biomaphical Sketches. C: Wiley, “Methodism in Southeastern Indiana’’ in Iudicmua lKag&nd of HiSto?r. XXIII. 81. 87. 88. Thomas Carr lived in Maryland until he grew to manhood and waa marrled. He moved to Faye+ County: Pennnylmnia and from there to Indiana Territory. Sketcha of Carr. English Collection. Biographid Sketches. C. William H. Eads wan born in Hagerstown from which he moved to Kentucky and then on to Indiana He is Mid to have been an Episcopalian and a Federalist. E. J. M!!on to W. Enpl December 13, 188!,, English Collection. Biographical Sketches. E : Executive Journal% Indiana Territory loc. cit 258. Charles Polk was horn in Maryland married into Virginia family. &d during’the Revolution moved to the northern panhrkdle of Virplnk He later moved to Kentucky. where the Indians captured his family. Many years sita he was reunited with his wife and children, he moved to Indians. He WM a BaptLt preacher and held antislavery views. He WBB the father of William Polk who wan alm a member of the convention, hut an adherent of the opposition. Sketch of Polk, Eng- lish Collection, Biographical Sketches. P: Logan Esarey. “Indian ,$aptives In Early In- diana.” in Zndiana Mauazins of History. IX. 96-112: James Polke, Some Memoire of tho Polke. .,,. and Mathes Families,” ibid., X, 88-89; William Bruce, “Memoirs of the Bmm Family. ibid., XXIII, 66. This was Joseph Holman : sketch. of Joseph Holman. English Collection. Biographi- cal Sketches, G (misfiled) : Dunn. Indtona, A Rsdsrnptron from Sloueru. 891-96. Sketch of John De Pauw. English Collection, Biographical Sketches, P (misfiled) : “Executive Journal of Indiana Territory,” &a. &t., 196. 206: History of th Ohio Fa& Citk and Their CountisS, 2 vols. (Cleveland. Ohio, 1882). 11, 280. “These were Pennineton. Cull Eads William Graham Brownlee, Noble, Smock. Cotton. and Charles Polk. Biograpifd dka for each of these is given on pp. 6-8 and notes 26-42 Of thb paper. Southern Influence in Indiana 267

Each of the Carolinas contributed a native son to the Jennings party. , who seems to have been some- thing of a “character,” came to Indiana from South Carolina about 1800. He was fond of drilling the local militia al- though the cornstalks which many carried in the place of guns contrasted strangely with his own elaborate uniform. He is reported as having had an “innate prejudice” against slavery and slaveholders but as being careful about speaking of it in the early days when it was not popular and when he was a friend and an appointee of Governor Harrison. No doubt this prejudice affected his alignment in the convention with the popular party, and his fondness for office would tend to bring him over to the majority.*O William Lowe, a native of North Carolina, was not a Quaker, but was considered to be very favorable to the adherents of that faith.37 Jonathan Jennings, who was the leader of the popular group and the president of the convention, and six other dele- gates who aided him in the convention came from the Middle States. Four of the five Pennsylvanians seem to have been connected with the “Old West” or the Trans-Appalachian movement.38 One delegate came from Dela~are.~~After coming to Indiana, Jennings, who was pmbably a native of New Jersey, saw the opportunity of championing the “anti- slavery, capital-moving, and anti-Harrison forces” at a time when they were already in the as~endancy.’~This resulted in his election as delegate to Congress, where he endeavored to strip Harrison of some of his appointive powers and to dis- credit him in various ways, bringing the enabling act safely through Congress as the climax of his efforts. Two other members of the popular party came from the North. They were New Englanders, being natives of Connecticut, one of

DO Indianapolis Jqurnal. November 22, 1868 : John H. B. Nowland, Earlv Rsminis- eencse of Indianapolur (Indianapolis. 1870). 193-96: sketch of Robert Hanna English Collection. Biographical Sketches, H: Hubert M. Skinner, “Broolnrille’s Roudded Cen- tury, June, 1908,” in Ind$zna Magazine of Hiebru, VI (1910). 81-86; “Executive Jour- nal of Indiana Territory. loc. cit., 168, 191. Sketch of William Lowe. English Collection, Biographical Sketches, L. =The four were Jeremiah Cox, John K. Graham, Samuel Milroy. and James Brown- lee. The fifth, Robert Mchtire, may have been for he WBB born In Gbeskr County. Pennsylvania ; sketch of McIntire, English Collection, Biographical Sketches, M. For Cox. see sketch in English Collection, Biographical Sketches, C; “Memoir of David Hoover.” in Indiana Magazine of Historu 11 (1906) 17-27. See sketch of Graham in English Collection. Biographical Sketches: G, and Hiator# of ths Ohio FaUe Citiss and Their Counties. 11, 247. A sketch of Milroy is to be found in the English Collection, Biographi- cal Sketches. M. See a sketch of Brownlee by his son. John Brownlee. and an undated newspaper clipping in the English Collection, Biographical Sketchen. B. This was Solomon Manwaring ’ “Executive Journal of Indiana Territow.” loo. cit.. 167. 206, 233 : Historv of Deurborn ’and Ohio Countim, Indiana, 633. 822-23 : Amos W. Butler, “Notes Concerning Brookville, Ind., A Century Ago,” in Indiana Magazine of Hiatorr, XIII (1917). 146-60. * Riker, “Jonathan Jenninga.” in Indiana Magazine of Histmu, XXVIII. 239. 268 Indiana Magazine of History

them a Baptist preacher. Neither had lived in the South an& neither received an office from Governor Harrison:’ From Ireland came two other delegates of the Jennings’ faction. Both had lived in Pennsylvania, one moving west by way of Tennessee, the other through Kentucky. One wa8 a prominent Quaker.’* Altogether fifteen of the popular party were natives of the South, seven were born in the Middle States, two were New Englanders, and two were Irishmen. In addition to the fifteen natives, four others had resided in the South, and a number had married southern women. Only seven of the group were not natives or former residents of the South, but the evidence indicates that the southerners were from the Upland not the Lowland South. Not more than one-third of the popular party had been appointed to office by Harrison, Natives of the Old Dominion were also more numerous than the sons of any other state in the party of the Virginia Aristocrats, numbering five out of a total of sixteen. Two were born in Piedmont and a third was born in the northern panhandle above Wheeling.44 Four of the five lived for a time in Kentucky45and all were appointed to office save one who was a Baptist minister. Patrick Shields, who was the sole native of the Virginia coastal plain, was born upon a

UThese were Ezra Ferris and Nathaniel Hunt. Ferris was born in Stanwich. Con- necticut. He came to Cincinnati as a child, but returned to New England for his edu- cation. He became a Baptist preacher, a school teacher, a physician, and a drugpi& Ezra Ferris, “The Early Settlement of the County,” Indiana Historical Society Publications, I (1897). 243-364 : sketches of Ferris. English Collection. Biographical Sketches, F : “Executive Journal of Indiana Territory.” loc. cit., 241. Hunt was born in Litchfield County, Connecticut. He moved to Dayton, Ohio, and later to Madison. Indiana. Simon Hunt to William H. English, November 24. 1886. English Collection. Biographical Sketches, H. ”These were Patrick Beard and William Graham. Beard was brought to Penn- sylvania as an infant. With his parents he moved to North Carolina, and later, when a young man, he moved to Tennessee, before coming to Indiana. Sketch of Beard, Endllb Collection, Biographical Sketches, B. Graham also came to Pennsylvania as a child. When a young man he moved to Kentucky, and ten years later he came to Indianr Indianapolis Gazette, March 1. 1825, a newspaper clipping in English Collection, Blo. graphical Sketches, G. Beard was a leading member of the Quaker organization. “These were the Reverend Alexander Devin and James Smith. Devin was born in Pittsylvania County, Virginia. He moved to Kentucky when thirty years of age and to Indiana ten years later. He was a Baptist minister. Sketch of Devin in the English Collection, Biographical Sketches. D. Smth, who was born in Orange County, Virgin& moved to Kentucky, and then to Indiana, where he became a justice of the peace in Knox County, and a captain in the militia. Sketch of Smith in the English Colleo- tion, Biographical Sketches, S : “Executive Journal of Indiana Territory,” Zoc. cit., lT8, 179-80. “This was William Polk, a son of Charles Polk, who was also a member of the convention. He spent much of his early life In Kentucky before coming to Indiana. He was one of the Indian captives referred to in nupra, note 32. In addition to the references rited there, seen an obituary said to have been copied from the Fort Wayne Times. Enalish Collection. Biographical Sketches. P : Dunn, Indiana and Zndianuns, I. 293 : and “Executive Journal of Indiana Territory.” be. cit., 150. 238. a These were Devin. Smith, William Polk, and Daniel C. Lane. Lane was a IU. tive of Virginia. After corning to Indiana, he was appointed a judge, and later sed as state treasurer and as a representative in the legislature. Sketch of Lane, Endllh Collection, Biographical Sketches, La “Executive Journal of Indiana Territory,” loc. cit., 221. Southern Influmce in Indiana 269

plantation. He was educated at Hampden-Sydney and at Wil- liam and Mary where he became a friend of William Henry Harrison, who appointed him, at a later time, a judge in Har- rison County, Indiana Territ~ry.~~In the convention he was more of a moderate than a partisan. Three members of this aristocratic or opposition party were natives of Kent~cky.~’One of these, Doctor David H. Maxwell, was descended from a Virginia family that had moved along the Shenandoah Valley on the way from Pennsyl- vania to Albemarle County, Virginia. Although he and his wife were slave-owners by inheritance, they crossed the Ohio “to get clear of slavery.”4s Maxwell’s practise of medicine may have kept him from being interested in office, but the other Kentuckians, one of whom was a slave-owner, were appointees of Harrison. Daniel Grass, who attended too few sessions of the convention to be classified with either4egroup, was also a native of Kentucky. John Boone, the sole Marylander in the opposition, had been for several years a resident of Ken- tucky.60 Three important members of the opposition came from the Middle States. , a native of New Jersey, moved to Kentucky as a young man, studied law, and was married, before emigrating to Vincennes where he became an intimate friend and partisan of Harrison. He was ap- pointed attorney general for the territory, served in the ter- ritorial legislature, became a delegate to Congress, and, for eight years, was a territorial judge. After Indiana became a state, he was appointed a federal district John

~ @Above. note 8. 4’ These were Doctor David H. Maxwell, Dan Lynn, and James Lemon. Lynn brought his slaves with him when he moved from Kentucky to Indiana. He is said to have liberated them when Indiana entered the Union. See above, note 6. for referencen on Lynn. Information about James Lemon is very meager. consisting largely of the state- ment that he was said to have been horn in Kentucky, and a record of the offices he held in Indiana. Sketch of Lemon, English Collection, Biographioal Sketches, L; and “Executive Journal of Indiana Territory,” bc. cit., 132. 1 6. 176. 204. The ariatocratic party, being the minority element in the Constitutional Convention. will be referred to as the opgosition. 18 Sketch, of Maxwell by a so?, James D. Maxwell : another sketch signed W. H. J. : and a clipping from the Blqomington. Indiana. News Letter, June 24, 1864, in the Albert Gallatin Porter Collection. Indiana State Library. Indianapolis. Indiana. These Items were brought to my attention by Miss Esther McNitt of the Indiana State Li- brary. See also sketch of Maxwell in English Collection Biographical Sketches, M : and Louise Maxwell, “Sketch of Dr. David H. Maxwell,” in Indiana Maganize of History. VII (1912), 101-08. Sketch of Daniel Grass, English Collection, Biographical Sketches, G ; “Executive Journal of Indiana Territory.” Zoc. cit., 148. 188. 214, 218. Sketches of John Boone. English Collection. Biographical Sketehea, B : “Executive Journal of Indiana Territory,’’ Zoc. cit., 150. 61 George S. Cottman “Benjamin Parke ” in Dictionary of American Biomaphy 20 vols. (New York 1928-1436) XIV (1934) ’209-10. Woolen, Biographical Sketches. k73- 83. 384-90 : “Minkes of the’ Indiana Histbrical &ciety.” in Indiana Historial Society Publications, I, 3-76, passim; “Executive Journal of Indiana Territory.” loc. cit., 109, 146, 196 : undated obituary notice in English Collection, Biographical Sketches, P. 270 Indiana Magazine of History

Johnson was a Pensylvanian, a proslavery leader, and an owner of at least one negro servant. He, too, served as attor- ney general, being one of the ablest lawyers in the territory and one of the most consistent leaders in the Harrison party." A third of the Harrison men from the Middle States was born in Washington County, Pennsylvania. He moved to Kentucky, studied law, medicine, and theology, before moving to Indiana, where he was appointed a prosecuting attorney and a judga6* Three strong men were found among the four members of the opposition who were foreign by birth. Jean L. Badollet, friend of Albert Gallatin and registrar of the land office at Vincennes, was a native of Switzerland. An idealist, he en- tertained antislavery views which occasioned disagreement with Governor Harrison. There was no open break and both Badollet and his son accepted office from the governor.K4The second of these foreign born adherents of the opposition wa8 General James Dill, already noticed as a "gentleman of the last century." Born in Dublin, brought to America when an infant, he lived in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Ohio, before coming to Indiana. He saw service with and studied law in the office of General Arthur St. Clair, whose daughter he married. He joined the Harrison group and was rewarded with several offices.66 The third of this group was David Robb, one of Harrison's friends who owned slaves. He, too, was born in Ireland and was brought to America in child- hood. Like Dill, he lived in Kentucky and became a friend and appointee of Harrison after coming to Indiana.68 Fred- erick Rapp, who came from Germany, was the adopted son of the founder of Harmonie. Elected from Knox County, the stronghold of the Harrison party, he voted with the opposition in the convention.8' Nine of the sixteen members of the opposition were na- tivefi of the South. Most of these were from the Upland "Will of John Johnson, a commission signed by WIlliam Henry Harrison. and a sketch of Johnson. English Collection BiomaDhical Sketches. I-J* Dunn, Indiana A Redsmption from Slaverv. 239. 322, 823-28, et passim; Dnnn. India& and India%ian& I. 293: "Executive Joraanl of Inbana Territory," &a. cit.. 146. 169, 192. ""hi8 waa James Scott. See a elipDing from the Clark County Indiana, RecenZ, August 7. 1886, and a sketch of Scott in the English Collection, Biograihical Sketches, S: "Executive Journal of Indiana Territory," be. cit., 168, 196, 197. ""Executive Journal of Indiana Territory." loc. cit 129. 132. 192: Henry Ada. The Life of Albert Gallatin (PbiladelDhia. 1880). 404-0;; sketchy of Badollet. English Collection. Biographical Sketches, B: Henry S. Cauthorn. A Haatorv of tha Cttv of Vincenne-s (Terre Haute, Indiana, 1902). 184-85; Goebel. Harlison. 81-82: Dunn, IndG am and Indiamn.9. 11. 129, 132. 192, 29s. "Above. 2 and note 8. "Above. note 6. E.'Sketch of Frederick RapD. English Collection, Biographical Sketches, R : George B. Lockwood. The New Hamuhlovsment (New York, 1906). 11, 25-26. Southern Influence in Indiana 271 South, but at least one came from the Lowland. Three were natives of the North, while four were of foreign birth. Al- together thirteen of the sixteen had lived in the South. A comparison of the two groups is interesting. The pop- ular party contained two New Englanders who were mem- bers of the convention. These and the seven natives of the Middle States made a total of nine or thirty-five per cent of the popular party born in the North. In contrast only three of the opposition were born in the North and they constituted but nineteen per cent of their group. More than half of both groups were southern by nativity, fifty-eight per cent of the popular party and fifty-six of the opposition. Only one of the delegates is known to have come from the Lowland South, although the opposition seems to have desired to establish in Indiana a type of life somewhat approximating that of the plantation area. In the popular party were certain individ- uals who were much opposed to this. They included two Quakers, two Baptist preachers, one Methodist preacher, one delegate said to have been friendly to the Quakers, and the two New Englanders. In the opposition, however, were four men who owned negroes either as slaves or servants. The distribution of the appointments made by Harrison serves to connect the convention with the differences of the territor- ial period. One-third of the popular party, including those who had left the circle of Harrison's friends, had received appointments, while three-fourths of the opposition party of the convention had been favored under Harrison. Not only was the popular group and the opposition more than half composed of natives of the South, but the total num- ber of native southerners was twenty-five of the forty-three members of the convention, or fifty-eight per cent. Adding to this number the members who had resided in the South but had not been born there, the total of those who had come in contact with life in that section before coming to Indiana was thirty-two or seventy-four per cent of the convention. The convention began its work by choosing as its presi- dent Jonathan Jennings and by authorizing him to appoint a number of committees.6* He did not act in a partisan man- ner, for he chose from the opposition as many committee chairmen as from his own group. The marked ability of several members of the opposition made this a very reason- m"Journal of the Convention of the Indiana Territory." in State Bar Association of Indiana Report of the Sizteenth Annual Meetinn. 141-64. 272 Indium Magazine of History able procedure. However, most of the committees were in the hands of the majority group, but this was to be expected for the majority was almost twice as numerous as the opps sition. The votes of the members of the convention do not reveal a strict partisan alignment, but they do indicate that there were two groups whose views were not alike.6Q The absence of a strict alignment is proved by two facts: the members voted independently and sometimes inconsistently, even on im- portant matters ; and more than half of the recorded roll calls were not party votes, but were generally concerned with minor affairs about which there was general agreement or a lack of party understanding. On the other hand, certain votes reveal differences be- tween the two parties. The first difference concerned the size of a quorum, the Jennings group favoring a majority ot those elected, while the opposition preferred two-thirds.60 The latter would have given the opposition a powerful parliamen- tary weapon. Even in the face of the victory of the statehood movement, six of the opposition voted against establishing a state government."' The group in control inserted a prohibi- tion of slavery and involuntary servitude which declared that the constitution could never be changed to introduce either into the state. The opposition did not oppose the antislavery clause, but did oppose the accompanying declaration, and, when defeated in an effort to eliminate it, proposed striking out a statement that a future convention could revise the con- stitution. When this, too, was defeated, Johnson, one of the leading members of the minority, proposed to strike out the prohibition of involuntary servitude, but this was negatived without a record roll call.62 It is unfortunate that it cannot be learned how the members voted on this matter, for it was the only vote that was directly concerned with slavery. In the absence of such information, it is only possible to point out that the opposition did not take a stand in favor of slavery although some of its members had favored it in the past. It seems that they wished to preserve as much freedom of ac- tion in regard to the future as possible. Several votes indicate

"The votes are scattered through ibid., 141-231. "Zbid., 147.

Q Ibid.. 149-60. e* Zbid.. 186-87. Southern Influence in Indiana 273 the hostility of the minority to the old legislative group,63and this hostility may have resulted in strengthening the executive department. Hostility to the majority was shown by the re- fusal to repeal, at the request of a Quaker delegate, the exemp- tion from militia service which assessed fines upon those ex- empted. The Quakers formed an important element in the dominant group. A similar explanation may account for the opposition to increasing the representation in the Legisla- ture of Wayne and Washington counties, two of the counties that had sent delegates favoring the rnaj~rity.~‘ The constitution, which was the result of these contests, was very similar to the constitutions of other Ohio Valley states.e6 Although this has been recognized, a more detailed inquiry is needed.66 The bill of rights (article one) shows marked resemblance to the constitution of Ohio, especially where it followed rather closely to the constitutions of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Penn- sylvania. About one-third of this article is more like these constitutions than that of Ohio, and this similarity is strength- ened by the omission of some of the more original sections of the Ohio bill of rights.67 Article two, requiring a separation of powers, was almost exactly a reproduction of a part of the constitution of Kentucky,6s which was, word for word, a por- tion of Jefferson’s draft of a constitution for Virginia. The provisions for the Legislature (article three) resembled ar- ticle one of the constitution of Ohio, while the latter was largely modeled upon the constitution of Tennessee.60 Both Indiana and Ohio rejected the property qualifications for leg- islators which was a part of the Tennessee document. Indi-

“A limitation upon the power of the legislature to regulate the franchise wtu sup- ported by a larger portion of the opposition than oP the majority (ibid.. 166-66). Pro- posals to give the power to chose the secretary of state to the legislature rather than the governor and to remove a restriction on the power of the legislature over the militia were opposed by the opposition, while an effort to reduce the daily stipend for legla- lators was supported and a salary limitation applying to executive officials was op- posed (idid., 282-93, 221. 22.3). A larger portjon of the minority than of the majority voted to defeat a proposed elimination of a tax payment requirement for office holders. a proposal to reduce the term of a state senator from three to two years, and the term of a justice of the peace from five to three years (ibid.. 188-89. 199-200). “Ibid.. 193, 226-26. -These constitutions may be found in Thorpe (comp.). Federal and State Consti- tutions. The Indiana constitution is found in I1 1067-73, the Ohio in V 2901-13. the Kentucky constitutions of 1792 and 1799 in 111, 1264-92. the Tennessee in Vi. 3414-26. and the Pennsylvania in V, 3092-3103. ee Esarey, History of Indiana. I, 249-60. $‘These are sections 26-27 of article VII. Article I, sections 1 and 2 of the constitutions of 1792 and 1799 : Arthur N. Hol- combe. State Government in the United States (New York, 1926). 664-70 for Jefferson’s draft of a constitution for Virginia. “The smilarity of the constitution of Ohio of 1802 to other constitutions has been discussed and more adequate references given in Barnhart. “The Southern Influence In the Formation of Ohio,” in Journal of Southern History, 111, 28-42. 274 Indiana Magazine of Mistory

ana did not model its executive department (article four) after that of Ohio, where the difficulties between the legislature and the governor in the territorial period caused the conven- tion to establish an executive with little power. The executive department of Kentucky, which was very similar to that of Pennsylvania, was follewed by the Indiana convention, and the governor was given power of appointment, of remitting fines and forfeitures, and of vetoingbills. A popularly elected lieutenant governor was to succeed the governor in case of the death of the latter or his removal from office. The judiciary article (article five) was more original than any of the preceeding articles, but it established substantially the same system as existed in Ohio. The supreme court wa to meet at the capital and not in each county as the New Eng- landers had persuaded the Ohio convention to require of the supreme justices of that state.'O The governor, rather than the Legislature as in Ohio, appointed the members of the supreme court. The election of lesser judges and clerks was more democratic than the methods in use in Ohio. Suffrage (article six) was extended to white males, while Ohio had lim- ited it to white males charged with, or paying, a tax. The dif- ference was probably very slight, but it was in the direction of greater democracy. The remainder of the article was some- what like article four of the constitution of Ohio. Provisions for the militia, generally taken from the constitutions of Ohio and Kentucky, were contained in article seven. They were longer and more democratic as a general rule. The article on amendments (article eight) prohibited any change which would permit slavery, as did the constitution of Ohio. Article eleven contained a prohibition of slavery and of any further contracts for indentured servitude, the latter being milder than a similar provision of the constitution of Ohio. Other sec- tions of this article came from the constitutions of Ohio, Ken- tucky, and Tennessee, while several of those from Ohio had been modeled after similar parts of the constitution of Ten- nessee. The antislavery provision was the chief difference that distinguished the Indiana constitution from those adopted to the south of the Ohio. Probably the most important parts of the were those for which there was little or no precedent in earlier state constitutions. The convention contained men

'ofbid.. 39-40: Julia P. Cutler. Life and Timea of Ephmim Cutbr, prspcursd from his Journal and Correspondence (Cincinnati, 1890). 70-73. Southern Influence in Indiana 275

for whom new paths held no terrors. It is significant that real educational progress was made by this convention which was controlled by members of southern origin. The article devoted to education (article nine) noted the importance of knowledge and learning to free government, provided for the use of lands granted for educational purposes, and required the general assembly to establish a “system of education, as- cending in a regular gradation, from township schools to a state university, wherein tuition shall be gratis, and equally open to all.” Money paid for exemption from military serv- ice should be used to establish county seminaries, a penal code should be founded upon principles of reformation, one or more farms should be provided as an asylum for the aged and un- fortunate, and ten per cent of the proceeds of lot sales in each new county seat should be used to establish libraries. A small part of the phraseology came from the constitution of New Hampshire, but if family tradition may be trusted, the prin- cipal person involved in framing this article was a descend- ant of a Virginia family who was born in Kentucky. A dislike of banks, foreshadowing the Jacksonian movement was re- vealed in the tenth article, which prohibited private banks with note issuing powers. It may be noted, by way of conclusion and summary, that the Indiana constitution was an outgrowth of the territorial period, because the desire for greater self-government was a natural consequence of larger numbers and added wealth, and because statehood was necessary to give the popular party a complete victory over the older Virginia aristocrats. The election, following a very brief campaign, was a victory for the popular party, which was representative of the immigrants from the Upland South, including the Quakers, and others from the Middle States and New England. It opposed the desire of the older Harrison party to establish in Indiana social and political conditions based upon the plantation South. The opposition party was composed of men from the Upland South and the Middle States, but men who seem to have ac- quired a belief in ideals that resembled in some measure those of the more aristocratia South. The contest was therefore largely between two groups of southerners, one holding to the democratic ideas of the Upland South, the other to parts of the philosophy of the Lowland South. The constitution, which the convention adopted, was modeled very largely upon 276 Indiana Magazine of History the Ohio and Kentucky constitutions. To a lesser extent, it resembled the constitutions of Tennessee and Pennsylvania, because of direct borrowing and because the Ohio constitution was much like that of Tennessee, and the constitutions of Kentucky and Tennessee were quite similar to that of Penn- sylvania. The antislavery provisions distinguish it from those adopted south of the , while its democratic features represent the more complete operation of the frontier influ- ence. Its similarity to the above mentioned constitutions, and its antislavery and democratic features indicate that it em- bodied the ideas of an expanding Upland South. The ad- vanced educational stand taken by the convention proves that the southern influence was not entirely hostile to educational progress.